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 SIP pertaining to the

Northeast Texas area. These revisions

pertain to (1) the CAAP for the

Northeast Texas EAC area and the

related attainment demonstration of the

8-hour ozone standard for the EAC area

and (2) Agreed Orders regarding control

of air pollution for the Northeast Texas

area. The revisions will contribute to

improvement in air quality and

continued attainment of the NAAQS for

ozone in Northeast Texas. We have

evaluated the State's submitttand have

determined that itmeets the applicable

requirements of the 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 subject to'

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. For this reason and because this

action will not have a significant,

adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy, this action

is also not subject to Executive Order '

13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 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 of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C: 601 et seq.). 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 not have

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' not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely

proposes to approve a state rule

implementing a Federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in .the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order.13045

"Protection of Children from.

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not economically

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions under

the National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note), EPA's role is to approve state

actions, provided that they meet the

criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this'

context, in the absence. of a? 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.

It would thus be inconsistent wiih

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews

a SIP submission, to use VCS'in place

of a SIP submission that otherwise

satisfies the provisions of thb clean Air

Act. Thus, the requirements of section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,

do not apply. This proposed rule do'es

not impose an information collection.

burden under the provisions of the.

Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995 (44

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 .

Environmental protection,, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental'

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic '

compounds.

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

Dated: May 6, 2005. .

Richard E. Greene, ,' .

Regional Administrato, ,.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 of certain 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 this proposed rule

must be -received in writing by June 15,

2005.

'ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Jeff Hunt, U.S: Environmental -

Protection Agency Region 10 Office of

Waste and Chemicals (WCM-122), 1200

Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101,

or via e-mail to hunt.jeff@epa.gov: You

'dan view and copy Idaho's application

during normal business hours at the

f6lloiving addresses: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10, Office of Waste and

Chemicals, 1200 SixthAve., Seattle,

Washington, contact: Jeff Hunt, phone

number . (206) 553-0256; or Idaho

Department of Environmental 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 of Waste 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

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 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 or regulatory authority is

' 25708

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 25798 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 93 / Monday, May 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, states must

change their programs because of

changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273- and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in

This Rule?

EPA has preliminarily determined

that Idaho's application to revise its

authorized program meets all of the

statutory and regulatory 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 will have

responsibility for permitting Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)

within its borders (except in Indian

country) and for carrying out the aspects

of the RCRA program described in its

revised program application, subject to

the limitations of 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 take effecf 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.

C. What Will Be the Effect if Idaho Is

Authorized for These Changes?,

If Idaho is authorized for these

changes, a facility 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, 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

of whether 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 will be authorized are

already effective under State law and

are not changed by the act of

authorization.

D. What Happens if EPA Receives

Comments on This Action?

If EPA receives comments on this

action, we will address those comments

in a later final rule. You may not have

another opportunity to comment. If you

want to comment on this authorization,

you must do so at this 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 for changes to their

program on April 6, 1992, effective June

5, 1992 (57 FR 11580), June 11, 1992,

effective August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757),

April 12, 1995, effective June 11, 1995

(60 FR 18549), October 21, 1998,

effective January 19, 1999 (63 FR

56086), July 1, 2001, effective July 1,

2001 (67 FR 44069), and March 10,

2004, effective March 10,*2004 (69 FR

11322).

F. What Changes Are We Proposing?

On September 27, 2004, Idaho

submitted a final program revision

application, seeking authorization for all

delegable federal hazardous waste

regulations codified as of July 1, 2003,

as incorporated by reference in IDAPA

58.01.05.(002)-(016) and 58.01.05.997.

We have preliminarily determined that

Idaho's hazardous waste program

revision satisfies all of the requirements

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 promulgated between July 1,

2001 and July 1, 2003, as well as the

remaining portions of the October 22,

1998 Federal rule "Standards

Applicable to Owners and Operators of

Closed and Closing Hazardous Waste

Management Facilities: Post-Closure

Permit Requirement and Closure

Process; Final Rule" (63 FR 56710) that

were not previously authorized.

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 will 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 term, 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 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. This is done by

referencing the authorized State rules in

40 CFR part 272. Through four

codification actions dated December 6,

1990 (55 FR 50327), June 11, 1992 (57

FR 24757), June 25, 1999 (64 FR 34180),

and March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11132) the

EPA-codified at 40 CFR part 272,

subpart N all previous authorization

actions for the State of Idaho program.

EPA is reserving the amendment of 40

CFR part 272, subpart N for codification

of this current revision to Idaho's

program at a 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 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

will continue to implement and

administer the RCRA program in these

lands.

J. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 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 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

proposed Rule is not a"significant

regulatory action" under the-terms of

Executive Order-12866 and is thereforenot subject to.OMB review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

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

minimize the reportingand

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 n6n-Federal respondents be

approved by OPM.,This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under.the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

3. Regulatory Flexibility

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 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 lessthan 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 of authorizing preexisting requirements under State law.

After considering the.economic impacts

of today'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

of the proposed rule- on small entities

and welcome comments on issues

related to such imp'acts.

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

Admixistrdtor publishes with-the finalrule 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 proposed 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. 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 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 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 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 proposed 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 proposed rule.only

authorizes existing State rules as part of

the State hazardofis waste program. *

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 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 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 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 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 ("NTAA"), Public Law 104-

113, section 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

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 of any. particular voluntary

consensus standard in place of another

standard that otherwise satisfies the

requirements of RCRA. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply.

10. Executive Order 12988

As required by section 3 of Executive

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 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 proposed 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: April 28, 2005.

Julie Hagensen,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 05-93.17 Filed 5-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

25801

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 25801 2005