Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34229 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2011–0973; FRL–9684–6] 

Idaho: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program; Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Idaho applied to EPA for final 

authorization of certain changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, as amended (RCRA). On February 

29, 2012, EPA published a proposed 

rule to authorize the changes and 

opened a public comment period under 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2011– 

0973. The comment period closed on 

March 30, 2012. EPA received two 

comments on the proposed rule. EPA’s 

responses are included in the section B 

of this final rule labeled ‘‘What Were the 

Comments on EPA’s Proposed Rule.’’ 

EPA has decided that the revisions to 

the Idaho hazardous waste management 

program satisfy all 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: Final authorization for the 

revisions to the hazardous waste 

management program in Idaho shall be 

effective at 1 p.m. EST on July 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the EPA Region 10 

Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA 

Region 10 Library is open from 9:00 a.m. 

to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The EPA Region 10 Library 

telephone number is (206) 553–1289. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Kocourek, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail 

Stop AWT–122, Seattle, Washington 

98101, email: kocourek.nina@epa.gov, 

phone number (206) 553–6502. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize their 

changes. Changes to State programs may 

be necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations codified in 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 

through 268, 270, 273, and 279. 

Idaho’s hazardous waste management 

program received final authorization 

effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, 

March 29, 1990). Subsequently, EPA 

authorized revisions to the State’s 

program effective 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), February 

26, 2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 

2007), and December 23, 2008 (73 FR 

78647, December 23, 2008). 

This final rule addresses a program 

revision application that Idaho 

submitted to EPA in October 2011, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, seeking 

authorization of changes to the State 

program. On February 29, 2012, EPA 

published a proposed (77 FR 12228) 

stating the Agency’s intent to grant final 

authorization for revisions to Idaho’s 

hazardous waste management program. 

The public comment period on this 

proposed rule ended on March 30, 2012. 

B. What were the comments on EPA’s 

proposed rule? 

EPA received two comments during 

the public comment period which 

ended March 30, 2012. One commenter 

questioned whether Idaho’s failure to 

object to the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE)’s decision concerning 

replacement capability for the disposal 

of remote-handled low-level radioactive 

waste ((LLW) generated at the Idaho 

National Laboratory (INL) rendered the 

Idaho hazardous waste program 

ineligible for RCRA authorization. The 

commenter was particularly concerned 

that the DOE based its decision, a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), for the Remote-Handled LowLevel Radioactive Waste Onsite 

Disposal (RHLLWOD) on an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) rather than on a more detailed 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

EPA does not agree with the commenter. 

The RHLLWOD will not be used for 

hazardous waste or mixed waste. Mixed 

waste is defined at 42 U.S.C. 1004(41) 

as waste that contains both hazardous 

waste and source, special nuclear, or byproduct material subject to the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et 

seq. EPA’s RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(4) expressly exclude source, 

special nuclear or byproduct material as 

defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954 from the definition of solid waste. 

A waste that is not a solid waste cannot 

be a hazardous waste subject to Subtitle 

C regulation under RCRA. 

Consequently, the RHLLWOD, which 

only handles source, special nuclear or 

byproduct material and does not handle 

solid waste, hazardous waste, or mixed 

waste, is not subject to RCRA or to the 

Idaho authorized hazardous waste 

program. 

The second commenter, on behalf of 

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 

questioned whether Idaho, in 

implementing its authorized hazardous 

waste program, was appropriately 

regulating phosphate (mineral 

processing) plants within the state. In 

response to this commenter’s concerns, 

EPA reviewed its own work in 

regulating mineral processing facilities 

and revisited Idaho’s implementation of 

the authorized program under the State 

Review Framework. The State Review 

Framework is designed to ensure that 

EPA conducts oversight of state and 

EPA direct implementation of 

compliance and enforcement programs 

to ensure programs are carried out in a 

nationally consistent manner. 

Regulation of mineral processing 

wastes is an area in which national 

consistency has been challenging for 

EPA given the complexity of the 

processes and wastes in this sector. EPA 

began to place emphasis on the sector in 

the fall of 2000. In November 2000, EPA 

issued an enforcement alert to the 

regulated community giving notice that 

some mineral processing facilities might 

be failing to properly identify and 

manage hazardous waste regulated 

under RCRA. In 2003, EPA proposed the 

sector as an enforcement priority for 

fiscal years (FYs) 2005 through 2007, 

(December 10, 2003, 68 FR 68893). 

EPA collaborated extensively with 

states in the development of a strategic 

plan establishing mineral processing as 

a strategic initiative and finalized the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

national strategy to include mineral 

processing. Mineral processing was 

proposed as an enforcement and 

compliance priority on February 9, 

2007, at 72 FR 6239, for FYs 2008 

through 2010 (finalized as a priority on 

October 12, 2007, 72 FR 58084) and on 

January 4, 2010 (75 FR 146). On 

February 22, 2010, EPA finalized the 

proposal as a National Enforcement 

Initiative—Reducing Pollution from 

Mineral Processing Operations—for FYs 

2011 through 2013. 

From 2004 to 2007, as EPA explained 

in an enforcement update (October 

2007, FY08–FY10 Compliance and 

Enforcement National Priority: Mineral 

Processing and Mining), EPA completed 

numerous inspections of phosphoric 

acid and mineral processing facilities. 

Additional inspections took place from 

2007 to 2010. EPA’s enforcement work 

is ongoing and states, including Idaho, 

have actively supported the national 

initiative and EPA’s work in moving the 

initiative forward. 

With respect to Idaho’s authorized 

hazardous waste program, EPA’s 

findings in the 2010 State Review 

Framework Final Report (SRF) show the 

state to have an active and responsive 

program. Data reviewed by EPA at the 

time of the SRF showed over 200 

regulatory inspections conducted under 

the authorized program and penalties 

assessed totaling $172,600. EPA found 

that Idaho continued to place a high 

priority on compliance monitoring and 

enforcement at permitted treatment, 

storage and disposal facilities. 

As to the phosphate plants in Idaho 

about which the commenter expressed 

concerns, the State has conducted 

inspections on a near annual basis since 

the year 2000. On several occasions 

those inspections led to enforcement 

actions. The State has also been 

involved in EPA lead inspections at 

these facilities and has conducted 

compliance assistance visits as part of 

the state’s effort to support the EPA 

national initiative. The implementation 

of the state’s authorized program and 

the support of the EPA national 

initiative for mineral processing 

facilities indicate that Idaho has been 

compliant with the parameters of the 

authorized program for mineral 

processing facilities and has complied 

with the memorandum of agreement 

(MOA) between EPA and the state for 

the authorized program. 

EPA appreciates the concerns 

expressed by the commenter on behalf 

of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

concerning Idaho’s implementation of 

its authorized program in regulating 

phosphate mining and process plants in 

the state. While EPA does not agree with 

the conclusions drawn by the 

commenter, EPA takes the concerns 

raised seriously and construes those 

concerns as appropriate for addressing 

under the EPA national initiative for 

this sector. EPA does not think an 

assessment of Idaho’s authorized 

program by the EPA Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) is necessary at 

this time given the ongoing national 

initiative. EPA has an obligation to 

continue to evaluate the state authorized 

program for compliance with the 

regulations authorizing the state’s 

program and will continue to carry out 

that obligation. 

C. What decisions has EPA made in this 

final rule concerning authorization? 

EPA has made a final determination 

that Idaho’s revisions to its authorized 

hazardous waste management program 

meet all of the statutory and regulatory 

requirements established by RCRA for 

authorization. Therefore, EPA is 

authorizing the revised State of Idaho 

hazardous waste management program 

for all delegable Federal hazardous 

waste regulations codified by Idaho as 

of July 1, 2010, as described in the 

Attorney General’s Statement in the 

October 2011 revision authorization 

application, and as discussed in section 

E of this rule. 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). New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA, and which are 

not less stringent than existing 

requirements, take effect in authorized 

States before the States are authorized 

for the requirements. Thus, EPA will 

implement those requirements and 

prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing 

permits, until the State is granted 

authorization to do so. 

D. What will be the effect of this action? 

The effect of this action is that a 

facility in Idaho subject to RCRA will 

have to comply with the authorized 

State program requirements in lieu of 

the corresponding Federal requirements 

in order to comply with RCRA. 

Additionally, such persons will have to 

comply with any applicable Federal 

requirements, such as, for example, 

HSWA regulations issued by EPA for 

which the State has not received 

authorization, and RCRA requirements 

that are not supplanted by authorized 

State-issued requirements. Idaho 

continues to have enforcement 

responsibilities under its State 

hazardous waste management program 

for violations of this program, but EPA 

retains its authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 42 

U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973, and 

any other applicable statutory and 

regulatory provisions, which includes, 

among others, the authority to: 

• Conduct inspections; require 

monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements; 

suspend, terminate, modify or revoke 

permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the State has taken its own 

actions. 

This final action approving these 

revisions will not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations for 

which Idaho will be authorized are 

already effective under State law and 

are not changed by the act of 

authorization. 

E. What rules are we authorizing with 

this action? 

On October 25, 2011, Idaho submitted 

a program revision application 

requesting authorization for all 

delegable Federal hazardous waste 

regulations codified as of July 1, 2010, 

and these are the rules EPA authorizes 

through this final action. Idaho 

incorporated the delegable federal 

regulations by reference in the following 

provisions of the Idaho Administrative 

Procedures Act (IDAPA): 58.01.05.001 

through 58.01.05.010; 58.01.05.011 with 

the exception of the 4th sentence; 

58.01.05.012; 58.01.05.013; 58.01.05.015 

through 58.01.05.018; 58.01.05.356.01; 

and 58.01.05.998. This authorization 

revision includes the following federal 

rules for which Idaho is being 

authorized for the first time: Exclusion 

of Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials 

Processed in a Gasification System to 

Produce Synthesis Gas (73 FR 57, 

January 2, 2008); NESHAP: Final 

Standards for Hazardous Waste 

Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement 

Standards and Phase II) Amendments 

(73 FR 18970, April 8, 2008); F019 

Exemption for Wastewater Treatment 

Sludges from Auto Manufacturing Zinc 

Phosphating Processes (73 FR 31756, 

June 4, 2008); Revisions to the 

Definition of Solid Waste (73 FR 64668, 

October 30, 2008); Academic 

Laboratories Generator Standards, 

Alternative Standards for Hazardous 

Waste Determination and Accumulation 

(73 FR 72912, December 1, 2008); 

Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuel 

Exclusion (73 FR 77954, December 19, 

2008); OECD Requirements; Hazardous 

Waste Technical Corrections and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34231 

Clarifications (75 FR 12989, March 18, 

2010); and Withdrawal of the Emission 

Comparable Fuel Exclusion (75 FR 

33712, June 15, 2010). The federal 

regulation for the Export of Shipments 

of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 

1236, January 8, 2010), which the State 

adopted, is not being authorized as part 

of this action. EPA does not authorize 

states to administer the Federal 

government’s export functions in any 

section of the RCRA hazardous waste 

regulations. See additional details about 

the Federal government’s import and 

export functions in this final rule in 

section F labeled ‘‘Where Are the 

Revised State Rules Different From the 

Federal Rules?’’ 

F. Where are the revised State rules 

different from the Federal rules? 

Under RCRA 3009, EPA may not 

authorize State rules that are less 

stringent than the Federal program. Any 

State rules that are less stringent do not 

supplant the Federal regulations. State 

rules that are broader in scope than the 

Federal program requirements are not 

authorized. State rules that are 

equivalent to, and State rules that are 

more stringent than, the Federal 

program may be authorized, in which 

case they are enforceable by EPA. This 

section discusses certain rules where 

EPA has made the finding that the State 

program is more stringent and will be 

authorized and discusses certain 

portions of the Federal program that are 

not delegable to the State because of the 

Federal government’s special role in 

foreign policy matters. 

EPA does not authorize States to 

administer Federal import and export 

functions in any section of the RCRA 

hazardous waste regulations. Even 

though States do not receive 

authorization to administer the Federal 

government’s import and export 

functions, found in 40 CFR part 262, 

subparts E, F and H, State programs are 

still required to adopt the Federal 

import and export provisions to 

maintain their equivalency with the 

Federal program. The State amended its 

import and export rules to include the 

Federal rule on Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD) Requirements; 

Export Shipments of Spend Lead-Acid 

Batteries (75 FR 1236, January 8, 2010). 

The State’s rule is found at IDAPA 

58.01.05.006. EPA will continue to 

implement those requirements directly 

through the RCRA regulations. 

EPA has found that the State’s 

Emergency Notification Requirements, 

(IDAPA 58.01.05.006.02), are more 

stringent than the Federal program. This 

is because the State’s regulations require 

that the State Communications Center 

be contacted along with the Federal 

Center. EPA has found that the State’s 

statutory requirement requiring 

hazardous waste generators and 

commercial hazardous waste disposal 

facilities to file annual hazardous waste 

generation reports, Idaho Code section 

39–4411(4) and 39–4411(5), to be more 

stringent than the Federal program. EPA 

will authorize and enforce these more 

stringent provisions. 

G. Who handles permits after the 

authorization takes effect? 

Idaho will continue to issue permits 

for all the provisions for which it is 

authorized and administer the permits it 

issues. If EPA issued permits prior to 

authorizing Idaho for these revisions, 

these permits would continue in force 

until the effective date of the State’s 

issuance or denial of a State hazardous 

waste permit, at which time EPA would 

modify the existing EPA permit to 

expire at an earlier date, terminate the 

existing EPA permit for cause, or allow 

the existing EPA permit to otherwise 

expire by its terms, except for those 

facilities located in Indian Country. EPA 

will not issue new permits or new 

portions of permits for provisions for 

which Idaho is authorized after the 

effective date of this authorization. EPA 

will continue to implement and issue 

permits for HSWA requirements for 

which Idaho is not yet authorized. 

H. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying Idaho’s hazardous waste 

program as authorized in this final 

rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste management program 

into the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). This is done by referencing the 

authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 

272. EPA is reserving the amendment of 

40 CFR part 272, subpart N for 

codification of Idaho’s program at a later 

date. 

I. How does this action affect Indian 

country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Idaho? 

Idaho is not authorized to carry out its 

hazardous waste program in Indian 

country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. 

Indian country includes: 

1. All lands within the exterior 

boundaries of Indian reservations 

within or abutting the State of Idaho; 

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. 

for an Indian tribe; and 

3. Any other land, whether on or off 

an Indian reservation, that qualifies as 

Indian country. 

Therefore, this action has no effect on 

Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction 

over ‘‘Indian Country’’ as defined in 18 

U.S.C. 1151 and will continue to 

implement and administer the RCRA 

program on these lands. 

J. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule revises the State of 

Idaho’s authorized hazardous waste 

management 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 and 13563 

This action authorizes revisions to the 

federally approved hazardous waste 

program in Idaho. This type of action is 

exempt from review under Executive 

Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993), and Executive Order 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This final 

rule does not establish or modify any 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements for the regulated 

community. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

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, as 

codified in the Small Business Size 

Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. EPA has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant impact on small 

entities because the final rule will only 

have the effect of authorizing preexisting requirements under State law 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

After considering the economic impacts 

of this action, 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 

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. This 

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 the 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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 the 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 action. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicited comment on the proposed 

action from State and local officials but 

did not receive any comments from 

State or local officials. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

order 13175, because EPA retains its 

authority over Indian Country and does 

not authorize the state to implement its 

authorized program in Indian Country 

within the state’s boundaries. Thus, 

EPA has determined that Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this final 

rule. EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed rule from 

tribal officials and received one 

comment on behalf of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes. That comment is 

discussed in section B of this preamble. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 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 Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it approves a State 

program and is authorizing pre-existing 

State rules. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (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, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) 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 the OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider 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 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 action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This action authorizes 

pre-existing State rules which are 

equivalent to, and no less stringent than 

existing federal requirements. 

11. Congressional Review Act 

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). This rule 

will be effective July 11, 2012. 

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: May 31, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14132 Filed 6–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES