[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78647-78651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30516]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2008-0588; FRL-8755-9]


Idaho: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Idaho applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). On September 
30, 2008, EPA published a proposed rule to authorize the changes and 
opened a public comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2008-
0588. On October 28, 2008, EPA published notification of an extension 
of the comment period for the proposed rule. The comment period closed 
on November 20, 2008. EPA has decided that the revisions to the Idaho 
hazardous waste management program satisfy all of the requirements 
necessary to qualify for final authorization and EPA is authorizing 
these revisions to Idaho's authorized hazardous waste management 
program in this final rule.

DATES: Effective Date: Final authorization for the revisions to the 
hazardous waste program in Idaho shall be effective at 1 p.m. EST on 
December 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Kocourek, Mail Stop AWT-122, U.S. 
EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone (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 
section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous 
waste program that is equivalent to and consistent with the Federal 
program. States are required to have enforcement authority which is 
adequate to enforce compliance with the requirements of the hazardous 
waste program. Under section 3009, States are not allowed to impose any 
requirements which are less stringent than the Federal program. 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 in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
Parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
    Idaho's hazardous waste management program received final 
authorization effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 29, 1990). 
EPA also granted authorization to revisions to Idaho's program 
effective on: June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10, 
1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 
12, 1995), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1, 
2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March 
10, 2004), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005) and February 26, 
2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007).
    This final rule addresses a program revision application that Idaho 
submitted to EPA in June 2008, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, 
seeking authorization of changes to the State program. On September 30, 
2008, EPA

[[Page 78648]]

published a proposed rule (73 FR 56775) stating the Agency's intent to 
grant final authorization for revisions to Idaho's hazardous waste 
program. EPA published an administrative extension of the comment 
period on October 28, 2008 (73 FR 63917), to extend the public comment 
period from October 30, 2008 to November 20, 2008.

B. What Were the Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule?

    EPA received two sets of comments on the proposed rule from two 
separate commenters. The first set of comments came from a commenter 
who submitted written comments on each proposed revision to the 
authorized Idaho hazardous waste program for the past several years. 
The comments submitted for this revision restated past arguments 
concerning revisions to the authorized Idaho hazardous waste program. 
The commenter objected to EPA's action to revise Idaho's hazardous 
waste program because the commenter objects to certain aspects of how 
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) carries out the 
authorized program at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) facility. In 
2007, the same commenter, on the basis of the same objections, 
petitioned the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to initiate a 
formal investigation into EPA's decision to revise the Idaho authorized 
program at that time. The OIG responded to the 2007 petition on July 
13, 2008, by closing the case without further action. EPA respects the 
commenter's participation in the public process but believes no new 
concerns are raised in the current comments.
    The comments received from the second commenter raised numerous 
issues, which are addressed in this response. The commenter questioned 
whether EPA impermissibly adopted rules promulgated pursuant to non-
HSWA authority and rules promulgated as ``less stringent'' under HSWA. 
HSWA, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 to the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), changed many aspects of hazardous 
waste management under RCRA. The legislative history of HSWA (98 Cong. 
Senate Report 284, HSWA Leg. Hist. 30, pages 6-7) explains, in part:

    These amendments also recognize that safe disposal, storage and 
treatment opportunities are limited and that the most effective way 
to protect human health and the environment is to minimize the 
opportunities for exposure by reducing or eliminating the generation 
of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible. Rather than 
creating a rigorous regulatory program, provisions are included to 
encourage generators to voluntarily reduce the quantity and toxicity 
of all wastes. The amendments do not authorize the EPA or any other 
organization or person to intrude into the production-process or 
production decisions of individual generators. Taken as a whole, the 
reported bill emphasizes two concepts. First, wherever feasible, the 
generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as 
expeditiously as possible. Second, waste that is nevertheless 
generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to 
minimize the present and future threat to human health and the 
environment.

After passage of HSWA, EPA distinguished rules promulgated by EPA 
pursuant to the new HSWA authority from rules promulgated pursuant to 
the authority that pre-dated, but was not supplanted by, HSWA; EPA 
referred to the latter as ``non-HSWA'' rules. The issue of which 
authority, HSWA or non-HSWA, EPA exercises in each EPA rulemaking is 
distinguishable from EPA's determination of whether a new rule 
promulgated by EPA under either authority is ``more stringent'' or 
``less stringent'' than the regulations that had been promulgated 
earlier and are being revised. EPA explains the authority it is using, 
HSWA or non-HSWA, in each rulemaking. That explanation is generally 
found in the Federal Register notice for each proposed and final rule 
in the discussion of how the regulatory changes will be administered 
and enforced in the State.
    Regulations determined to be ``more stringent'' under HSWA or non-
HSWA authority are regulations which each state must adopt to retain 
authorization for its hazardous waste program. Regulations determined 
to be ``less stringent'' under HSWA or non-HSWA authority are 
regulations which each state is encouraged, but not required, to adopt 
to retain its authorized hazardous waste program. HSWA regulations are 
not all ``more stringent'' than the regulations promulgated under RCRA 
before HSWA. Nor did Congress require all HSWA regulations to be more 
stringent; nothing in the statute, and no language in the legislative 
history, directs EPA to promulgate only ``more stringent'' provisions 
under HSWA authority.
    Since the passage of HSWA, EPA has been highly selective when 
designating which new regulations will apply directly in every State 
immediately upon the effective date of the new regulations. New 
regulations EPA characterizes as promulgated under HSWA authority and 
as more stringent apply directly in all states, including states with 
authorized hazardous waste programs, upon their effective dates and are 
implemented and enforced directly and immediately by EPA until the 
State is authorized to implement and enforce those regulations. Upon 
authorization, those regulations authorized as a part of the State 
hazardous waste program are the federally enforceable requirements in 
that State.
    The commenter questioned whether it was permissible for EPA to 
allow a state to adopt rules promulgated by EPA as ``less stringent 
than federal requirements.'' EPA exercises discretionary authority as 
provided by Congress in section 2002 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6912, to 
regulate hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment 
and, barring explicit language in the statute, nothing in the act or 
amendments thereto prohibits EPA from promulgating new regulations that 
are ``less stringent'' or ``neutral'' relative to regulations that were 
promulgated earlier. If EPA promulgates new regulations to replace 
existing regulations, the newer regulations are, upon their effective 
date, the federal requirements against which a state program is 
compared when reviewing a revision to an authorized state hazardous 
waste program. The ``less stringent'' requirements are the federal 
requirements under RCRA in States without authorized hazardous waste 
programs. Those newer regulations which are less stringent than former 
regulations, may be, but are not required to be, adopted by states to 
retain an authorized hazardous waste program.
    Section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929, bars a state from imposing 
less stringent requirements than those authorized under Subchapter III 
of RCRA respecting the same matter governed by such regulations. There 
is no bar prohibiting a state from imposing more stringent requirements 
and there is no bar prohibiting a state from adopting federal 
requirements which are promulgated by EPA as less stringent or neutral 
requirements as compared to regulations that were promulgated by EPA 
earlier. If a state adopts and is authorized for those ``less 
stringent'' regulations, the federally enforceable RCRA requirements in 
the State are those newly authorized requirements.
    The commenter questioned whether EPA was allowing the Attorney 
General (AG) of Idaho to ``circumvent'' a rule-by-rule comparison of 
the federal regulations adopted by Idaho and the Idaho Statutes. The 
Idaho AG did submit a rule-by-rule statement citing specific statutory 
authority for each rule adopted by Idaho. EPA reviewed this statement, 
which was included in the docket for the rule and is Appendix I to the 
Idaho application. The ``Revised Attorney General's Statement for Final 
Authorization of Changes to the Federal

[[Page 78649]]

RCRA Program Through July 1, 2007'' amends and supplements the AG 
statements in previous authorization applications. The table presented 
in the AG statement and certified by the AG contains a rule-by-rule 
review. EPA reviewed each state rule and state statute cited in the AG 
statement. This independent EPA review was the basis for EPA's decision 
to propose authorizing the revision to the Idaho authorized hazardous 
waste program. Pursuant to 40 CFR 271.1(e), the Administrator (or 
delegated authority, in this case, the Regional Administrator) shall 
approve State programs which conform to the applicable requirements of 
that rule in Subpart A--Requirements for Final Authorization. Based on 
its review of the complete Idaho application, EPA concluded that the 
revisions to Idaho's program conformed to the applicable requirements 
of Subpart A.
    The commenter also questioned whether optional rules, not required 
to be adopted, must be compared to the Idaho Statutes to ensure 40 CFR 
271.1 is met in light of the fact, according to the commenter, that the 
Idaho AG claims the State of Idaho must adopt all regulations 
promulgated by EPA, even those promulgated which are less stringent 
than existing regulations. EPA did not see any language in the AG 
statement, or elsewhere in Idaho's application, indicating that the 
State of Idaho must adopt all regulations promulgated by EPA, even 
those less stringent. However, the AG does cite directly to Idaho 
Statute 39-4404 (Consistency with federal law) in the AG Statement and 
in the rule-by-rule comparison. That provision of the Idaho Statutes, 
acknowledging the desire of the legislature to avoid the existence of 
duplicative, overlapping or conflicting state and regulatory systems, 
directs the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality (Board) to promulgate 
rules which are consistent with RCRA and the federal regulations 
adopted by EPA to implement RCRA. The Board is barred from promulgating 
any rule that would impose conditions or requirements more stringent or 
broader in scope than RCRA and the RCRA regulations promulgated by EPA.
    There is no statutory language directing the Board to immediately 
adopt less stringent rules promulgated by EPA to replace earlier, more 
stringent requirements. However, the AG has opined that the statutory 
language acts as a directive to the Board to promulgate rules which are 
consistent with RCRA and allows and encourages Idaho to adopt all less-
stringent and optional rules promulgated by EPA. In reviewing each of 
Idaho's rules against the Idaho Statutes, EPA agreed with the AG that 
adopting such rules was permissible under both Idaho state law and 
under RCRA, as amended by HSWA, and that such adoption met the 
requirements of 40 CFR 271.1.
    Finally, the commenter questioned whether the RCRA Burden Reduction 
Initiative impermissibly removed the manifest notification required to 
be sent to each state with the shipment of waste-derived fertilizers 
citing to sections 3002 and 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6922 and 6929. 
Section 3002(a)(5) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6922(a)(5), directs the 
Administrator to promulgate regulations to establish standards 
applicable to generators as may be necessary to protect human health 
and the environment regarding the use of a manifest system and any 
other reasonable means necessary to assure that all hazardous waste 
generated is designated for treatment, storage, or disposal in, and 
arrives at, treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (except where 
waste was generated) for which a permit was issued. Pursuant to section 
3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929, no regulation adopted under RCRA can be 
construed to prohibit any State from requiring the State be provided 
with a copy of each manifest used in connection with hazardous waste 
generated in that State or transported to a treatment, storage, or 
disposal facility within that State. The Burden Reduction Initiative 
(BRI), which became effective as an optional rule on May 4, 2006, 
streamlines EPA's information collection requirements to ensure that 
only information actually needed and used to implement the RCRA program 
is collected while retaining the goals of protecting human health and 
the environment.
    Changes in manifest requirements made to earlier federal 
requirements by the BRI generally concern notice under the land 
disposal regulations at 40 CFR Part 268. The BRI does not prohibit any 
State from requiring a copy of a manifest. States were not required to 
adopt the BRI and States that do not adopt the BRI can require a copy 
of the manifest. A State is not barred from adopting the BRI by section 
3009 of RCRA.
    EPA believes the Agency has the necessary authority to promulgate 
the rules in the federal program, including those in this revision to 
Idaho's authorized hazardous waste program. Moreover, EPA believes that 
Idaho has the necessary authority to adopt the rules that are included 
in this revision of the Idaho authorized hazardous waste program.

C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    EPA has made a final determination that Idaho's revisions to the 
Idaho authorized hazardous waste program meet all of the statutory and 
regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization. 
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revisions to the Idaho hazardous 
waste program and authorizing the State of Idaho to operate its 
hazardous waste program as described in the revision authorization 
application. Idaho's authorized program will be responsible for 
carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised 
program application, subject to the limitations of RCRA, including the 
HSWA.
    New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal 
regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA as more 
stringent are implemented by EPA and take effect in States with 
authorized programs before such programs are authorized for the 
requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those HSWA requirements and 
prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits or portions of 
permits, until the State is authorized to do so.

D. What Will Be the Effect of This Action?

    The effect of this action is that a facility in Idaho subject to 
RCRA must comply with the authorized State program requirements and 
with any applicable Federally-issued requirement, such as, for example, 
the federal HSWA more stringent provisions for which the State is not 
authorized, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized 
State-issued requirements, in order to comply with RCRA. Idaho has 
enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program 
for violations of its currently authorized program and will have 
enforcement responsibilities for the revisions which are the subject of 
this final rule. EPA continues to have independent enforcement 
authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which 
include, among others, authority to:
    --Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses or 
reports;
    --Enforce RCRA requirements, including State program requirements 
that are authorized by EPA and any applicable Federally-issued statutes 
and regulations; suspend, modify or revoke permits; and
    --Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has 
taken its own actions.

[[Page 78650]]

This final action approving these revisions will not impose additional 
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for 
which Idaho's program is being authorized are already effective under 
State law.

E. What Rules Are We Authorizing With This Action?

    In June 2008, Idaho submitted a complete program revision 
application, seeking authorization for all delegable federal hazardous 
waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2007, as incorporated by 
reference in IDAPA 58.01.05(002)-(016) and (018). EPA is authorizing 
those rules in this action.

F. Who Handles Permits After This 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.

G. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Idaho's Hazardous Waste 
Program as Authorized in This 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 (CFR) by referencing the 
authorized State's authorized rules in 40 CFR Part 272. EPA is 
reserving the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, Subpart F for codification 
of Idaho's program at a later date.

H. How Does This Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 
Idaho?

    EPA's decision to authorize the Idaho hazardous waste program does 
not include any land that is, or becomes after the date of this 
authorization, ``Indian Country,'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This 
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 
retains jurisdiction over ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 
1151.

I. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revises 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 
final 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 final 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 final 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 final 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 this final 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, 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 final 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 this final rule, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title

[[Page 78651]]

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The 
action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal 
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This 
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA 
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. Those entities are already 
subject to the regulatory requirements that are included in the 
revisions to the State program in this final action.

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 final 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 final rule authorizes pre-existing State rules. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule.

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 final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because EPA 
retains its authority over Indian Country. EPA specifically solicited 
additional comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials and no 
tribe commented on this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this final rule.

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 final 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 final 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, February 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 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 final rule will not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations. This final rule does not affect the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment because this 
rule authorizes pre-existing State rules which are equivalent to, and 
no less stringent than existing federal requirements.

11. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

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 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: December 16, 2008.
Elin D. Miller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. E8-30516 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P