Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 148/Friday, August 1, 2003/Proposed Rules

27o12'04.584" N, 80o15'41.437" W; thence to 27o11'49.005" N, 80o15'44.796" W; thence to 27o11'47.881" N, 80o15'38.271" W; thence to 27o11'46.82" N, 80o15'37.9647" W; thence to 27o11'43.49" N, 80o15'40.74" W; thence

to 27o11'40.44" N, 80o15'44.64" W; thence to 27o11'41.40" N, 80o15'47.70" W; thence to 27o11'42.51" N, 80o15'49.36" W; thence to 27o11'47.99" N, 80o15'44.78" W; thence to the point ofbeginning. All coordinates reference Datum NAD:83.

Dated: July 22, 2003. H.E. Johnson,Jr., RearAdmiral,U.S.CoastGuard,Commander, Seventh CoastGuard District. [FR Doc. 03-19647 Filed 7-31-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

Destination Delivery Unit Rate Bound Printed Matter Mailer Requirements for Entry

AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Postal ServiceTM

proposes a revision tothe DomesticMail Manual(DMM) that would change the preparation requirements for bulk Bound Printed Matter (BPM)by requiring mailers to prepare destination delivery unit (DDU)rate BPM items by 5-digit scheme (optional)and 5-digit
sorts. Currently, there is no requirement for mailers to unload and present bulk BPM mail by 5-digit sorts, as is the requirement for Parcel SelectM mailings prepared for the DDU rate. DMM E752.5.2 inadvertently omitted this requirement from the final ruling.

All costing documentation and assumptions for this particular category ofmail were based onthe requirement that mailers would unload the drop shipment and, in multiple ZIP Code delivery units, separate the BPM items by 5-digit bundles. Specifically, separationby 5-digit ZIP Code or optional 5-digit scheme would be required forbedloaded packages, sacks, pallets, and palletboxes containing a mixture of5-digit ZIP Code packages destined for a specific delivery unit. DATES: Submit comments on orbefore September 2, 2003. ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written
comments to the Manager, Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 1735 N. Lynn St., Room 3025, Arlington, VA 22209-6038. Copies of allwritten comments will be available for inspection andphotocopying between 9

a.m. and4 p.m., Monday through Friday, atthe Postal Service Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 11th Floor North, Washington, DC. Comments may also be submitted via fax to 202-268-5293, ATTN: Daniel Leonard. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Leonard at 202-268-4656. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Current Postal Service standards for preparation ofDDUrate mail for Package Services Destination Entry, prepared by 5-digit or 5-digit schemes, require parcels to be separated by 5-digit for DDU entry, upon request. The requirement for vehicle unloading ofParcel Select DDU drop shipments is in DMM E751.4.10c. This requirement was inadvertently missing from the requirements for DDU
rate BPM mailings when they were published in PostalBulletin 22039a (12- 21-00, page 12). Both Parcel Select and BPM are subclasses ofPackage Services mail. The processing and handling costs andthe need for separationby 5-digit ZIP Codes is the same for both at the delivery unit. Ifthe mail isnot separatedby the driver into 5-digit containers provided byPostal Service employees, then the Postal Service will be forced to absorb the directly attributable costs associated with processing and handling this category of Package Services mail, which will raise
costsin the future.
List ofSubjects in 39 CFRPart111

Postal Service.

PART 111-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows:

Authority:U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401,403,404,414, 3001-3011,3201-3219, 3403-3406,3621,3626, 5001.

2.Revise the following section ofthe DMM as setforth below:

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)

E Eligibility

E700 Package Services

E750 Destination Entry

E752 Bound PrintedMatter

6.0 Deposit 6.9 Vehicle Unloading Uploading ofdestination entry mailings is subject to these conditions:

[Revise the lastsentenceofitem c to readas follows:] * * * The driver maybe required to place bedloaded packages, pieces, sacks, and the contents ofmixed 5-digit pallets in containers provided by the delivery unitin order to maintain separation by 5-digit ZIP Codes or to place containerized mail so as tomaintain the separation of5-digit ZIP Codes.

Stanley F. Mires, Chief Counsel,Legislative. [FR Doc. 03-19553 Filed 7-31-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-7528-6]

Idaho: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Idaho has applied toEPA for final authorization ofcertain changes to itshazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Idaho's application, has preliminarily determined thatthese changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and isproposing to authorize the state's changes. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
mustbe received in writingby September 15, 2003. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to JeffHunt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Waste and Chemicals (WCM-122), 1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, Washington 98101. You can view and copy Idaho's application during normal business hours at the following addresses: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office ofWaste and Chemicals, 1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, Washington, contact: JeffHunt, phone number: (206) 553-0256; or Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, Boise, Idaho, contact: John Brueck, phone number (208) 373- 0458. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, U.S.Environmental Protection 

### 45192

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 45192 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 148/Friday, August 1, 2003/Proposed Rules

Agency Region 10, Office ofWaste and Chemicals (WCM-122), 1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (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, 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 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 toEPA's regulations in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR)parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. WhatPreliminaryDecisions Have We Made in This Rule?

EPA has preliminarily determined that Idaho's application torevise its authorized program meets all ofthe statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to grant Idaho final authorization to operate itshazardous
waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Idaho will have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within itsborders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out the aspects ofthe RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations ofthe Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed byfederal regulations thatEPA promulgates under the authority ofHSWA take effect in authorized states before the states are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements andprohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
C. WhatWill Be the Effect ifIdaho Is Authorized for These Changes?

IfIdaho is authorized for these changes, afacility in Idaho subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State requirements in lieu of the corresponding federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such persons will have to comply with any applicable federallyissued requirements, such as, for example, HSWA regulations issued by EPA for which the State has not received authorization, andRCRA 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 suchprogram, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, the authority to:

* Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses orreports; * Enforce RCRArequirements; suspend orrevoke permits; and

* Take enforcement actions regardless ofwhether the State has taken its own actions.

The action to approve these revisions would not impose additional requirements onthe regulated community because the regulations for which Idaho will be authorized are already effective under State lawand

are not changed by the act of authorization.

D. WhatHappens IfEPA Receives Comments ThatOppose This Action?

If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will address those
comments in alater final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. Ifyou want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

E. WhatHasIdaho Previously Been Authorized for?

Idaho initially received final authorization onMarch 26, 1990, effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes totheir program onApril 6, 1992, effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580), June 11, 1992, effective August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757), April 12, 1995, effective June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549), October 21, 1998, effective January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086), andJuly 1, 2001, effective July 1, 2001 (67 FR 44069).

F. WhatChanges Are We Proposing?
OnJune 6, 2003, Idaho submitted a complete program revision application, seeking authorization for all delegable federal hazardous waste regulations codified as ofJuly 1, 2001, as incorporated byreference in IDAPA 58.01.05.(002)-(016) and 58.01.05.997, except specific portions ofthe post closure rule noted in the paragraphs below 1.We have preliminarily

'Sections ofthe Federal hazardous waste program are not delegable to the states. These determined that Idaho's hazardous waste programrevision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization, andEPA is proposing to authorize the state's changes.

In this programrevision application, Idaho is seeking partial authorization of the Post Closure Rule promulgated on October 22, 1998 (63FR 56710). Idaho is not seeking authorization for 40 CFR 270.1(c)(7), Enforceable documents for post-closure care, 40 CFR 265.121 Postclosure requirements for facilities that obtain enforceable documents in lieu of post-closure permits, 40 CFR 265.110(c), and 40 CFR 265.118(c)(4). These provisions are described in the rule preamble at 63 FR 56712 section a. Postclosure care under alternatives to permits. Idaho is seeking authorization for 40 CFR 264.90(f), 264.110(c), 264.140(d), 265.90(f), 265.110(d), and 265.140(d), as described in therule preamble at 63 FR 56713, b. Remediation requirements for landbased units with releases to the environment. Idaho is also seeking authorization of40 CFR 270.28, as described in the rule preamble at 63 FR 56713, c. Post-closure permit information submission requirements.

Idaho is seeking authorization for 40 CFR 264.90(e), 264.90(f), 264.110(c), 264.112(b)(8), 264.112(c)(2)(iv), 264.118(b)(4), 264.118(d)(2)(iv), 264.140(d), 265.90(f), 265.110(d), 265.112(b)(8), 265.118(c)(5), 265.140(d), 270.1(c) introduction, and 270.28, except where those sections reference the use ofenforceable documents. Idaho does not seek authorization forlanguage in those sections which states as follows: "* * * or in an enforceable document (as defined in 270.1(c)(7)."

G. Who Handles PermitsAfter the 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 issued byEPA prior
to EPA authorizing Idaho for these revisionswill continue in force until the effective date ofthe State's issuance or denial ofa State RCRA permit, oruntil the permit otherwise expires oris revoked. However, EPAwill administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions ofpermits which EPAissued prior to the effective date ofthis authorization anduntil such time as Idaho's is effective and EPA's has expired. EPAwill not issue any more

sections are 40 CFRpart 262, subparts, E, F, &H;
40 CFR 268.5; 40 CFR 268.42(b); 40 CFR 268.44(a)- (g); and 40CFR 268.6. Authority forimplementing the provisions contained in these sections remains withEPA. 

### 45193

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 45193 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 148/Friday, August 1, 2003/Proposed Rules

new permits or new portions ofpermits for provisions for which Idaho is authorized after the effective date of this authorization. EPAwill continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Idaho isnot yet authorized.

H. WhatIs Codification and Is EPA Codifying Idaho's HazardousWaste ProgramasAuthorized in This Rule?

Codification isthe process ofplacing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code ofFederal Regulations. We do thisby referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. Through three codification actions dated December 6, 1990 (55 FR 50327), June 11, 1992 (57 FR 24757), and June 25, 1999 (64 FR 34180) the EPA codified at 40 CFR part 272, subpart N all authorization actions for the State ofIdaho RCRA program, except the most recent authorization revision published onJuly 1, 2001.

We reserve the amendment of40 CFR part 272, subpart Nfor this authorization ofIdaho's program changes until a later date.

I. How Would Authorizing Idaho for These Revisions Affect IndianCountry (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Idaho?

Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country, asdefined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes: 1.All lands within the exterior boundaries ofIndian reservations within or abutting the State ofIdaho; 2.Any land held in trustby the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and 3.Any other land, whether on or off

an Indian reservation thatqualifies as Indian country. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA retains the authority to implement and administer the RCRAprogram in Indian country. 

### J.Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews

1.Executive Order12866

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 ofthe Executive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule thatmay: (1)Have an annual effect onthe economy of$100 million or more, or adversely affect in

amaterial way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local ortribal governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter thebudgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations ofrecipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal orpolicy issues arising out oflegal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles setforth in the Executive Order. Ithas been determined that this proposed Rule isnot a "significant regulatory action" under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore
not subject to OMB review.

2.Paperwork ReductionAct
The Paperwork Reduction Act,44 U.S.C. 3501, etseq., is intended to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on theregulated community, as well as to minimize the
cost ofFederal 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 the proposed Rule does not establish ormodify any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community, itis not subject to the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act.

3.RegulatoryFlexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et.seq., generally requires federal agencies to prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject tonotice and
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency certifies thatthe rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes ofassessing 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 thatis a government ofa city, county, town, school district or special district with apopulation ofless than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated andis not dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant impact on small entities because the proposed Rule will onlyhave the effect of authorizing preexisting requirements under State law. After considering the economic impacts oftoday's proposed rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts ofthe proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

4. UnfundedMandatesReformAct

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of theirregulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 ofthe UMRA, EPA generally must prepare awritten 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 EPArule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 ofthe UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number ofregulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe 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 thanthe least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative ifthe Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements thatmay significantly oruniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, itmust have developed under section 203 ofthe 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 andtimely input in the development ofEPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions ofTitle II ofthe UMRA) for State, local ortribal governments orthe private sector. The proposed rule authorizes pre-existing requirements 

### 45194

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 45194 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 148/Friday, August 1, 2003/Proposed Rules

under State law and imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments orthe private sector. Similarly, EPAhas also determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements thatmight significantly oruniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 ofthe UMRA donot apply to this rule.

5. Executive Order13132:Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely inputby State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies thathave federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations thathave "substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or onthe distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels ofgovernment."

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States,

onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule only authorizes existing State rules as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program.
6.Executive Order13175:Consultation andCoordinationWithIndian 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 inputby tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies thathave tribal implications." This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The rule proposes to authorize existing state rules and does not establish any regulatory policy with tribal implications. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

7.Executive Order13045:Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth andSafetyRisks

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 thatEPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. Ifthe regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency
must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects ofthe planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation ispreferable to other potentially effective andreasonably feasible alternatives considered bythe Agency.

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 andbecause the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed action present a disproportionate risk to children.

8. Executive Order13211:Actions That Significantly Affect EnergySupply, Distribution,or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a "significant regulatory action" as defined under Executive Order 12866.

9.NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct

Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of1995 ("NTAA"), Public Law 104- 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPAto use voluntary consensus standards in itsregulatory 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 NTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve "technical standards"

as definedby the NTAA. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 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: Thisproposed actionis issued under theauthority ofsections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) ofthe SolidWaste DisposalAct

asamended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated:July 9,2003. Ronald Kreizenbeck, ActingRegional Administrator,Region10. [FR Doc. 03-18738 Filed 7-31-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

41 CFR Parts 51-3 and 51-4

Miscellaneous Amendments to Committee Regulations
AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing
to change the dates bywhich the annual certifications byparticipating nonprofit agencies are due tothe central nonprofit agencies and the Committee. DATES: Submit comments on or before September 2,2003. ADDRESS: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled,Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,Virginia 22202-3259.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. John Heyer (703) 603-0665. Copies of this notice will be made available on request in computer diskette format. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee isproposing to revise 41 CFR 51-3.2(m) and 51-4.3(a) to change the dates on which the Annual Certifications (Committee Form 403 or 404) submitted at the end ofeach Federal fiscal year by nonprofit agencies participating in the Committee's program are dueto the central nonprofit agencies and the Committee. The purpose ofthis change is to ensure that the data isreceived in a more timely

mannerthan is currently the case. The Committee isproposing to change the date the certification forms are dueto the central nonprofit agencies from November 15 ofeach year to November 1, andthe date the forms are dueto the Committee from December 15 to December 1. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this proposed revision of the Committee regulations will not have

a significant economic impact on a 

### 45195

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 45195 2003