### Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2002/Rules and Regulations

$100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome alternative thatachieves the objectives oftherule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments thatmay be significantly

oruniquely impacted bythe rule.

EPA has determined that this final approval action does not include a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated costs of$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action
approves pre-existing requirements under State orlocal law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
(h)Submissionto Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 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 arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and tothe Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe 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 5U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective July 31, 2002.
(i)NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct

Section 12 ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use "voluntary

consensus standards" (VCS) ifavailable and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPAbelieves that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use ofVCS. (j)Petitions forJudicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2002. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affectthe finality ofthis rule for the
purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act.)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 20, 2002. JackMcGraw, ActingRegional Administrator, Region VIII. Title 40, chapter I,part 52 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues to read asfollows:

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart TT-Utah

2. Section 52.2320 is amended by addingparagraph (c)(51 )toread as follows:
§52.2320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (51) OnMay 13, 2002, the Governor ofUtah submitted arevision to Utah's SIP involving a new rule R307-310 "Salt Lake County: Trading ofEmission Budgets for Transportation Conformity." R307-310 allows trading from the motor vehicle emissions budget for primary Particulate Matter of 10 microns or less in diameter (PMo)in the Salt Lake County PM10 SIP to the motor vehicle emissions budget for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)in the Salt Lake County PM10 SIP. This trading mechanism allows Salt Lake County to increase their NOx budget in the Salt Lake County PM10 SIP by decreasing their PM10 budgetby an equivalent amount. These adjusted budgets in the Salt Lake County PM10 SIP would thenbe used for transportation conformity purposes. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A)Rule R307-310 "Salt Lake County: Trading ofEmission Budgets for Transportation Conformity", as adopted

on May 13, 2002, by the Utah Air Quality Board, and State effective on May 13, 2002.
[FR Doc. 02-16458 Filed 6-28-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-7239-7]

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 ofchanges to its hazardous waste program underthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has reached a final determination thatthese changes
to the Idahohazardous waste management program satisfy all ofthe requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Thus, with respect to these revisions, EPA is granting final authorization to the State to operate its program subject to the limitations onits authority retained by EPA in accordance with RCRA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of1984 (HSWA). EFFECTIVE DATE: Final authorization for the revisions to the hazardous waste program in Idaho shall be effective at 1
p.m. onJuly 1, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, WCM-122, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office ofWaste and Chemicals Management, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop WCM-122, Seattle, Washington, 98101, phone (206) 553-0256.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

States which have received final authorization from EPAunder RCRA Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program thatis equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program. States are required
to have enforcement authority which is adequate to enforce compliance with the requirements ofthe hazardous waste program. Under RCRA Section 3009, States are not allowed to impose any requirements which are less stringent 

### 44069

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 44069 2002Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2002/Rules and Regulations

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 ismodified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because ofchanges to EPA's regulations in Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR)parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

Idaho initially received final authorization on March 26, 1990, effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015), to implement the State's hazardous waste management program. EPA also granted authorization for changes to Idaho's program onApril 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), and October 21, 1998, effective January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086).

On May 1, 2001, Idaho submitted a final program revision application to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21 seeking authorization ofchanges tothe State program. On August 22, 2001, EPA published proposed and immediate final rules announcing its intent to grant Idaho final authorization for revisions to Idaho's hazardous waste program. The proposed rule can be found at66 FR 44107, August 22, 2001. The immediate final rule appears at 66 FR 44071, August 22, 2001.

B. What Were the Comments toEPA's Proposed and Immediate FinalRule?

Along with its intent toimmediately authorize revisions tothe Idaho hazardous waste management program, EPA announced the availability ofthe authorization revision application and rulemaking for public comment. EPA received one adverse comment during the comment period in the form ofa "Petition to the United States Environmental Protection Agency to Commence Proceedings for Withdrawal ofthe Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) asthe RCRA Authority for the State ofIdaho" (Petition)challenging the administration and enforcement ofthe hazardous waste program by the State ofIdaho and seeking withdrawal ofauthorization. EPA withdrew its Immediate Final Rule

on October 5, 2001, 66 FR 50833, in order to respond to the adverse
comment. EPA's proposed rule, 66 FR 44107, was not withdrawn and was retained for later consideration. EPA has taken into consideration comments in the Petition relating tothe Idaho hazardous waste management program in taking today's action. The significant issues raised by the Commentors for
purposes ofthis revision authorization andEPA's responses follow below.

Today's action is not a determination

onthe merits ofthe Petition to withdraw federal authorization for environmental programs in Idaho. In response to the Petition, EPAinitiated

an informal investigation ofthe authorized hazardous waste program in Idaho. Based on the results ofthat investigation, on March 7,2002, the Regional Administrator for Region 10 found no basis to commence withdrawal proceedings and denied the Petition. That response is included in the administrative record for this rulemaking. The Petition raised many issues not relevant to the revision authorization. EPA considered those issues fully in itsresponse to the Petition.

This rulemaking considers and responds to the comments relevant to the revision authorization. Commentors raised issues in the following areas: (1) IDEQ's compliance with the permitting requirements for authorized hazardous
waste programs; (2)IDEQ's enforcement ofthe authorized hazardous waste program; (3)IDEQ's compliance with the Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) for the authorized hazardous waste program; and (4) IDEQ's funding and staffing ofthe authorized program.

Commentarea#1: EPA received
comment relating to IDEQ's implementation ofRCRA permitting. The comments generally asserted that the IDEQwas not issuing permits as required but was allowing facilities to operate under interim status without permits, and was for those permits issued, not issuing permits which conformed to therequirements of40 CFR part 271. Commentors specifically focused on permitting issues involving the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory ("INEEL") facility, amixed (radioactive and hazardous) waste facility in Idaho. Commentors claimed that IDEQ had not issued permits to units at INEEL and had allowed units to illegally operate without permits. Commentors also claimed thatpermits issued by IDEQto the INEEL facility were incomplete and failed to provide for full public participation.

Response:To meet EPA approval standards for authorization, State programs mustinclude requirements for permitting. See 40 CFR 271.1(c). States with authorized hazardous waste programs under40 CFR part 271 must have legal authority to implement permitting provisions as setforth in 40 CFR 271.13 "Requirements with respect to permits and permit applications." 40 CFR 270.13(a) provides: "State law must require permits for owners and operators ofall hazardous waste management facilities required to obtain

a permit under40 CFR part 270 and prohibit the operation of any hazardous
waste management facility without such

a permit, except that States may, if adequate legal authority exists, authorize owners and operators ofany facility which would qualify for interim
status under the Federal program to remain in operation until afinal decision is made on the permit application, * * * ." Idaho's legal authorities are reviewed with each revision to the authorized program and

were reviewed prior to EPA's issuance ofthe August 22, 2001 immediate final rule. EPA's review ofIdaho legal authorities did not disclose any lack of authority in Idaho lawto require hazardous waste management facilities
to obtain apermit orto operate as an interim status facility.

40 CFR 271.14, "Requirements for permitting," mandates that: "All State
programs under this subpart must have legal authority to implement each ofthe following provisions andmust be administered in conformance with each; except that States are not precluded from omitting or modifying any provisions to impose more stringent requirements * * * ." The regulation then specifies that40 CFR 270.1(c)(1), 270.4, 270.5, 270.10 through 33; 270.40, 270.41, 270.43, 270.50, 270.60, 270.61, 270.64 are mandatory. Idaho incorporates the federal regulations by reference and as a consequence ofthat incorporation, each ofthese requisite provisions is included in Idaho's hazardous waste regulations. Idaho's authority to compel permitting is established. EPA next turns to Idaho's implementation ofthat authority.

Idaho's authorized hazardous waste program contains a small universe of facilities subject to the requirement to obtain a final RCRA permit and ofthis universe the INEEL facility represents the largest andmost complex facility subject to RCRApermitting requirements in the State. EPA's database shows that all facilities subject
to the hazardous waste permitting requirements ofthe authorized program in Idaho havebeen issued final RCRA permits with the exception ofthe INEEL facility,which hasbeen partially permitted. The federal program allows a facility to receive apartial permit. 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4) provides: "EPA may issue or deny a permit for one ormore units at a facility without simultaneously issuing or denying a permit to all ofthe units atthe facility. 

### 44070

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 44070 2002Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2002/Rules and Regulations

The interim status of any unit for which

apermit has notbeen issued or denied is not affected by the issuance or denial ofa permit to any other unit at the facility." Idaho's hazardous waste program, which incorporated the federal regulation at 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4) by reference, has been authorized to allow partial permitting, replacing "EPA may issue" with "IDEQ may issue." See IDAPA 16.01.05.012.

The Commentors maintain permitting less than all units at a facility results in

an incomplete permit and is consequently non-compliant with the requirement to obtain aRCRA permit for the facility. The regulations clearly allow for the use ofpartial permitting and suchuse is in compliance with the RCRA permitting requirements. At a complex federal facility, such as INEEL with 137 hazardous waste management units, partial permitting is an appropriate and compliant approach to permitting the facility. Those units which have notyetbeen permitted are required to comply with the interim
status standards until permitted, thus there isno regulatory gap in managing hazardous wastes at a facility where partial permits have been issued.

The Commentors also generally asserted that the IDEQ did not allow full public participation in permit decision making. Those requirements are found
at40 CFR part 124. Idaho incorporated 40 CFR part 124 subparts Aand B by reference and is authorized for those regulations. Public participation requirements are applicable at the time ofpermitting and are applicable to partial permits. Commentors will have

an opportunity to comment onunits not addressed in apartial permit when those units are themselves permitted.

EPA does not agree that IDEQfailed
to comply with the Expanded Public Participation Rule for certain permitting activities at the INEEL facility. The permitting activities occurred before the State ofIdaho enacted the rule as part ofitshazardous waste program. Idaho enacted the Expanded Public Participation Rule onJuly 2, 1997; the Idaho hazardous waste program was authorized for the rule on October 21, 1998. Prior to the 1997 enactment, the rule was not a requirement ofthe hazardous waste program in Idaho and the State could not require compliance with the federal rule. The rule is applicable topermit applications in Idaho currently and mustbe complied with. Information provided by Commentors onrelated matters shows that Commentors have availed themselves ofthe opportunity to comment on permits issued by the IDEQ as allowed under the Expanded Public Participation Rule. Commentarea#2: EPA received
comment relating to the IDEQ's enforcement ofthe authorized hazardous waste program. The Commentors generally asserted thatthe IDEQ failed to act on violations of permits orprogram requirements, failed
to seek adequate penalties, failed to inspect and monitor hazardous waste activities andfailed to initiate closure for non-complaint facilities. The Commentors enforcement concerns focused on enforcement at the INEEL facility.

Response:IDEQprovided EPAwith a statistical summary ofenforcement actions taken by IDEQ since 1990 at INEEL. IDEQissued INEEL Notices of Violation atleast eight times and assessed cash penalties of$906,031.89 and Supplemental Environmental Projects valued at $342,606.00. EPA, in
two separate program reviews, did not find IDEQ's enforcement ofits hazardous waste program atINEEL to be problematic andhas not found the State's enforcement ofthe authorized hazardous waste program atINEEL to be inadequate. The Commentors contention that IDEQfailed to close non-compliant facilities is inaccurate and is based on the Commentors' belief that a full permit for all units is required for afacility tobe compliant with RCRA. As hasbeen discussed, partial permitting ofcertain units, while allowing others to remain subject to the interim status standards, does not result in non-compliance for those units not addressed by the partial permit.

Commentarea#3: The Commentors asserted that IDEQwas not in compliance with the MOA, arequired element ofthe authorized hazardous
waste program.

Response:States are required, for purposes ofadministering an authorized hazardous waste program, to execute an MOA with EPA. See 40 CFR 271.8. The MOA includes, among others, mandatory provisions to coordinate enforcement and inspection efforts between the state andEPA, including the sharing ofinformation on facilities andpermits. The Commentors did not point to any specific area ofthe MOA where IDEQ was out ofcompliance with the agreement but discussed concerns with IDEQ's permitting activities at the INEEL facility.

EPA has not found any failure onthe part ofIDEQto comply with the currently authorized MOA. Nor, as discussed above, does EPAhave cause to find that IDEQfailed to implement the authorized program at the INEEL facility. Although Commentors may disagree with the issuance ofpartial permits at INEEL, partial permitting is allowed under the federal regulations and is an authorized part ofthe Idaho hazardous waste program and is not inconsistent with the MOA.

EPA notes that IDEQ submitted a revised MOA as a part ofthe application package for this rulemaking. The revised MOA willbecome part ofthe authorized
program as a result ofthis final rule.

Commentarea#4:The Commentors expressed concern over IDEQ's funding and staffing levels and generally asserted thatthe IDEQ was underfunded and understaffed to carry out an authorized hazardous wasteprogram.

Response:Inresponse to this concern, EPAlooked at OSWER Directive 9540.00-10 "Capability Assessment Guidance," January 30, 1992 for "Resources and SkillsMix" used in assessing overall state capability. The guidance specifies that EPAlook atthe demonstrated ability ofthe State to bring sufficient and appropriate

resources to the program, regardless of short-term staffing shortages, unpredictable legislative activities regarding appropriations for the state program, and regardless of competing demands for resources available for program priorities. OSWER Directive 9540.00-10. Unacceptable capability wouldbe identified where, for example,

a State was significantly understaffed, had a highturnover rate ofstaff resultingin poor workproduct andhad
notmade an effort to correct the situation. EPA's review ofIDEQ's program description and attachments, which were submitted aspart ofthe authorization package for this revision
to the authorized hazardous waste program, did not find the program to be understaffed or to be experiencing a highturnover rate ofstaff. Rather,the full time equivalent (FTE) personnel devoted to the IDEQ hazardous waste management program adequately meet the staffing component of skills and personnel necessary for an authorized hazardous waste program.

With respectto funding resources available, EPAreviewed funding guidance issued by the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) in 1996. This guidance

was issued in the context ofproviding federal grant money to the states pursuant to Section 3011 ofRCRA. The guidance established a minimum funding requirement of$466,666 for maintaining hazardous waste programs in small states ,such as Idaho, andwith small universes ofhazardous waste activities. Idaho's authorization application package forthis rulemaking included information indicating that Idaho's contribution to the minimum 

### 44071

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 44071 2002Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2002/Rules and Regulations

funding requirement was $943,900, well above the minimum level set by EPA's

own guidance.

C. WhatDecisions Have We Made in this Rule?

EPA has made a final determination that Idaho's application for authorization ofthe revisions to the Idaho authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, with respect to the revisions,

we are granting Idaho final authorization to operate itshazardous
waste program as described in the revision authorization application. Idaho's authorized program willbe responsible for carrying out the aspects ofthe RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations ofRCRA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Idaho's authorized program does not extend to Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction and authority toimplement and enforce RCRA in Indian country within the State boundaries.

New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed byFederal regulations thatEPA promulgates under the authority ofHSWA are implemented by EPA and take effect in States with authorized programs before such
programs are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPAwill implement those HSWA requirement andprohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits or portions ofpermits, until the State is granted authorization
to do so.
D. What WillBe the Effect ofToday's Action?

The effect oftoday's 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 provisions for which the State is not authorized, andRCRA 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 ofits currently authorized program and will have enforcement responsibilities for the revisions which

are the subject ofthis final rule. EPA continues to have independent enforcement authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority
to: -Do inspections, and require

monitoring, tests, analyses orreports; -Enforce RCRA requirements, including State program requirements that are authorized byEPA and any applicable Federally-issued statutes andregulations, and suspend or revoke permits; and -Take enforcement actions regardless

ofwhether the State has taken its own actions. This final action approving these revisions will not impose additional requirements onthe 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 Today's Action?

EPA is granting final authorization for the revisions to Idaho's federally authorized program described in Idaho's final complete program revision application, submitted to EPA onMay 1, 2001. We have made afinal determination that Idaho's hazardous
waste program revisions, as described in this rule, satisfy the requirements
necessary for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Idaho final authorization for all delegable hazardous waste regulations promulgated as ofJuly 1, 1998, as incorporated byreference in IDAPA 16.01.05.(002)-(016) and 16.01.05.997.1 Any subsequent changes to the Federal program orto State lawthat occurred after July 1, 1998 are not part ofIdaho's authorized RCRAprogram. EPA is not authorizing IDAPA 16.01.05.000; 16.01.05.001; 16.01.05.006(02); 16.01.05.016(02)(a),(b); 16.01.05.017- 996; 16.01.05.998; and 16.01.05.999.

F. Who Handles PermitsAfter This Authorization Takes Effect?

Idaho willissue permits for all the provisions for which itis authorized and will administer the permits it issues. All permits or portions of permits issued by EPARegion 10 prior
to final authorization ofthis revision will continue to be administered byEPA Region 10 until the issuance or reissuance after modification of aState RCRA permit and until EPA takes action

on its permit or portion ofpermit. HSWA provisions for which the State is
not authorized will continue in effect under the EPA-issued permit or portion ofpermit.EPA will continue toissue permits orportions ofpermits for

'Sections ofthe Federal hazardous waste program are not delegable to the states. These sections are 40 CFRpart 262 subparts E,F, &H;40 CFR 268.5; 40 CFR 268.42(b); 40 CFR 268.44(a)-(g); and 40 CFR 268.6. Authority forimplementing the provisions contained inthese sections remains with EPA. HSWA requirements for which Idaho is
notyet authorized.

G. What IsCodification and Is EPA Codifying Idaho'sHazardous Waste Program as Authorizedin This Rule?

Codification is the process ofplacing the State's statutes andregulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code ofFederal Regulations. EPA does this by referencing the authorized State's authorized rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPAis reserving the amendment of40 CFR part 272, subpart F for codification ofIdaho's program at alater date.

H. HowDoes Today's Action Affect IndianCountry (18 U.S.C. Section 1151) in Idaho?

EPA's decision to authorize the Idaho hazardous waste program does not include any land that is, orbecomes after the date ofthis authorization, "Indian Country," as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes: (1)All lands within the exterior boundaries ofIndian reservations within or abutting the State ofIdaho; (2)Any land held in trustby the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and (3)Any other land, whether on or offan Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian country. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPAretains jurisdiction over "Indian Country" as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.

I.Administrative Requirements

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements ofExecutive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements forthe purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601
etseq.).Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond thatrequired by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Forthe same reason, this action also does not have Tribal implications within the meaning ofExecutive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Itdoes nothave substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationships between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on 

### 44072

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 44072 2002Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2002/Rules and Regulations

the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution ofpower andresponsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant andit does not make decisions based onenvironmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply Distribution or Use" (66 FR 28344, May 22, 2001)because itis not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action does not include environmental justice issues that require consideration under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required byRCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a State authorization application, to require the

use ofany particular voluntary

consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements ofRCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15U.S.C. 272) do not apply. As required by section 3ofExecutive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPAhas taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, andprovide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPAhas complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988)by examining the takings implications ofthe rule in accordance with the "Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation ofRisk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order.This final rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Authority: This action isissued under the authority ofSections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the SolidWaste DisposalAct as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated: June 20, 2002. L.Johnlani, RegionalAdministrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 02-16465 Filed 6-28-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

42 CFR Parts 412 and 413 [CMS-1069-F2]

RIN -0938-AL40

Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities; Correcting Amendment

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Finalrule; correcting amendment.

SUMMARY: In the August 7, 2001 issue of the Federal Register (66 FR 41316), we published afinal rule establishing a prospective payment system (PPS)for Medicare payment ofinpatient hospital services provided by arehabilitation hospital orrehabilitation unit ofa hospital. The effective date was January 1, 2002. This correcting amendment
corrects alimited number oftechnical andtypographical errors identified in the August 7, 2001 final rule. It also
corrects an example related to the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patient Assessment Instrument contained within the final rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This correcting amendment is effective July 31, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Kuhl, (410) 786-4597. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Corrections

In our August 7,2001 final rule (66 FR 41316), referred to as the final rule throughout this correcting amendment, we provided an extensive discussion of the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) patient assessment instrument and its implementation that employed various examples to illustrate essential points of the patient assessment process. A number ofthose examples contain technical errors. In addition, we are makingtechnical corrections to the regulations text where the regulations
text inadvertently fails to reflect the policies set forth in the preamble ofthe final rule. Summary of Technical Correctionsto the Preamble tothe August 7, 2001 FinalRule

In sectionIV ofthe final rule, we describe the process ofusing the IRF patient assessment instrument to collect patient data that are the basis of payments made under the IRF prospective payment system. Beginning

on page 41330 ofthe final rule, we describe the schedule for completing, encoding (computerizing), and transmitting data contained in the IRF patient assessment instrument. The rules associated with the assessment schedule are codified at §§ 412.610 and 412.614.
Interruptionofthe StayDuringthe AdmissionAssessment

After the patient is admitted, the IRF has a time period to observe the patient's functional status/clinical condition that is then recorded on the patient assessment instrument. This timeperiod isreferred to in the final rule as the admission assessment time period. Section 412.610(b) states that "The first day thatthe Medicare Part A fee-for-service inpatient is furnished Medicare-covered services duringhis or her current inpatient rehabilitation facility hospital stay is counted as day

one ofthe patient assessment schedule." Section 412.610(c)(1)(i) specifies the general rule thatthe admission
assessment time period is a span oftime that covers calendar days 1through 3 of the patient's current Medicare Part A fee-for-service hospitalization. The patient's IRF admission day isthe first day ofthe admission assessment time period. Forexample, Chart 1 on page 41330 illustrates the assessment schedule for an inpatient stayin an IRF; the admission assessment timeperiod is the first 3 days ofthe patient's IRF hospitalization, with day 3being the admission assessment reference date, day 4being the admission assessment completion date, and day 10 being the encoded by date. Chart 2onpage 41331 illustrates the application ofthe general rule for apatient who is admitted on July 3, 2002. The admission assessment 

### 44073

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 44073 2002