45068 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Takings’’ issued under the Executive 

Order. This proposed 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.). 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Because this rule authorizes pre-existing 

State rules which are at least equivalent 

to, and no less stringent than existing 

federal requirements, and impose no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law, and there are no 

anticipated significant adverse human 

health or environmental effects, the 

proposed rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 12898. 

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: August 28, 2018. 

David Gray, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19195 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2018–0298; FRL–9983– 

15—Region 10] 

Idaho: Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Idaho has applied to the EPA 

for authorization of certain changes to 

its hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), as amended. The EPA has 

reviewed Idaho’s application and has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for final 

authorization and is proposing to 

authorize the State’s changes. The EPA 

seeks public comment prior to taking 

final action. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received on or before 

October 5, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2018–0298 by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: mccullough.barbara@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Barbara McCullough, U.S. 

EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 155, Mail Stop OAW–150, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. 

• Hand Delivery: Barbara 

McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Mail Stop 

OAW–150, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the normal business hours of 

operation; special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2018– 

0298. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment through 

www.regulations.gov, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, First Floor Lobby, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. The EPA Region 10 

Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to noon, 

and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. PST Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The EPA Region 10 Library 

telephone number is (206) 553–1289. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Mail 

Stop OAW–150, Seattle, Washington 

98101, email: mccullough.barbara@

epa.gov or phone number (206) 553– 

2416. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Proposed Authorization Revision 

A. Why are revisions to state programs 

necessary? 

States that have received final 

authorization from the 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 the EPA to authorize 

their changes. Changes to State 

programs may be necessary when 

Federal or State statutory or regulatory 

authority is modified or when certain 

other changes occur. Most commonly, 

States must change their programs 

because of changes to the EPA’s 

regulations codified in Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 

124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279. 

B. What decisions have we made in this 

proposed rule? 

The EPA has determined that Idaho’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets the statutory and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45069 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant 

Idaho final authorization to operate its 

hazardous waste management program 

with the changes described in the 

authorization application. Idaho will 

continue to 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 the EPA promulgates 

under the authority of HSWA, and 

which are not less stringent than 

existing requirements, take effect in 

authorized States before the States are 

authorized for the requirements. Thus, 

the EPA will implement those 

requirements and prohibitions in Idaho, 

including issuing permits, until Idaho is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What is the effect of this proposed 

authorization decision? 

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 

to comply with RCRA. Additionally, 

such facilities will have to comply with 

any applicable Federal requirements, 

such as HSWA regulations issued by the 

EPA for which the State has not 

received authorization and RCRA 

requirements that are not supplanted by 

authorized State requirements. Idaho 

continues to have enforcement 

authorities and responsibilities under its 

State hazardous waste management 

program for violations of its program. 

However, the EPA retains authority 

under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 

and 7003, which includes, among 

others, the authority to: 

• Conduct inspections, which may 

include but is not limited to requiring 

monitoring, tests, analyses, and/or 

reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements, which 

may include but is not limited to 

suspending, terminating, modifying, 

and/or revoking permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether Idaho has taken its own 

actions. 

The action to approve these revisions 

will not impose additional requirements 

on the regulated community because the 

regulations for which Idaho is 

requesting authorization are already 

effective under State law and are not 

changed by the act of authorization. 

D. What happens if the EPA receives 

comments on this action? 

If the EPA receives comments on this 

action, we will address those comments 

in a later final action. You may not have 

another opportunity to comment. If you 

want to comment on this proposed 

authorization, you should do so at this 

time. 

E. What has Idaho previously been 

authorized for? 

Idaho initially received final 

authorization for its hazardous waste 

management program effective April 9, 

1990 (55 FR 11015, March 26, 1990). 

Subsequently, the EPA authorized 

revisions to the State’s program effective 

June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 

1992), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757, 

June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 

18549, April 12, 1995), January 19, 1999 

(63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1, 

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

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

July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 

2005), February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8283, 

February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008 

(73 FR 78647, December 23, 2008), July 

11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012) 

and September 21, 2015 (80 FR 20726, 

August 20, 2015). 

F. What changes are we proposing to 

authorize? 

On March 29, 2018, Idaho submitted 

a program revision application to the 

EPA requesting authorization for all 

delegable Federal hazardous waste 

regulations codified as of July 1, 2016, 

incorporated by reference in IDAPA 

58.01.05.000 et seq., which were 

adopted and effective in the State of 

Idaho on March 29, 2017. This 

authorization revision request includes 

the following federal rules for which 

Idaho is being authorized for the first 

time: Conditional Exclusions from Solid 

and Hazardous Waste for Solvent 

Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448, July 

31, 2013); Conditional Exclusion for 

Carbon Dioxide Streams in Geologic 

Sequestration Activities (79 FR 350, 

January 3, 2014); Modification of the 

Hazardous Waste Manifest System— 

Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, 

February 7, 2014); Identification and 

Listing of Hazardous Waste—CFR 

Correction (79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014); 

Revisions to the Export Provisions of 

Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, 

June 26, 2014); Definition of Solid 

Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015); 

Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable 

Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule (80 

FR 18777, April 8, 2015); Disposal of 

Coal Combustion Residuals from 

Electric Utilities (80 FR 21302, April 17, 

2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals from Electric Utilities— 

Correction of the Effective Date (80 FR 

37988, July 2, 2015); and Transboundary 

Shipments of Hazardous Wastes 

Between OECD Member Countries— 

Revisions to the List of OECD Member 

Countries (80 FR 37992, July 2, 2015). 

The EPA proposes to authorize 

Idaho’s revised hazardous waste 

program in its entirety through July 1, 

2016, as described above. The EPA 

seeks public comment prior to taking 

final action. 

G. Where are the revised State rules 

different from the Federal rules? 

Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA 

may not authorize State law that is less 

stringent than the Federal program. Any 

State law that is less stringent does not 

supplant the Federal regulations. State 

law that is broader in scope than the 

Federal program requirements is not 

authorized. State law that is equivalent 

to, and State law that is more stringent 

than, the Federal program may be 

authorized, in which case those 

provisions are enforceable by the EPA. 

This section discusses certain rules in 

this proposed action where the EPA has 

made the finding that Idaho’s program 

is broader in scope, and discusses 

certain portions of the Federal program 

that are not delegable to the State 

because of the Federal government’s 

special role in foreign policy matters 

and because of national concerns that 

arise with certain decisions. 

Idaho is currently broader in scope 

than the Federal program in its adoption 

of 40 CFR 260.43 (2015) and 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24) (2015) at IDAPA 

58.01.05.004 and 58.01.05.005. Both of 

these regulations include provisions 

from the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste 

(DSW) Rule that have been vacated and 

replaced with the less stringent 

requirements found at 40 CFR 260.43 

(2018) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) 

(2018), which were reinstated from the 

2008 DSW Rule. Idaho will be revising 

its regulations to include this update as 

required by the vacatur to be equivalent 

to the Federal program. 

The EPA cannot delegate certain 

Federal requirements associated with 

the following rules: Modification of the 

Hazardous Waste Manifest System— 

Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, 

February 7, 2014), Revisions to the 

Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube 

Rule (79 FR 36220, June 26, 2014), and 

Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous 

Wastes Between OECD Member 

Countries—Revisions to the List of 

OECD Member Countries (80 FR 37992, 

July 2, 2015). Idaho has adopted these 

requirements and appropriately 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45070 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

preserved EPA’s authority to implement 

them. 

H. 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 the 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 the EPA would modify the existing 

EPA permit to expire at an earlier date, 

terminate the existing EPA permit for 

cause, or allow the existing EPA permit 

to otherwise expire by its terms, except 

for those facilities located in Indian 

country. The EPA will not issue new 

permits or new portions of permits for 

provisions for which Idaho is 

authorized. The EPA will continue to 

implement and issue permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Idaho is not 

authorized. 

I. How does this action affect Indian 

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

Idaho is not authorized to carry out its 

hazardous waste program in Indian 

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

Indian country includes: 

1. All lands within the exterior 

boundaries of Indian reservations 

within or abutting the State of Idaho; 

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

for an Indian tribe; and 

3. Any other land, whether on or off 

an Indian reservation, that qualifies as 

Indian country. Therefore, this program 

revision does not extend to Indian 

country where the EPA will continue to 

implement and administer the RCRA 

program. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to revise the 

State of Idaho’s authorized hazardous 

waste management program pursuant to 

section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no 

requirements other than those currently 

imposed by State law. This 

authorization complies with applicable 

executive orders and statutory 

provisions as follows: 

A. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Federal 

agencies must determine whether the 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’, and 

therefore subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the E.O. The E.O. 

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 E.O. The EPA has 

determined that this proposed 

authorization is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

E.O. 12866 and is therefore not subject 

to OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

proposed authorization does not 

establish or modify any information or 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

regulated community and only seeks to 

propose authorization for the preexisting requirements under State law 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing, and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 

title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires Federal agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

proposed authorization on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s size 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121.201; (2) 

a small governmental jurisdiction that is 

a government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. I certify that this 

proposed authorization will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because the proposed authorization will 

only have the effect of authorizing preexisting requirements under State law 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

D. 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, 

the EPA generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit 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 one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, Section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires the 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 the EPA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the Administrator 

publishes with the rule an explanation 

why the alternative was not adopted. 

Before the EPA establishes any 

regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45071 

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 the EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. This 

proposed authorization 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 proposes to impose no 

new enforceable duty on any state, local 

or tribal governments or the private 

sector. Similarly, the EPA has also 

determined that this proposed 

authorization contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. Thus, this proposed 

authorization is not subject to the 

requirements of Sections 202 and 203 of 

the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed authorization 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 E.O. 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This 

document proposes to authorize preexisting State rules. Thus, E.O. 13132 

does not apply to this proposed 

authorization. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951, November 9, 2000), requires the 

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 

authorization does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in E.O. 13175 

because the EPA retains its authority 

over Indian Country. Thus, E.O. 13175 

does not apply to this proposed 

authorization. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under Section 5–501 of the E.O. has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 

because it proposes to approve a state 

program. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed authorization 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 E.O. 

12866, as discussed in detail above. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), (Pub. L. 104– 

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

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 the EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Federal agency decides not to 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

authorization does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. The 

EPA has determined that this proposed 

authorization will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations. 

This proposed authorization does not 

affect the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment 

because this document proposes to 

authorize pre-existing State rules which 

are equivalent to and no less stringent 

than existing Federal requirements. 

K. The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801–808 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801–808, 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 document 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 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). 

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 1006, 2002(a), 

3006, and 3024 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g. 

Dated: August 22, 2018. 

Chris Hladick, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19259 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS