Overview
Title
Arkansas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA has checked and approved Arkansas's way of managing underground tanks that might leak dangerous stuff. This means they agree it follows the important rules, but Arkansas has some extra rules that only Arkansas cares about, not the whole country.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has given final approval to revisions of Arkansas's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program. This approval means that Arkansas's UST program meets federal requirements and regulations, making it enforceable by the EPA. The EPA codified this approval to enhance public understanding of the program and ensure that state-approved regulations align with federal standards. However, certain provisions of Arkansas’s UST program, which are broader in scope than federal requirements, are not federally enforceable.
Abstract
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State of Arkansas's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. EPA has determined that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program approval. This action also codifies EPA's approval of Arkansas's State program and incorporates by reference those provisions of the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under Subtitle I of RCRA sections 9005 and 9006 and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question outlines the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final approval of revisions to Arkansas's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program. This approval indicates that the program aligns with federal requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), thus enforceable on a federal level. The document is technical, detailing the incorporation of state provisions that meet federal standards.
General Summary
The EPA has opted to approve updates to Arkansas’s UST regulations, determining that these modifications comply with federal laws aimed at controlling hazardous substances stored underground, particularly petroleum products. These revisions were influenced by changes in federal rules, requiring states with approved programs to update their regulations correspondingly. While the document emphasizes harmony between state and federal requirements, it stipulates that certain state provisions exceeding federal mandates will not be federally enforced.
Significant Issues
The document presents several challenges, particularly its complexity and the use of specialized legal language, which could hinder understanding for the general public. Readers unfamiliar with legal vernacular might find it difficult to discern which specific state provisions are enforceable by federal law and which extend beyond federal scope.
Additionally, while the document references various legislative and regulatory texts, it lacks clear summaries or explanations, presuming a level of legal literacy that many readers may not possess. The notion of "incorporation by reference," a key aspect of how state and federal regulations align, could benefit from a clearer exposition to avoid potential misunderstandings.
Public Impact
Broadly, this document assures Arkansas residents and stakeholders that the state's UST program is recognized as compliant with federal environmental standards, potentially boosting public confidence in environmental protection measures. For the general public, these regulations aim to safeguard environmental health by ensuring underground storage tanks are properly maintained and monitored, thereby reducing risks of hazardous leaks or spills.
Stakeholder Impact
The approved revisions will primarily affect businesses and organizations that own or operate underground storage tanks in Arkansas. For these stakeholders, compliance ensures adherence to recognized environmental practices, potentially avoiding federal penalties. While the document indicates no new federal requirements, it does necessitate adherence to already established standards.
For environmental groups and regulatory bodies, the EPA's approval signifies continued progression toward stricter environmental safeguards, ensuring local regulations are at least as stringent as federal guidelines. Conversely, business stakeholders might experience increased administrative and operational oversight, particularly regarding state provisions that are more stringent than the federal baseline.
Conclusion
In sum, the EPA's approval of Arkansas's revised UST program underscores a commitment to maintaining robust environmental protections regarding underground storage tanks. While the document assures compliance with federal standards, it also highlights the complexities of coordinating state and federal laws. Understanding these changes may require stakeholders to seek further clarification, particularly concerning provisions that exceed federal requirements.
Issues
• The document uses complex legal and regulatory terminology that may be difficult for a layperson to understand. Simplifying language or providing a glossary of terms could enhance comprehension.
• There is a lack of clear distinction between provisions that are 'broader in scope' or 'more stringent' than Federal requirements, which could lead to confusion regarding enforcement powers and obligations.
• The document refers to multiple regulations and legal sections without providing clear explanations or summaries, requiring readers to have prior knowledge of these legal texts.
• The process and implications of 'incorporation by reference' are not clearly explained, which may lead to misunderstandings about which state provisions are federally enforceable.
• While the document states that no additional federal requirements are imposed, it does not provide a straightforward summary of the practical implications for stakeholders in Arkansas.
• The document mentions various executive orders and acts influencing its decisions and actions but does not clearly explain how these affect the rule's implementation.