Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

57758

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
no adverse comment. Washington did not receive any substantive comments during its comment period when the rules and regulations being considered in this direct final rule were proposed at the state level.
E. What happens if the EPA receives comments that oppose this action?
This direct final rule provides an opportunity for public comment. If the EPA receives comments that oppose this approval, the EPA will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before it becomes effective. The EPA will consider all comments received during the comment period before making any further decision on approval of the State Application. The EPA will then address all public comments in a later final rule.
You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this approval, you must do so at this time.

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

F. For what has Washington previously been approved?
On October 8, 1993, the EPA finalized a rule approving the UST program that Washington proposed to administer in lieu of the Federal UST program.
G. What changes are we approving with this action and what standards do we use for review?
To be approved, each state program application must meet the general requirements in 40 CFR 281.11, and specific requirements in 40 CFR part 281, subpart B Components of a Program Application; subpart C
Criteria for No Less Stringent; and subpart D Adequate Enforcement of Compliance. This is also true for proposed revisions to approved state programs.
As more fully described below, the State has made the changes to its approved UST program to reflect the 2015 Federal Revisions. The EPA is approving the States changes because they are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal UST program and because the EPA has confirmed that the Washington UST
program will continue to provide for adequate enforcement of compliance with these requirements as described in 40 CFR 281.11b and part 281, subpart D after this approval.
The Washington Department of Ecology Ecology is the lead implementing agency for the UST
program in Washington, except in Indian country.
Ecology continues to have broad statutory authority to regulate the installation, operation, maintenance,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:17 Oct 18, 2021

Jkt 256001

and closure of USTs, as well as UST
releases under two Washington statutes, chapter 70A.355 Revised Code of Washington RCW, Underground Storage Tanks, and chapter 70A.305
RCW, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Model Toxics Control Act. The Washington UST Program gets its enforcement authority from the powers and duties of Ecology, found in RCW
70A.355.020. Under RCW 70A.355.050, Ecology is authorized to require an owner to furnish records, conduct monitoring or testing, and provide access to tanks. Ecology is authorized to issue, modify, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a permit under RCW
70A.355.020 and RCW 70A.355.040.
Penalties for non-compliance may be assessed under RCW 70A.355.060 and 70A.355.070.
Specific authorities to regulate the installation, operation, maintenance, and closure of USTs, as well as UST
releases are found under the Washington Administrative Code WAC, as amended, in WAC 173360A, Underground Storage Tank Regulations, adopted on July 18, 2018
and effective on October 1, 2018, and in WAC 173340, Model Toxics Control ActCleanup, amended October 12, 2007. Ecology may prohibit delivery to any UST identified by Ecology as ineligible for delivery under WAC 173
360A0270 and 0280. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are found under WAC 173360A0230, 0240, 0700, 0740 and 0750, as well as WAC 173340450. The aforementioned statutory sections and regulations satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 281.40 and 281.41.
Through a Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Washington and the EPA, effective December 20, 2021, the State maintains procedures for receiving and ensuring proper consideration of information about violations submitted by the public. Washington has met the public participation requirements found in 40
CFR 281.42 by allowing intervention in the State enforcement process as provided under WAC 173360A
02704. Ecology will not oppose intervention of right under Superior Court Civil Rule 24 a2 in a civil enforcement action taken under WAC
173360A or chapter 90.76 RCW on the grounds that the persons interest is adequately represented by the State.
To qualify for final approval, revisions to a states program must be equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the 2015 Federal Revisions. In the 2015 Federal Revisions, the EPA addressed UST
systems deferred in the 1988 UST

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

regulations, and added, among other things, new operation and maintenance requirements; secondary containment requirements for new and replaced tanks and piping; operator training requirements; and a requirement to ensure UST system compatibility before storing certain biofuel blends. In addition, the EPA removed past deferrals for emergency generator tanks, field constructed tanks, and airport hydrant systems. The EPA analyzes revisions to approved state programs pursuant to the criteria found in 40 CFR
281.30 through 281.39.
Ecology has revised its regulations to help ensure that the States UST
program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the 2015 Federal Revisions.
Title 40 CFR 281.39 describes the state operator training requirements that must be met to be considered equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than Federal requirements. Washington did not incorporate by reference Federal requirements for operator training, but rather has promulgated and is implementing its own operator training provisions under WAC 173360A0500
through 0560. After a thorough review, the EPA has determined that Washingtons operator training requirements are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than Federal requirements.
As part of the State Application, the Washington Attorney General certified that the State revisions meet the equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent criteria in 40 CFR 281.30
through 281.39. The EPA is relying on this certification in addition to the analysis submitted by the State in making our determination.
H. Where are the revised rules different from the Federal rules?
Broader in Scope Provisions Where an approved state program has a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law, the additional coverage is not part of the federallyapproved program and is not federally enforceable 40 CFR 281.12a3ii.
The following statutory and regulatory requirements are considered broader in coverage than the Federal program as these state-only regulations are not required by Federal regulation and are implemented by the State in addition to the federally approved program:
In addition to any person who sells a regulated UST system to a new owner, any person who leases a regulated UST
system also must notify new operators of UST notification obligations. WAC
173360A02307.

E:FRFM19OCR1.SGM

19OCR1