Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · REGISTER · 2003-05-28 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

646 words·~3 min read·/register/2003/05/28/03-13175·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Action: Proposed rule
Citation: FR Doc. 03-13175 · FRL-7490-5 · 40 CFR 61, 63

Summary

EPA proposes to approve New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services' (NHDES) request to implement and enforce its regulation entitled “Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated After July 9, 1981” in lieu of the National Emission Standard for Asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP) as it applies to certain inactive waste disposal sites. Approval of this request would make NHDES’ rules Federally enforceable and would apply only to those inactive waste disposal sites not operating after July 9, 1981, which are subject to the Asbestos NESHAP ( i.e., sites operated by certain asbestos mills, manufacturers, and fabricating facilities). NHDES’ request seeks no change in delegation relative to inactive asbestos waste disposal sites operating after July 9, 1981 ( i.e., NHDES will continue to regulate such facilities according to the Asbestos NESHAP). In the final rules section of this Federal Register , EPA is approving NHDES' request as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no relevant adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, EPA will take action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will then address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period in this action.

Dates

Written comments must be received on or before June 27, 2003.

Supplementary Information

In the final rules section of this Federal Register , EPA is approving the State's submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register . Dated: April 15, 2003. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. 03-13175 Filed 5-27-03; 8:45 am]

★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.