### Federal,- 

### Register/Vol. -7:0;,?Nd.'93/,Mhday,, May f16, '2005j/P~gp sddf!Rutds

under.this agreement,:; Eastmanmay. propose to the State one or ire alternative projects that would achieve equivalent emissions reductions. TCEQ will evaluate alternative proposals , under 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter 1.
IX. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve revisions
to the Texas SIPpertaining to the Northeast Texas area. These revisions pertain to (1) the CAAP for the Northeast Texas EAC area and the related attainment demonstration ofthe 8-hour ozone standard for the EAC area and (2) Agreed Orders regarding control ofair pollution for the Northeast Texas

area. The revisions will contribute to improvement in air quality and continued attainment of the NAAQS for

ozone inNortheast Texas. We have evaluated the State's submitttand have determined that itmeets the applicable requirements ofthe CAA and EPA air quality regulations, and is consistent. with EPA policy and the EAC protocol.
X. Statutory and Executive Order. Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subjectto' review by the Office ofManagement and Budget. For this reason and because this action will nothave a significant, adverse effect on the supply, distribution, oruse ofenergy, this action is also not subject to Executive Order ' 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66FR 28355,'May 22, 2001). This proposed actionmerely. proposes to approve state law as - .. meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. beyond those imposed by state law. * Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed r'ule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C: 601 etseq.). Because this rule'- proposes to approvepre-existing requirements under state law 'and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded "" mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act' of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4).

This proposed rule also does nothave tribal implications because it will not. ; have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and-responsibilities betweenithe

. 

### Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,November 9, 2000). This 

### action also does not have federalism implications because it does'nothave substantial direct effects onthe States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, oron the 

### distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in.the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order.13045 "Protection ofChildren from. Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 

### significant.

Inreviewing SIP submissions under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15U.S.C. 272 note), EPA's role is to approve state 

### actions, provided that they meet the criteria ofthe Clean Air Act. Inthis' context, in the absence.ofa?prior ' existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VC$), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent wiih applicable law for EPA, whenit reviews

a SIP submission, to useVCS'in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions ofthb clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995, do not apply. This proposed rule do'es
not impose an information collection. burden under the provisions ofthe. Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995 (44
U.S.C.3501 et seq.).

List ofSubjects in40 CFRPart52

.

Environmental protection,,Air pollution control, Intergovernmental' relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic ' compounds.

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

.. Dated: May 6, 2005.

. Richard E.Greene, ,'

. RegionalAdministrato,,.egion 6. [FR Doc. 05-9720 Filed 5-13-05; 8:45 am]i i

BILLING CODE 6560-80-P

. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION " AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-7909-4]

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

SUMMARY: Idaho has applied to EPA for final authorization ofcertain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Idaho's application, has preliminarily determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is proposing to authorize the state's changes. DATES: Comments on thisproposed rule
must be-receivedin writing byJune 15, 2005. '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,

orvia e-mail to hunt.jeff@epa.gov:You 'dan view and copy Idaho's application during normal business hours atthe f6lloiving addresses: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office ofWaste and Chemicals, 1200 SixthAve., Seattle, Washington, contact: JeffHunt, phone number

.(206) 553-0256; orIdaho 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 Agency Region 10, Office ofWaste and Chemicals (WCM-122), 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (206) 553-0256, e-mail: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why Are Revisions to State ProgramsNecessary?

.- 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 lessstringent than the Federal progran. As the Federal program changes, statesnust change their programs.andask EPA to authorize the changes.-Changes to state programs may be necessary.when Federal or State statutory orregulatory authority is 

### '25708

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 25798 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 93/Monday, May 16, 2005 /Proposed Rules

modified orwhen certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273-and 279.

B. What Decisions Have WeMade in This Rule?

EPA has preliminarily determined that Idaho's application to revise its authorized program meets all ofthe statutory andregulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to grant Idaho final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Idaho willhave responsibility for permittingTreatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (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 of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority ofHSWA take effecfin authorized statesbefore the states are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements andprohibitions inIdaho, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. C. What Will Be the Effect if Idaho Is Authorized for These Changes?,

IfIdaho is authorized forthese changes, a facility inIdaho subject to RCRA willhave to comply with the authorized State requirements in lieu of the corresponding federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such persons willhave to comply with any applicable federallyissued 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 such program, 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 or reports;

* Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend or revoke 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 on the regulated community because the regulations for which Idaho willbe authorized are already effective under State law and

are not changed bythe act of authorization.

D.What Happens ifEPA Receives Comments on ThisAction?

If EPA receives comments onthis action,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 atthis time.

E. What Has Idaho Previously Been Authorized For?

Idaho initially received final authorization on March 26,1990, effective'April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization forchanges to their program onApril 6, 1992, effective June 5,

1992 (57FR 11580),June 11, 1992, effectiveAugust 10,1992 (57 FR 24757), April 12, 1995,effective June 11, 1995 (60FR 18549),October 21, 1998, effective January 19, 1999 (63FR 56086), July 1, 2001,effective July 1, 2001 (67FR 44069), andMarch 10, 2004, effective March 10,*2004 (69 FR 11322).

F. What Changes Are WeProposing?

On September 27, 2004, Idaho submitted a final program revision application, seeking authorization for all delegable federal hazardous waste regulations codified as ofJuly 1,2003,

as incorporated byreference inIDAPA 58.01.05.(002)-(016) and 58.01.05.997. Wehave preliminarily determined that Idaho's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of therequirements necessary to qualify for final authorization, and EPA is proposing to authorize the state's changes. These changes include all delegable regulatory changes to the Federal hazardous waste
program promulgatedbetween July 1, 2001 and July 1, 2003,as well as the remaining portions of the October 22, 1998 Federalrule "Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Closed and Closing Hazardous Waste Management Facilities: Post-Closure Permit Requirement and Closure Process; Final Rule" (63FR 56710) that

were not previously authorized.
G.Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?

Idaho will continue to issue permits for allthe provisions for whichit is authorized andwill administerthe permits it issues. IfEPA issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions, these permits would continue inforce until the effective date ofthe State's issuance or denial ofa State hazardous waste permit, at which time EPAwould 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 term, except for those facilities located inIndian Country. EPA will not issue new permits ornew portions ofpermits for provisions for which Idaho is authorized after the effective date ofthis authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Idaho is notyet authorized.

H. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Idaho's Hazardous Waste Program as Authorized inThis Rule?

Codification is the process ofplacing the State's statutes and regulations .that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code ofFederal Regulations. This is done by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. Through four codification actions dated December 6, 1990 (55FR 50327), June 11, 1992 (57 FR24757), June 25, 1999 (64 FR 34180), and March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11132) the EPA-codified at 40 CFRpart 272, subpart N allprevious authorization actions forthe State ofIdaho program. EPAis reserving the amendment of 40 CFRpart 272, subpart N for codification ofthis current revision to Idaho's program ata later date.


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

Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program inIndian country, as defined 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 trust bythe 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 will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program inthese lands.
J.Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
1.Executive Order12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993), the Agency 

### 25799

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 25799 2005

### Federal Register /Vol. 70, No. 93/Monday; May 16, 2005/Proposed Rules

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 that may: (1)Have an annual effect on the economy of$100 million ormore, 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 the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user.fees, or loan programs, or the rights-and obligations ofrecipients.thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising-out oflegal mandates, thePresident's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined thatthis proposedRule is not a"significant regulatory action" under the-terms of Executive Order-12866 and is thereforenot subject to.OMB review.

2.Paperwork ReductionAct The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., is intended to minimize the reportingand recordkeepingburden onthe regulated 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 ormore n6n-Federal respondents be approved by OPM.,This rule does not impose an information collection burden under.the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq-).

3.RegulatoryFlexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act.(RFA),

as amended-by the SmallBusiness. Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare aregulatory.flexibility analysis ofany 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 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 that is a government ofa city, county, town, school district or special district-with a population oflessthan 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 proposed Rule will only have the effect ofauthorizing preexistingrequirements under State law. After considering the.economic impacts oftoday's proposed rule, Icertify that this action will nothave asignificant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts ofthe proposed rule-on small entities 

### and welcome comments on issues related to such imp'acts.

4. UnfundedMandatesReform Act

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of1995 (Pub.L. 104-4) establishes requirements for. 

### Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions.-on State, local 

### and tribalgovernments andthe private
sector. Under section 202 ofthe UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including acost-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 forwhich a written statement is needed, section 205 ofthe UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider areasonable 

### number ofregulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly,most costeffective or.least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives .ofthe rule. 

### The provisions ofsection 205 donot apply whenthey 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 ifthe Admixistrdtor publishes with-the finalrule an explanation why the alternative

was .notadopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 ofthe UMRA a small government agency plan.The plan must provide for notifying potentially " affected small governments, enabling, officials ofaffected small governments to have meaningful and timely 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 or tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed rule authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or. tribal governments or the private sector. Similarly, EPA has also determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements ofsection 203 ofthe UMRA do not apply to this rule.

5. Executive Order13132:Federalism,

Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA-to develop anaccountable 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" defined inthe Executive Order to include regulations. that-have "substantial direct effects on the-States, on the relationship between the national government and the States,

or onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities among various levels of. government."

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications.. Itwill not have substantial direct effects onthe States,

on the 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 hazardofis waste program. *

6. Executive Order13175:Consultation andCoordinationWith IndianTribal. 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 inthe development of. regulatory policies that have 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 

## 2 8oo

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 25800 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 93/Monday, May 16, 2005/Proposed Rules

rule. EPA welcomes comment on this proposed rul 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 riskthat EPA 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 is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This proposed 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 proposed action present a disproportionate risk to children.
8. Executive Order13211:Actions That Significantly Affect EnergySupply, Distribution,orUse

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. NationalTechnology Transferand AdvancementAct

Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and.Advancement Act of 1995 ("NTAA"), Public Law 104- 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards inits regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law orotherwise 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. Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the

use ofany.particular voluntary

consensus standard in place ofanother standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements ofRCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

10.Executive Order12988

As required by section 3 ofExecutive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuingthis rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

List of Subjects in40 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 proposed action is issued underthe authority ofsections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) ofthe Solid Waste Disposal Act

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

Dated: April 28, 2005. Julie Hagensen, ActingRegional Administrator, Region 10. [FRDoc. 05-93.17 Filed5-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 25801

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 25801 2005