Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8283 

PART 70—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 70 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Appendix A to Part 70 is amended 

by adding paragraph (e) in the entry for 

West Virginia to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval 

Status of State and Local Operating 

Permits Programs 

* * * * * 

West Virginia 

* * * * * 

(e) The West Virginia Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control submitted program amendment 

on September 10, 2003. This rule 

amendment contained in the September 

10, 2003 submittal is necessary to make 

the current definitions of a ‘‘major 

source’’ and ‘‘volatile organic 

compound’’ consistent with the 

corresponding provisions of 40 CFR part 

70, which went into effect on November 

27, 2001. The State is hereby granted 

approval effective on April 27, 2007. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 07–847 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–8281–3] 

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). On November 9, 2006, EPA 

published a proposed rule to authorize 

the changes and opened a public 

comment period under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R10–RCRA–2006–0830. The 

comment period closed on December 

11, 2006. EPA has decided that these 

revisions to the Idaho hazardous waste 

management program satisfy all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization and is authorizing 

these revisions to Idaho’s authorized 

hazardous waste management program 

in this final rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: Final 

authorization for the revisions to the 

hazardous waste program in Idaho shall 

be effective at 1 p.m. e.s.t on February 

26, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, Mail Stop AWT–122, U.S. EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98101, phone (206) 553–

0256. E-mail: hunt.jeff@epa.gov. 

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 

than the Federal program. Changes to 

State programs may be necessary when 

Federal or State statutory or regulatory 

authority is modified or when certain 

other changes occur. Most commonly, 

States must change their programs 

because of changes to EPA’s regulations 

in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 260 

through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

Idaho’s hazardous waste management 

program received final authorization 

effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, 

March 29, 1990). EPA also granted 

authorization for revisions to Idaho’s 

program effective on June 5, 1992 (57 FR 

11580, April 6, 1992), on August 10, 

1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), on 

June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 12, 

1995), on January 19, 1999 (63 FR 

56086, October 21, 1998), on July 1, 

2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), on 

March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March 10, 

2004), and on July 22, 2005 (70 FR 

42273, July 22, 2005). 

Today’s final rule addresses a 

program revision application that Idaho 

submitted to EPA in June 2006, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, seeking 

authorization of changes to the State 

program. On November 9, 2006, EPA 

published a proposed rule announcing 

its intent to grant Idaho final 

authorization for revisions to Idaho’s 

hazardous waste program and provided 

a period of time for the receipt of public 

comments. The proposed rule can be 

found at 71 FR 65765. 

B. What Were the Comments to EPA’s 

Proposed Rule? 

EPA received one comment letter, 

dated December 4, 2006, from Mr. 

Chuck Broscious on behalf of the 

Environmental Defense Institute, Keep 

Yellowstone Nuclear Free, and David B. 

McCoy, collectively, ‘‘the commenters.’’

The comment letter focused on the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality’s (DEQ) permitting and 

oversight of the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL) facility located near 

Idaho Falls, Idaho. In short, the 

commenters question whether 

continued authorization of the revised 

hazardous waste program in Idaho is 

appropriate given concerns the 

commenters previously raised with EPA 

and its Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) with respect to the permitting of 

the INL facility. Specifically, the 

commenters question whether Idaho’s 

program provides adequate enforcement 

of compliance with the requirements of 

Subchapter C of RCRA given the 

application of the program at the INL 

facility. 

The comment letter focuses on recent 

permitting activities conducted by DEQ 

at the INL facility. In a petition 

submitted to OIG on April 28, 2006, the 

commenters requested that OIG review 

DEQ’s permitting activities at the INL 

facility. Similar questions were raised in 

petitions submitted to EPA on August 8, 

2000, on September 13, 2001, and in 

follow-up letters and correspondence in 

2003, 2004, and 2006 related to the 2000 

and 2001 petitions. 

In the 2001 petition, the commenters 

sought EPA’s withdrawal of Idaho’s 

authorization to implement the 

hazardous waste program under RCRA 

after citing permitting concerns at the 

INL facility. EPA, in response to that 

petition, conducted an informal 

investigation and determined that 

sufficient evidence did not exist to 

initiate formal withdrawal proceedings. 

EPA’s determination was issued on 

March 20, 2002, with a follow-up 

response on June 20, 2002. The 

supporting documentation was 

provided to the commenters at that time 

and the documentation is currently 

available to the public under the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

In 2003, the OIG requested that 

Region 10 conduct a second 

investigation to answer a series of 

follow-up questions related to the 2001 

petition. EPA conducted this second 

investigation and issued its findings in 

2003. These investigation results were 

also provided to Mr. David McCoy, one 

of the current commenters, as part of an 

October 13, 2004 Freedom of 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
8284 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1Additional information regarding radioactive 

mixed waste is located on EPA’s webpage at 

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/mixed waste. 

Information Act response. On February 

5, 2004, after conducting independent 

field work, OIG issued a final evaluation 

report which concluded, ‘‘Region 10 

generally relied on appropriate 

regulatory requirements and standards 

in reaching its conclusion that evidence 

did not exist to commence proceedings 

to withdraw the State of Idaho’s 

authority to run its RCRA Hazardous 

Waste program.’’ The evaluation report 

concluded that evidence did not exist to 

commence withdrawal proceedings. The 

OIG did identify areas of concern for 

further Regional and State follow-up. As 

detailed in the Evaluation Report, OIG 

and Region 10 agreed to specific followup actions. To document resolution of 

these action items, Region 10 submitted 

quarterly progress reports to the OIG 

Audit Liaison on January 13, 2004, 

April 16, 2004, July 15, 2004, October 

12, 2004, February 9, 2005, and April 8, 

2005. These reports documented the 

steps taken by EPA and DEQ to meet the 

specific actions recommended by OIG. 

Hard copies of all the quarterly reports 

were made available to the public as 

part of EPA’s last authorization action 

effective July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273). In 

response to a request by Mr. Chuck 

Broscious, one of the current 

commenters, EPA made a hardcopy 

version of the 2005 authorization docket 

available at the University of Idaho 

Library in Moscow, Idaho. As EPA 

stated in the 2005 authorization action 

(70 FR 42273), EPA considers its 

response to the September 13, 2001 

withdrawal petition and 

recommendations in the February 5, 

2004 OIG Evaluation Report complete. 

In the current December 4, 2006 

comment letter, the commenters 

contend that permitting the Integrated 

Waste Treatment Unit using a Class 3 

permit modification to the existing 

Volume 14 INL permit results in 

inappropriate and abbreviated public 

participation. EPA addressed the issue 

of Class 3 permit modifications in the 

March 20, 2002 petition response. Page 

26 of that EPA response states that: 

* * *[I]t should be noted that the Class 3 

permit modification public participation 

requirements are as stringent as those under 

initial permit submissions. Under the 

authorized program in Idaho at IDAPA 

16.01.05.012; 40 CFR Part 270.42(c), Class 3 

permit modifications fully incorporate public 

participation through both pre-submission 

and draft issuance public comment periods. 

Including the High-level Liquid Waste 

Evaporator as a Class 3 permit modification 

to the permit is a reasonable means of 

addressing complex, interrelated units in 

accordance with legally allowable partial 

permitting under IDAPA 16.01.05.012; 40 

CFR 270.1(c)(4), and ensuring public 

participation. 

The commenters also contend that 

DEQ’s regulation of radiological wastes, 

and enforcement of those requirements, 

are not adequate. With respect to 

radiological issues, EPA addressed this 

same comment in the 2004 revision to 

Idaho’s authorized program (69 FR 

11322), concerning closure of the INL 

Tank Farm Facility. EPA stated, ‘‘[t]he 

commenters failed to distinguish the 

RCRA ‘mixed waste’ authority and its 

application to the tanks from those 

radioactive solid waste issues which 

may be the subject of the NWPA 

[Nuclear Waste Policy Act] or the AEA 

[Atomic Energy Act].’’ Under the 

authorized hazardous waste program, 

DEQ has authority to regulate the 

hazardous components of mixed waste; 

however, regulation of the radiological 

component is outside the scope of the 

RCRA program and not within the scope 

of the program EPA has authority to 

authorize. This same point was made in 

the 2005 revision to Idaho’s authorized 

program (70 FR 42273). EPA stated, 

‘‘* * * EPA observes that defense 

activities related to nuclear production 

and propulsion programs will generally 

not meet the definition of solid waste 

under the RCRA regulations and may be 

regulated by other federal authorities.’’

In publishing the Radioactive Mixed 

Waste Rule, EPA recognized that wastes 

containing both hazardous waste and 

radioactive waste are subject to 

regulation under RCRA. (See 51 FR 

24505, July 3, 1986.) EPA considers 

radioactive mixed waste to be a solid 

waste under the Federal RCRA program 

and requires states to demonstrate 

regulation of the hazardous components 

of radioactive mixed wastes. However, 

Section 1006 of RCRA precludes EPA or 

a State from regulating the radioactive 

components where such regulation 

would be inconsistent with the Atomic 

Energy Act, as amended (AEA). 

Specifically, RCRA excludes from the 

definition of solid waste of ‘‘source, 

special nuclear, or byproduct material’’

as defined by the AEA. Consequently, 

‘‘source, special nuclear and byproduct 

material’’ is exempt from the definition 

of hazardous waste and therefore from 

Subtitle C of RCRA. Idaho’s authorized 

hazardous waste program is constrained 

by the limitations of RCRA statutory 

authority and by EPA’s findings and 

interpretations. EPA cannot find Idaho’s 

program to be inadequate when that 

authorized hazardous waste program is 

addressing mixed waste to the extent 

permitted by the RCRA program.1

The commenters also reference an 

April 28, 2006 petition to the EPA 

Office of Inspector General citing 

concerns with the INL Advanced Test 

Reactor. Most of the concerns pertain to 

radiological issues outside the scope of 

the authorized RCRA program as 

described above. However, in addition 

to the radiological concerns, the 

commenters argue that this facility is in 

violation of RCRA Subtitle C because it 

disposes of hazardous waste, 

specifically beryllium reflector blocks 

from the Advanced Test Reactor, 

without a permit. Since beryllium 

powder is listed as a P–waste under 40 

CFR 261.33, the commenters argue that 

both EPA and IDEQ have neglected their 

enforcement responsibility under RCRA 

Subtitle C. As described on page III–20 

of the 2006 RCRA Orientation Manual 

(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/ 

orientat/), P and U listed hazardous 

waste determinations apply specifically 

to the disposal, spillage, or container 

residue of unused, 100% pure or 

technical grade chemical commercial 

products. Under 40 CFR 261.33, EPA 

and authorized states have the authority 

to regulate the disposal of unused 

chemical products such as beryllium 

powder; however, this provision does 

not provide unlimited authority to 

regulate all beryllium-containing wastes 

or discarded products, unless they are 

defined as a hazardous waste under a 

different section of 40 CFR Part 261. 

Inspections of the Advanced Test 

Reactor, as documented by inspection 

reports submitted to the Office of 

Inspector General Liaison on July 15, 

2004 and February 9, 2005, found no 

treatment, storage, or disposal activities 

that would require a RCRA permit. At 

the time of the inspections, all 

identified hazardous wastes were being 

handled within the regulatory criteria 

for large quantity generators. Copies of 

these inspection reports were made 

available as part of the docket for the 

2005 authorization action and are 

currently available to the public under 

the Freedom of Information Act. 

Lastly, the commenters cite concerns 

over the ‘‘applicable or relevant and 

appropriate requirements’’ (ARARs) for 

the INL CERCLA Disposal Facility 

under EPA’s Superfund Program 

(CERCLA). Unlike it does in the RCRA 

hazardous waste program, EPA does not 

authorize states to act in lieu of EPA 

under CERCLA authority. Therefore, the 

question of whether a particular 

requirement is an ‘‘applicable or 

relevant and appropriate requirement’’

is a question for EPA’s CERCLA 

program and is outside the scope of 

EPA’s evaluation of the authorized 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8285 

hazardous waste program in Idaho. For 

the above reasons, EPA has determined 

that the comments included in the 

current comment letter do not provide 

a basis to deny Idaho’s application for 

program revision. 

C. What Decisions Have We Made in 

This Rule? 

EPA has made a final determination 

that Idaho’s revisions to the Idaho 

authorized hazardous waste program 

meet all of the statutory and regulatory 

requirements established by RCRA for 

authorization. Therefore, EPA is 

authorizing the revisions to the Idaho 

hazardous waste program and 

authorizing the State of Idaho to operate 

its hazardous waste program as 

described in the revision authorization 

application. Idaho’s authorized program 

will be responsible for carrying out the 

aspects of the RCRA program described 

in its revised program application, 

subject to the limitations of RCRA, 

including the 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 are implemented 

by EPA and take effect in States with 

authorized programs before such 

programs are authorized for the 

requirements. Thus, EPA will 

implement those HSWA requirements 

and prohibitions in Idaho, including 

issuing permits or portions of permits, 

until the State is authorized to do so. 

D. What Will Be the Effect of This 

Action? 

The effect of 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: 

—Conduct inspections; require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; 

—Enforce RCRA requirements, 

including State program requirements 

that are authorized by EPA and any 

applicable Federally-issued statutes 

and regulations; suspend, modify or 

revoke permits; and 

—Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the State has taken its own 

actions. This final action approving 

these revisions will not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the 

regulations for which Idaho’s program 

is being authorized are already 

effective under State law. 

E. What Rules Are We Authorizing 

With This Action? 

In June 2006, Idaho submitted a 

complete program revision application, 

seeking authorization for all delegable 

federal hazardous waste regulations 

codified as of July 1, 2005, as 

incorporated by reference in IDAPA 

58.01.05(002)–(016). 

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 prior to final 

authorization of this revision will 

continue to be administered by EPA 

until the effective date of the issuance, 

re-issuance after modification, or denial 

of a State RCRA permit or until the 

permit otherwise expires or is revoked, 

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 EPAissued permit or portion of permit. EPA 

will continue to issue permits or 

portions of permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Idaho is not yet 

authorized. 

G. What Is Codification and Is EPA 

Codifying Idaho’s Hazardous Waste 

Program as Authorized in This Rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste program into the Code 

of Federal Regulations. 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 This Action Affect Indian 

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

EPA’s decision to authorize the Idaho 

hazardous waste program does not 

include any land that is, or becomes 

after the date of this authorization, 

‘‘Indian Country,’’ as defined in 18 

U.S.C. 1151. This includes: (1) All lands 

within the exterior boundaries of Indian 

reservations within or abutting the State 

of Idaho; (2) Any land held in trust by 

the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and (3) Any 

other land, whether on or off an Indian 

reservation that qualifies as Indian 

country. Therefore, this action has no 

effect on Indian country. EPA retains 

jurisdiction over ‘‘Indian Country’’ as 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. 

I. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

1. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, or adversely affect in 

a material way, the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs, or the rights and obligations 

of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. It has been determined that this 

final rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 and is therefore not subject 

to OMB review. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to 

minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated 

community, as well as to minimize the 

cost of Federal information collection 

and dissemination. In general, the Act 

requires that information requests and 

record-keeping requirements affecting 

ten or more non-Federal respondents be 

approved by OPM. Since this final rule 

does not establish or modify any 

information or record-keeping 

requirements for the regulated 

community, it is not subject to the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
8286 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

today’s 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-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. EPA has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant impact on small 

entities because the final rule will only 

have the effect of authorizing preexisting requirements under State law. 

After considering the economic impacts 

of today’s rule, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any year. Before promulgating 

an EPA rule for which a written 

statement is needed, Section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of Section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why the alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under Section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

This rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. It imposes no new 

enforceable duty on any State, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Similarly, EPA has also determined that 

this rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. Thus, the requirements of 

Section 203 of the UMRA do not apply 

to this rule. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among 

various levels of government.’’

This rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132. This rule addresses the 

authorization of pre-existing State rules. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 applies to any 

rule that: (1) Is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined 

under Executive Order 12866, and (2) 

concerns an environmental health or 

safety risk that EPA has reason to 

believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the planned rule on 

children, and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866 and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined under Executive Order 12866. 

9. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus bodies. The 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through the OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8287 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

rule does not involve ‘‘technical 

standards’’ as defined by the NTTAA. 

Therefore, EPA is not considering the 

use of any voluntary consensus 

standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

To the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, and consistent with 

the principles set forth in the report on 

the National Performance Review, each 

Federal agency must make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States and its 

territories and possessions, the District 

of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of 

the Mariana Islands. Because this rule 

addresses authorizing pre-existing State 

rules and there are no anticipated 

significant adverse human health or 

environmental effects, the rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 12898. 

11. Congressional Review Act 

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 on the date the rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

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: February 12, 2007. 

Julie Hagensen, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. E7–3207 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 061020273–7001–03; I.D. 

013107C] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 

Quota Transfer 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason quota 

transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

State of North Carolina is transferring 

3,914 lb (1,775 kg) of commercial 

summer flounder quota to the State of 

New Jersey from its 2007 quota. Bythis 

action, NMFS adjusts the quotas and 

announces the revised commercial 

quota for each state involved. 

DATES: Effective February 21, 2007 

through December 31, 2007, unless 

NMFS publishes a superseding 

document in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Potts, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9341, FAX (978) 

281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the summer 

flounder fishery arefound at 50 CFR part 

648. The regulations require annual 

specification of a commercial quota that 

is apportioned among the coastal states 

from North Carolina through Maine. The 

process toset the annual commercial 

quota and the percent allocated to each 

state are described in § 648.100. 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Management Plan, which was published 

on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), 

provided a mechanism for summer 

flounder quota to be transferred from 

one state to another. Two or more states, 

under mutual agreement and with the 

concurrence of the Administrator, 

Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional 

Administrator), can transfer or combine 

summer floundercommercial quota 

under § 648.100(d). The Regional 

Administrator is required to consider 

the criteria set forth in § 648.100(d)(3) in 

the evaluation of requests for quota 

transfers or combinations. 

North Carolina has agreed to transfer 

3,914 lb (1,775 kg) of its 2007 

commercial quota to New Jersey to 

cover landings of a North Carolina 

vessel granted safe harbor in New Jersey 

aftersuffering damage as a result of 

rough seas. The Regional Administrator 

has determined that the criteria set forth 

in § 648.100(d)(3) have been met. The 

revised quotas for calendar year 2007 

are: North Carolina, 2,749,866 lb 

(1,247,318 kg); and New Jersey, 

1,682,017 lb (762,950 kg). 

Classification 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 

part 648 and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: February 20, 2007. 

James P. Burgess, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–862 Filed 2–21–07; 2:26 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 060906236–7028–02; I.D. 

083006B] 

RIN 0648–AU83 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Method For Measuring Net 

Mesh Size 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS amends the regulations 

governing how fishing net mesh size is 

measured in the Northeast. This change 

will increase the weight used to 

measure mesh at or larger than 120 mm 

in all fisheries. The intent of this rule is 

to ensure consistent and accurate 

measurements of fishing net mesh size. 

DATES: Effective May 1, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Potts, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9341, FAX (978) 

281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES