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 that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this final

approval action does not include a

Federal mandate that may 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 or local 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) Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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 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). This rule

will be effective July 31, 2002.

(i) National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the 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) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today's

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

(j) Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 31, 2002.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 20, 2002.

Jack McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

Title 40, chapter I, part 52 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart TT-Utah

2. Section 52.2320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(51 ) to read as

follows:

§52.2320 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(51) On May 13, 2002, the Governor

of Utah submitted a revision to Utah's

SIP involving a new rule R307-310 "Salt

Lake County: Trading of Emission

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 PM 10 SIP.

This trading mechanism allows Salt

Lake County to increase their NOx

budget in the Salt Lake County PM10 SIP

by decreasing their PM10 budget by an

equivalent amount. These adjusted

budgets in the Salt Lake County PM10

SIP would then be used for

transportation conformity purposes.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rule R307-310 "Salt Lake County:

Trading of Emission 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 of changes to its

hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The EPA has reached a

final determination that these changes

to the Idaho hazardous waste

management program satisfy all of the

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 on its

authority retained by EPA in accordance

with RCRA, including the Hazardous

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

(HSWA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final authorization for

the revisions to the hazardous waste

program in Idaho shall be effective at 1

p.m. on July 1, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Hunt, WCM-122, U.S. EPA Region 10,

Office of Waste 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 EPA under RCRA

Section 3006(b), 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 RCRA Section 3009,

States are not allowed to impose any

requirements which are less stringent

44069

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 44069 2002
Federal 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 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 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 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), 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 of changes to the

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 at 66 FR

44107, August 22, 2001. The immediate

final rule appears at 66 FR 44071,

August 22, 2001.

B. What Were the Comments to EPA's

Proposed and Immediate Final Rule?

Along with its intent to immediately

authorize revisions to the Idaho

hazardous waste management program,

EPA announced the availability of the

authorization revision application and

rulemaking for public comment. EPA

received one adverse comment during

the comment period in the form of a

"Petition to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency to

Commence Proceedings for Withdrawal

of the Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) as the

RCRA Authority for the State of Idaho"

(Petition) challenging the administration

and enforcement of the hazardous waste

program by the State of Idaho and

seeking withdrawal of authorization.

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 to the Idaho

hazardous waste management program

in taking today's action. The significant

issues raised by the Commentors for

purposes of this revision authorization

and EPA's responses follow below.

Today's action is not a determination

on the merits of the Petition to

withdraw federal authorization for

environmental programs in Idaho. In

response to the Petition, EPA initiated

an informal investigation of the

authorized hazardous waste program in

Idaho. Based on the results of that

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 its response 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

of the authorized hazardous waste

program; (3) IDEQ's compliance with

the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

for the authorized hazardous waste

program; and (4) IDEQ's funding and

staffing of the authorized program.

Comment area #1: EPA received

comment relating to IDEQ's

implementation of RCRA permitting.

The comments generally asserted that

the IDEQ was 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 the requirements of 40

CFR part 271. Commentors specifically

focused on permitting issues involving

the Idaho National Environmental and

Engineering Laboratory ("INEEL")

facility, a mixed (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 that permits issued by IDEQ to

the INEEL facility were incomplete and

failed to provide for full public

participation.

Response: To meet EPA approval

standards for authorization, State

programs must include requirements for

permitting. See 40 CFR 271.1(c). States

with authorized hazardous waste

programs under 40 CFR part 271 must

have legal authority to implement

permitting provisions as set forth 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 of all hazardous waste

management facilities required to obtain

a permit under 40 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 of any

facility which would qualify for interim

status under the Federal program to

remain in operation until a final

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

of the August 22, 2001 immediate final

rule. EPA's review of Idaho legal

authorities did not disclose any lack of

authority in Idaho law to require

hazardous waste management facilities

to obtain a permit or to 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 of the

following provisions and must 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 that 40 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 of that

incorporation, each of these 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 of that authority.

Idaho's authorized hazardous waste

program contains a small universe of

facilities subject to the requirement to

obtain a final RCRA permit and of this

universe the INEEL facility represents

the largest and most complex facility

subject to RCRA permitting

requirements in the State. EPA's

database shows that all facilities subject

to the hazardous waste permitting

requirements of the authorized program

in Idaho have been issued final RCRA

permits with the exception of the INEEL

facility, which has been partially

permitted. The federal program allows a

facility to receive a partial permit. 40

CFR 270.1(c)(4) provides: "EPA may

issue or deny a permit for one or more

units at a facility without

simultaneously issuing or denying a

permit to all of the units at the facility.

44070

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

The interim status of any unit for which

a permit has not been issued or denied

is not affected by the issuance or denial

of a 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 a RCRA permit for

the facility. The regulations clearly

allow for the use of partial permitting

and such use 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 not yet been permitted are

required to comply with the interim

status standards until permitted, thus

there is no 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

at 40 CFR part 124. Idaho incorporated

40 CFR part 124 subparts A and B by

reference and is authorized for those

regulations. Public participation

requirements are applicable at the time

of permitting and are applicable to

partial permits. Commentors will have

an opportunity to comment on units not

addressed in a partial permit when

those units are themselves permitted.

EPA does not agree that IDEQ failed

to comply with the Expanded Public

Participation Rule for certain permitting

activities at the INEEL facility. The

permitting activities occurred before the

State of Idaho enacted the rule as part

of its hazardous waste program. Idaho

enacted the Expanded Public

Participation Rule on July 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 of the

hazardous waste program in Idaho and

the State could not require compliance

with the federal rule. The rule is

applicable to permit applications in

Idaho currently and must be complied

with. Information provided by

Commentors on related matters shows

that Commentors have availed

themselves of the opportunity to

comment on permits issued by the IDEQ

as allowed under the Expanded Public

Participation Rule.

Comment area #2: EPA received

comment relating to the IDEQ's

enforcement of the authorized

hazardous waste program. The

Commentors generally asserted that the

IDEQ failed to act on violations of

permits or program requirements, failed

to seek adequate penalties, failed to

inspect and monitor hazardous waste

activities and failed to initiate closure

for non-complaint facilities. The

Commentors enforcement concerns

focused on enforcement at the INEEL

facility.

Response: IDEQ provided EPA with a

statistical summary of enforcement

actions taken by IDEQ since 1990 at

INEEL. IDEQ issued INEEL Notices of

Violation at least 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 of its

hazardous waste program at INEEL to be

problematic and has not found the

State's enforcement of the authorized

hazardous waste program at INEEL to be

inadequate. The Commentors

contention that IDEQ failed to close

non-compliant facilities is inaccurate

and is based on the Commentors' belief

that a full permit for all units is required

for a facility to be compliant with

RCRA. As has been discussed, partial

permitting of certain 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.

Comment area #3: The Commentors

asserted that IDEQ was not in

compliance with the MOA, a required

element of the authorized hazardous

waste program.

Response: States are required, for

purposes of administering 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 and EPA, including

the sharing of information on facilities

and permits. The Commentors did not

point to any specific area of the MOA

where IDEQ was out of compliance with

the agreement but discussed concerns

with IDEQ's permitting activities at the

INEEL facility.

EPA has not found any failure on the

part of IDEQ to comply with the

currently authorized MOA. Nor, as

discussed above, does EPA have cause

to find that IDEQ failed to implement

the authorized program at the INEEL

facility. Although Commentors may

disagree with the issuance of partial

permits at INEEL, partial permitting is

allowed under the federal regulations

and is an authorized part of the Idaho

hazardous waste program and is not

inconsistent with the MOA.

EPA notes that IDEQ submitted a

revised MOA as a part of the application

package for this rulemaking. The revised

MOA will become part of the authorized

program as a result of this final rule.

Comment area #4: The Commentors

expressed concern over IDEQ's funding

and staffing levels and generally

asserted that the IDEQ was underfunded

and understaffed to carry out an

authorized hazardous waste program.

Response: In response to this concern,

EPA looked at OSWER Directive

9540.00-10 "Capability Assessment

Guidance," January 30, 1992 for

"Resources and Skills Mix" used in

assessing overall state capability. The

guidance specifies that EPA look at the

demonstrated ability of the 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

would be identified where, for example,

a State was significantly understaffed,

had a high turnover rate of staff

resulting in poor work product and had

not made an effort to correct the

situation. EPA's review of IDEQ's

program description and attachments,

which were submitted as part of the

authorization package for this revision

to the authorized hazardous waste

program, did not find the program to be

understaffed or to be experiencing a

high turnover rate of staff. 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 respect to funding resources

available, EPA reviewed funding

guidance issued by the Office of Solid

Waste (OSW) in 1996. This guidance

was issued in the context of providing

federal grant money to the states

pursuant to Section 3011 of RCRA. The

guidance established a minimum

funding requirement of $466,666 for

maintaining hazardous waste programs

in small states , such as Idaho, and with

small universes of hazardous waste

activities. Idaho's authorization

application package for this rulemaking

included information indicating that

Idaho's contribution to the minimum

44071

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 44071 2002
Federal 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. What Decisions Have We Made in

this Rule?

EPA has made a final determination

that Idaho's application for

authorization of the 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 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

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Idaho's

authorized program does not extend to

Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction

and authority to implement and enforce

RCRA in Indian country within the

State boundaries.

New Federal requirements and

prohibitions imposed by Federal

regulations that EPA promulgates under

the authority of HSWA 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 requirement

and prohibitions in Idaho, including

issuing permits or portions of permits,

until the State is granted authorization

to do so.

D. What Will Be the Effect of Today's

Action?

The effect of today'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, 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:

-Do inspections, and 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, and suspend or

revoke permits; and

-Take enforcement actions regardless

of whether the State has taken its own

actions.

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 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 on May 1,

2001. We have made a final

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 of July 1, 1998, as

incorporated by reference in IDAPA

16.01.05.(002)-(016) and 16.01.05.997.1

Any subsequent changes to the Federal

program or to State law that occurred

after July 1, 1998 are not part of Idaho's

authorized RCRA program. 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 Permits After This

Authorization Takes Effect?

Idaho will issue permits for all the

provisions for which it is authorized

and will administer the permits it

issues. All permits or portions of

permits issued by EPA Region 10 prior

to final authorization of this revision

will continue to be administered by EPA

Region 10 until the issuance or reissuance after modification of a State

RCRA permit and until EPA takes action

on its permit or portion of permit.

HSWA provisions for which the State is

not authorized will continue in effect

under the EPA-issued permit or portion

of permit. EPA will continue to issue

permits or portions of permits for

'Sections of the Federal hazardous waste

program are not delegable to the states. These

sections are 40 CFR part 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 for implementing the

provisions contained in these sections remains with

EPA.

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. EPA does this 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 Today's Action Affect

Indian Country (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, 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. Administrative Requirements

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and

therefore this action is not subject to

review by OMB. This action authorizes

State requirements for the 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 under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this action authorizes

pre-existing requirements under State

law and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

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).

For the same reason, this action also

does not have Tribal implications

within the meaning of Executive Order

13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000).

It does not have 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 2002
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2002/Rules and Regulations

the distribution of power 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 of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, 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 of power

and responsibilities established by

RCRA. This action also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant and it does not

make decisions based on environmental

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 it is 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 by RCRA. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a State

authorization application, to require the

use of any particular voluntary

consensus standard in place of another

standard that otherwise satisfies the

requirements of RCRA. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the "Attorney

General's Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings' issued under the

executive order. This final rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste

transportation, Indian 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: June 20, 2002.

L. John lani,

Regional Administrator, 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: Final rule; correcting

amendment.

SUMMARY: In the August 7, 2001 issue of

the Federal Register (66 FR 41316), we

published a final rule establishing a

prospective payment system (PPS) for

Medicare payment of inpatient hospital

services provided by a rehabilitation

hospital or rehabilitation unit of a

hospital. The effective date was January

1, 2002. This correcting amendment

corrects a limited number of technical

and typographical 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 of those examples contain

technical errors. In addition, we are

making technical corrections to the

regulations text where the regulations

text inadvertently fails to reflect the

policies set forth in the preamble of the

final rule.

Summary of Technical Corrections to

the Preamble to the August 7, 2001

Final Rule

In section IV of the final rule, we

describe the process of using 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 of the 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.

Interruption of the Stay During the

Admission Assessment

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

time period is referred to in the final

rule as the admission assessment time

period. Section 412.610(b) states that

"The first day that the Medicare Part A

fee-for-service inpatient is furnished

Medicare-covered services during his or

her current inpatient rehabilitation

facility hospital stay is counted as day

one of the patient assessment schedule."

Section 412.610(c)(1)(i) specifies the

general rule that the admission

assessment time period is a span of time

that covers calendar days 1 through 3 of

the patient's current Medicare Part A

fee-for-service hospitalization. The

patient's IRF admission day is the first

day of the admission assessment time

period. For example, Chart 1 on page

41330 illustrates the assessment

schedule for an inpatient stay in an IRF;

the admission assessment time period is

the first 3 days of the patient's IRF

hospitalization, with day 3 being the

admission assessment reference date,

day 4 being the admission assessment

completion date, and day 10 being the

encoded by date. Chart 2 on page 41331

illustrates the application of the general

rule for a patient who is admitted on

July 3, 2002. The admission assessment

44073

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 44073 2002