[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56775-56779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22800]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R10-RCRA-2008-0588; FRL-8722-5]
Idaho: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Idaho has applied to EPA for final authorization of certain
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery
[[Page 56776]]
Act, as amended (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Idaho's application, has
preliminarily determined that these changes satisfy all requirements
needed to qualify for final authorization, and is proposing to
authorize the State's changes.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by October 30,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2008-0588, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Mail: Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT-122), 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-
2008-0588. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business
hours at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste & Toxics, Mailstop AWT-122, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, Washington 98101, contact: Nina Kocourek, phone number: (206)
553-6502; or the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 1410 N.
Hilton, Boise, Idaho, contact: John Brueck, phone number: (208) 373-
0458.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT-122),
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number:
(206) 553-6502, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to
State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Proposed Rule?
EPA has preliminarily determined that Idaho's application to revise
its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to grant
Idaho final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with
the changes described in the authorization application. Idaho will have
responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian country) and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
revised program application, subject to the limitations of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal
requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA
promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and which are not less
stringent than existing requirements, take effect in authorized States
before the States are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and prohibitions in Idaho, including
issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
C. What Will Be the Effect if Idaho Is Authorized for These Changes?
If Idaho is authorized for these changes, a facility in Idaho
subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State
requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements in order
to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such persons will have to comply
with any applicable Federal requirements, such as, for example, HSWA
regulations issued by EPA for which the State has not received
authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by
authorized State-issued requirements. Idaho continues to have
enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste management
program for violations of this program, but EPA retains its authority
under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among
others, the authority to:
Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses,
or reports;
Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend, terminate, modify or
revoke permits; and
Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
The action to approve these revisions would not impose additional
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for
which Idaho will be authorized are already effective under State law
and are not changed by the act of authorization.
D. What Happens If EPA Receives Comments on This Action?
If EPA receives comments on this action, we will address those
comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to
comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so
at this time.
[[Page 56777]]
E. What Has Idaho Previously Been Authorized For?
Idaho initially received final authorization on March 26, 1990,
effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015) to implement the RCRA hazardous
waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to
Idaho's authorized program on April 6, 1992, effective June 5, 1992 (57
FR 11580); June 11, 1992, effective August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757);
April 12, 1995, effective June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549); October 21,
1998, effective January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086); July 1, 2001, effective
July 1, 2001 (67 FR 44069); March 10, 2004, effective March 10, 2004
(69 FR 11322); July 22, 2005, effective July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273);
and February 26, 2007, effective February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8283).
F. What Changes Are We Proposing?
On June 24, 2008, Idaho submitted a program revision application
seeking authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous waste
regulations codified as of July 1, 2007, incorporated by reference in
IDAPA 58.01.05.(002)-(016) and (018).
G. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?
Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for
which it is authorized and administer the permits it issues. If EPA
issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions, these
permits would continue in force until the effective date of the State's
issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which time EPA
would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an earlier date,
terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the existing EPA
permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those facilities
located in Indian Country. EPA will not issue new permits or new
portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is authorized after
the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Idaho is
not yet authorized.
H. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Idaho's Hazardous Waste
Program as Authorized in This Proposed Rule?
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. This is done by
referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR Part 272. Through
codification actions dated December 6, 1990 (55 FR 50327); June 11,
1992 (57 FR 24757); June 25, 1999 (64 FR 34180); March 8, 2005 (70 FR
11132); and April 20, 2006 (71 FR 20341), EPA codified at 40 CFR Part
272, Subpart N previous authorization actions for the State of Idaho
program. EPA is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, Subpart N
for codification to a later date.
I. How Would Authorizing Idaho for These Revisions Affect Indian
Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Idaho?
Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in
Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations
within or abutting the State of Idaho;
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that
qualifies as Indian country.
Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA will
continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.
J. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This proposed rule seeks to revise the State of Idaho's authorized
hazardous waste program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no
requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This
proposed rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory
provisions as follows:
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely
affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. EPA has
determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., because this proposed rule does not establish or modify
any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated
community and only seeks to authorize the pre-existing requirements
under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in Title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by
the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR Part
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town,
[[Page 56778]]
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities because the
proposed rule will only have the effect of authorizing pre-existing
requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. After considering the economic
impacts of today's proposed rule, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues
related to such impacts.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why the
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements. Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under
the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable
duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
Similarly, EPA has also determined that this proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government.'' This proposed
rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. This rule proposes to authorize pre-existing
State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and
local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from State and local officials.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because
EPA retains its authority over Indian Country. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it approves a state program.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under Executive
Order 12866.
9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to
[[Page 56779]]
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations. This proposed rule does
not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment because this rule proposes to authorize pre-existing State
rules which are equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing
federal requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: This proposed action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: September 18, 2008.
Elin D. Miller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. E8-22800 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P