1 ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2010-0598; FRL - ] California: Proposed Authorization of St ate Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION : Proposed rule.

SUMMARY : California has applied to EPA for final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Cons ervation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed California’s applica tion and made the tentative deci sion that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to quali fy for final authorization, and is proposing to authorize the State’s changes. EPA is also proposing that the State’s requirements regulat ing facilities that are conditionally exempt from the federal rules as Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (“CESQGs”) be treated as more stringent th an federal requirements , thereby making these provisions federally enforceable. DATES: EPA must receive written comments on Calif ornia’s application for authorization for changes to its hazardous waste management program by [insert date 30 days after the date of publication].

ADDRESSES : Submit your comments, identified by Do cket ID No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2010–0598 by one of2 the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments. • E-mail: smith.rebecca@epa.gov

. • Fax: (415) 947–3533 (prior to faxing, please notify Rebecca Smith at 415-972- 3313)

• Mail: Send written comments to: Rebecca Smith, WST–2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. • Hand Delivery or Courier: Rebecc a Smith, EPA Region 9 (WST-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted during the office’s normal hours of operat ion, and special arrangements should be

made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: We must receive your comments by [insert da te 30 days after date of publication]. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EP A–R09–RCRA–2010–0598. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the pub lic docket without change and may be made

available online at http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute, or you make special arrangements with the EPA contact. Do not subm it information that you c onsider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov w eb site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your3 comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov , your e-mail 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, EPA recommends th at you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and wi th any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If you do so, this information will become a part of th e public record, unless you have made arrangements with EPA prior to the submittal of your commen ts. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for cl arification, 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 def ects or viruses. (For additiona l information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Dock et Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm ).

Docket: All documents in the doc ket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some info rmation is not publicly available, e.g. , CBI or other

information whose disclosure is re stricted by statute. Certain othe r material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in ha rd copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. You may view and copy California’s applicati on at the following a ddresses: California Environmental Protection Agency, Environm ental Services Center, 1001 I Street, 22 nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, Phone: (916) 324–0912, from 8 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Thursday (appointment preferre d but not required); a nd U.S. EPA Region 9 Library-Information Center, 75 Hawthorne St reet, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: (415) 947– 4406, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p. m. Monday through Thursday. Copy services are not available in Sacramento, but sh ould be arranged by the viewer.4 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Rebecca Smith, EPA Region 9 (WST-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: (415) 972-3313. E-mail: smith.rebecca@epa.gov

.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :

A. Why are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

States which have received final author ization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous wast e program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must revise their programs and ask EPA to aut horize the revisions. Revi sions to state programs may be necessary when Federal or state statutor y or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, st ates 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 made the tentative determination that California = s application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirement s established by RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to grant California final authorizati on to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in this au thorization application. California will have responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSD Fs) within its borders5 (except in Indian country) and for carrying out all authorized aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the lim itations of RCRA’s Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by HSWA regulations take effect as a matter of Federal la w in authorized states before those states are authorized for such requirement s. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in California, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization

to do so.

C. What is the Effect of This Authorization Decision? If California is authorized for these changes, a facility in California subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the corresponding Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Ad ditionally, facilities must comply with certain Federal requirements, i.e., HSWA regulations issued by EPA for which California has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements th at are not supplanted by authorized Stateissued requirements such as requirements for th e exportation of hazardous waste. California

continues to have enforcement re sponsibilities under its State la w to pursue violations of its hazardous waste management program. EPA co ntinues to have independent enforcement authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, the authority to:

• Do inspections, and require monitori ng, tests, analyses or reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements (including State-is sued statutes and regulations that are authorized by EPA and any applicable Fede rally-issued statutes and regulations) and6 suspend or revoke permits; and

• Take enforcement actions regardless of wh ether the State has taken its own actions. The action to approve these revisions woul d not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which California will be authorized are already

effective under State law and are not ch anged by the act of authorization.

D. What Happens If EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action? If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, 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. For What Has California Previously Been Authorized? California initially received final authorization for the base RCRA program on July 23, 1992, effective August 1, 1992 (57 FR 32726). EPA granted authorizatio n for changes to California’s program on September 26, 2001, effective September 26, 2001 (66 FR 49118).

F. What Changes Are We Proposing With This Action? On August 2, 2004 and August 17, 2004 California submitted final complete program revision applications, seeking au thorization of those changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.

We have made a tentative determination that California’s hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. California has applied for only the Federal changes relating to the corrective action management units, the Bevill exclusion and the land disposal restrictions. There are several7 changes to the Federal program for which Califor nia has not yet applied for authorization. The major areas of changes for which California has not yet applied for authorization are: the used oil regulations; consolidated liability requirements; military munitions; universal waste; modification to the hazardous waste manifest sy stem; standardized permit requirements; burden reduction regulations; and the NESHAPS: Fina l Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (MACT Rule). California submits packages to EPA relating to its efforts to seek authorization for updates to its program based on revisions to the Federal program. EPA publishes a series of

checklists to aid California and the other st ates in such effort s (see EPA’s RCRA State Authorization web page at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwas te/state/revision/program.htm ). Each checklist generally reflects changes made to the Federal regulations pur suant to a particular Federal Register notice. California’s submittals have been grouped into general categories (e.g., Corrective Action Management Units, Land Disposal Restrictions, etc.). Each submittal may have reflected changes based on one or more Fe deral Register notices and would have thus referenced one or more corresponding checklists. What follows is a summary, for each genera l category identified by California in its submittals, of the specific subjects of changes to the Federal program for that category. Although the changes to the Federa l program are identified in the summary, California did not necessarily make revisions to its program as a result of each Federal revision noted. For example, certain revisions to th e Federal program may have resulte d in less stringent regulation than that which previously existed. Since states may maintain programs which are more stringent than the Federal program, states have th e option whether or not to adopt such revisions.8 1. Changes California Identified as Relati ng to Corrective Action Management Units We are proposing to grant California final au thorization for all revi sions to its program due to certain changes to the Federal Co rrective Action Management Unit program.

2. Changes California Identified as Relating to Land Disposal Restrictions Phases 3 and

4 We are proposing to grant California final au thorization for all revisions, if any, to its program due to certain changes to the Federal program in the fo llowing areas: (1) Land Disposal

Restrictions Phase III--Decharacterized Wastew aters; (2) Emergency Extension of the K088 Capacity Variance; (3) Land Disposal Restrict ions Phase IV--Treatment Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes, Paperwork Reduction and Str eamlining, Exemptions From RCRA for Certain Processed Materials; (4) Emerge ncy Revision of the Carbamate La nd Disposal Restrictions; (5)

Clarification of Standards for Hazardous Wa ste LDR Treatment Variances; (6) Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes; (7) Hazardous Soils Treatment Standards and Exclusions; (8) Administrative St ay for Zinc Micronutrie nt Fertilizers; (9) Emergency Revision of the Land Disposal Restri ctions (LDR) Treatment Standards for Listed Hazardous Wastes from Carbamate Production; (10) Extension of Compliance Date for Characteristic Slags; (11) Treatment Standard s for Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum Reduction (K088); (12) Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs for Newly Identified Wastes; (13) Deferral for PCBs in Soil; and (14) Ce rtain Land Disposal Restrictions Technical

Corrections and Clarifications. Note that California has not ye t adopted the provisions addressed by the following Federal final rules which are al so part of Phase IV of the land disposal restrictions requirements: LDR Revision Checklist 195 (66 FR 58258, November 20, 2001, as9 amended by 67 FR 17119, April 9, 2002); non-LD R Revision Checklist 200 (67 FR 28393, July 24, 2002); and LDR Revision Checklist 201 (67 FR 62618, October 7, 2002). 3. Changes California Identified as Relating to the Bevill Exclusion We are proposing to grant California final au thorization for all revi sions to its program due to certain changes to the Federal program in the Bevill Exclusion requirements.

The following table shows the Federal and an alogous State provision s involved in this

tentative decision and the re levant corresponding checklists: Description of Federal requirement (checklist #) Federal Register page and date Analogous State authority 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), 260.10 Corrective Action Management Units (CAMU), checklist 196 (196) 67 FR 2962, Jan. 22, 2002 (196) Title 22, California code of Regulations (22 CCR) 66260.10, amended July 19, 2004. 40 CFR 261.1 Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), checklist 157 (157) 62 FR 25998, May 12, 1997 (157) California did not adopt these exclusions. 40 CFR 261.2 LDR, checklist 157, 179 (179) 64 FR 2548, May 11, 1999 (157, 179) California did not adopt this regulation. 40 CFR 261.3, Bevill Exclusion, checklist 167E (167E) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 (167E) 66261.3, amended March 15, 2003. 40 CFR 261.4, Bevill Exclusion, checklist 167E .................................................. (167E) 66261.4, amended November 12, 1998. 40 CFR 262.34 LDR, checklists 179, 183 (183) 64 FR 56469, October 20, 1999 (179, 183) 22 CCR 66262.34, amended Sept. 11, 2000. 40 CFR 264.550 through 264.552 CAMU, checklist 196 .................................................. (196) 22 CCR 66264.550 through 66264.552, amended July 19, 2004. 40 CFR 264.554 and 264.555 CAMU, checklist 196 .................................................. (196) Califor nia did not adopt these regulations. 40 CFR 268.1 LDR, checklists 151, 157 (151) 61 FR 15566 April 8, 1996; [amended 61 FR 15660 April 8, 1996; 61 FR 19117 April 30, 1996; 61 FR 33680 June 28, 1996; 61 FR 36419 July 10, 1996; 61 FR 43924 August 26, 1996; and 62 FR 7502 February 19, 1997] (151, 157) 22 CCR 66268.1, amended June 4, 1999

40 CFR 268.2 LDR, checklists 151, 167A, 167B, 179 (167A, 167B) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 [amended 63 FR 31266 June 8, 1998] (151, 167A, 167B, 179) 22 CCR 66260.10, amended Feb. 26, 2004. 40 CFR 268.3(b) LDR chec klist 151 .................................................. ( 151) California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Division 20,10 Description of Federal requirement (checklist #) Federal Register page and date Analogous State authority 25179.2(e) enacted 1995. California did not adopt the dilution exception. 40 CFR 268.3(c) and (d) LDR checklist 151, 167A .................................................. (151, 16 7A) 22 CCR 66268.3(b) and (c) amended June 4, 1999 40 CFR 268.4 LDR checklist 167C (167C) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 [amended 63 FR 31266, June 8, 1998] (167C) HSC, Division 20, 25179.11 amended 1996. 22 CCR 66268.1 amended June 4, 1999. 40 CFR 268.7 LDR, checklists 151, 157, 167B, 167C, 179, 183, .................................................. (151, 15 7, 167B, 167C, 179, 183) 22 CCR 66268.7 amended Feb. 26, 2004; (157) California did not adopt the Federal exemption at 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6). 40 CFR 268.9 LDR checklists 151, 157, 179 .................................................. (151, 157, 1 79) 22 CCR 66268.9 amended Feb. 26, 2004. 40 CFR 268.30 LDR checklist 157 .................................................. (157) 22 CCR 6 6268.30 amended June 4, 1999. 40 CFR 268.32 LDR checklist 157, 190 (190) 65 FR 81373 December 26, 2000 (157, 190) 22 CCR 66268.31.5 amended July 3, 2002. 40 CFR 268.33 LDR checklist 189 (189) 65 FR 67068, November 8, 2000 (189) 22 CCR 66268.33 amended July 3, 2002. 40 CFR 268.34 LDR checklist 167A, 172 (167A, 172) 63 FR 48124, September 9, 1998 (167A, 172) 22 CCR 66268.34 amended Sept. 11, 2000. 40 CFR 268.39 LDR checklist 151, 155, 159, 160, 173 (155) 62 FR 1992, January 14, 1997; (160) 62 FR 37694, July 14, 1997; (173) 63 FR 51254, September 24, 1998 (151, 155, 159, 160, 173) 22 CCR 66268.39 amended Sept. 11, 2000.

40 CFR 268.40 LDR checklists 151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 183 (161) 62 FR 45568, August 28, 1997; (170) 63 FR 46332 August 31, 1998; (171) 63 FR 47410, September 4, 1998 (151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 183) 22 CCR 66268.40 amended July 3, 2002.

40 CFR 268.40/Table checklists 151, 157, 167A, 167C, 171, 173 179, 183, 189 .................................................. (151, 157, 167A, 167C, 171, 173 179, 183, 189) 22 CCR 66268.40/Table amended July 3, 2002. 40 CFR 268.42 LDR checklists 151, 157, 167C .................................................. (151, 157, 167C) 22 CCR 66268.42 amended Feb. 26, 2004. 40 CFR 268.44(a) LDR checklist 162 (162) 62 FR 64504, December 5, 1997 (162) California is not seeking to have this provision delegated. 40 CFR 268.44(h), (m) LDR checklists 162, 167B .................................................. (162, 167B) 22 CCR 66268.44 amended June 4, 1999. 40 CFR 268.45 LDR checklist 167C .................................................. (167C) 22 CCR 66268.45 amended June 4, 1999. 40 CFR 268.48(a)/Table UTS LDR checklists 151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 189, 190 .................................................. (151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 189, 190) 22 CCR 66268.48(a)/Table UTS amended July 3, 2002. 40 CFR 268.49 LDR checklists 167B, 183, 179, 190 .................................................. (167B, 183, 179, 190) 22 CCR 66268.49 amended July 3, 2002. 40 CFR 268, Appendices I, II, X LDR checklist 157 .................................................. (157) 22 CCR, Chapter 18, Appendices I, II, X [reserved]11 Description of Federal requirement (checklist #) Federal Register page and date Analogous State authority amended June 4, 1999. 40 CFR 268, Appendix III LDR checklists 157, 190 .................................................. (157, 190) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendices III amended July 3, 2002. 40 CFR 268, Appendix VI LDR checklist 157 .................................................. (157) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendices VI amended June 4, 1999. 40 CFR 268, Appendix VII/Table 1 LDR checklists 157, 167C, 192B (192B) 66 FR 27266, May 16, 2001 (157, 167C, 192B) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix VII/Table 1 amended July 3, 2002. 40 CFR 268, Appendix VII/Table 2 and Appendix VIII LDR checklists 157, 167C .................................................. (157, 167C) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix VII/Table 2 amended June 4, 1999. 40 CFR 268, Appendix XI LDR checklist 151 .................................................. (151) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix XI amended June 4, 1999.

G. Where Are the Revised State Rule s Different From the Federal Rules? State requirements that go beyond the scope of the Federal program are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them. Although you must comply with these requirements in accordance with California law, they are not RCRA requirements. We consider that the following State requirement s, which pertain to the revisions involved in this tentative decision, go beyond the scope of the Federal program.

1. The definition of ‘‘remediation waste’ ’ at 22 C.C.R. § 66260.10 is broader in scope than the Federal definition at 40 CFR 260.10 only to the extent Californi a’s definition includes

hazardous substances which are neither “h azardous wastes” nor “‘solid wastes.” 2. California regulation subjects CA MUs for non-RCRA hazardous waste to statespecific requirements under 22 CCR 66264.552.5. The state requirement at 22 CCR 66264.552.5 is broader in scope because the federal pr ogram does not consider these wastes to be hazardous. In addition, 22 CCR 66264.550(a) is also considered broader in scope to the extent that it subjects no n-RCRA wastes to the state-on ly CAMU requirements.12 3. California did not adopt the Federal definitions at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(9) – (12), 261.4(a)(13)-(14), and 261.6(a)(3)(ii) addressing scrap metals or th e related Federal changes to 40 CFR 261.2(c)(4)/Table. Califor nia is broader in scope to th e extent that its statutory provisions at HS&C § 25143.2(a) and (e), do not ex clude these scrap metals from regulation. 4. The California provisions at 22 CCR 66268.7 (a)-(c) are broader in scope than the Federal land disposal treatment provisions at 40 CFR 268.7(a)-(c) to the ex tent that the State’s provisions also apply to non-RCRA wastes. Similarly, California’s variance petition provisions at 22 CCR 66268.44(c) and 66268.44(h) are al so broader in scope to the extent that they apply to

non-RCRA wastes.

H. What is EPA’s Position on California’s Regulation of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators? When California initially received final auth orization for the base RCRA program on July 23, 1992, effective August 1, 1992 (57 FR 32726), EP A Pacific Southwest Region (Region IX) identified California’s failure to adopt the fe deral exclusion for conditionally exempt small quantity generators (“CESQGs”) (found, generally, at 40 CFR 261.5) as “broader in scope” than the federal program. ( See also 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2)(iii).) Howeve r, EPA’s position regarding the

absence of the conditional excl usion for CESQGs in a state pr ogram has changed and EPA now clearly regards the absence of any such exclusio n as more stringent than the federal program, making state regulation of CESQGs federally enfo rceable when authorized. See United States v. Southern Union Co., 643 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.R.I. 2009). In order to harmonize our authorization of California’s pr ogram with EPA’s position with respect to CESQGs, EPA is hereby proposing to redesignate Ca lifornia’s regulation of CESQGs as more stringent than the13 federal program. EPA is also seeking public comment on this proposed change to California’s

authorization. If EPA makes a final determinatio n that California’s regulation of CESQGs is more stringent than the federal program, then th e State’s regulation of such federally exempt CESQGs will be part of the authorized state prog ram and will be federally enforceable within the State of California. Specifi cally, this change will allow federal enforcement of State requirements applicable to CESQGs who are co nditionally exempt under the federal provisions found at 40 CFR 261.5, 266.100(b)(3) and 270.1(c)(2)(iii) . This change will not result in any new requirements on CESQGs, but will only mean that the more stringent State requirements for CESQGs will be federally enforceable.

I. Who Handles Permits After The Authorization Takes Effect? California will issue permits for all the pr ovisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. All permits i ssued by EPA prior to Calif ornia being authorized for these revisions, if any, will continue in force un til the effective date of the State’s issuance or denial of a State RCRA permit, or the permit ot herwise expires or is revoked. California will administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or por tions of permits which EPA issued prior to

the effective date of this au thorization until such time as Ca lifornia has issued a corresponding State permit. EPA will not issue any more new pe rmits or new portions of permits for provisions

for which California is authorized after the effective date of th is authorization. EPA will retain responsibility to issue permits needed for HSWA requirements for which California is not yet

authorized.

J. How Would Authorizing California for Th ese Revisions Affect Indian Country (1814 U.S.C. Section 1151) in California?

California is not authorized to carry out its hazardous wast e program in Indian country within the State. Indian country includes all lands within the ex terior boundaries of an Indian reservation, any land held in trust by the United States for an I ndian tribe whether or not formally designated as an Indian reserva tion, and any other land, whether with in or outside of an Indian reservation, that qualifie s as Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151. A list of Indian Tribes in

California can be found on the web at http://www.doi.gov/bureau-i ndian-affairs.html under Tribal Leaders Directory. Therefore, this propo sed action would have no effect on the Indian country within the State’s borders. EPA will c ontinue to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian count ry within the State.

K. What is Codification and Is EPA Codifying California’s Hazardous Waste Management Program as Au thorized in This Rule? Codification is the process of placing the Stat e’s statutes and regulat ions that comprise the State’s authorized hazardous waste manage ment program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the au thorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We

reserve the amendment of 40 CF R part 272, subpart F for this authorization of California’s program changes until a later date.

L. Statutory and Ex ecutive Order Reviews. This proposed rule only au thorizes hazardous waste requ irements pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law. Therefore, this rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provis ions as follows:15 1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review The Office of Management and Budget has exem pted this proposed rule from its review under Executive Order (EO) 12866, (58 FR 51735, Octobe r 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. 2. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act After considering the economic impacts of this proposed ru le on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I cer tify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this proposed rule approves preex isting requirements unde r state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state la w, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism EO 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule because it will not have federalism implications ( i.e. , substantial direct effects on the State, on the re lationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government) as described in EO 13132.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coor dination with Indian Tribal Governments EO13175 does not apply to this proposed rule be cause it will not have tribal implications16 ( i.e. , substantial direct e ffects on one or more Indian tribes , on the relation ship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities

between the Federal Government and Indian tribes ). As stated previously, this proposed action would have no effect on the Indian country within the State’s borders and EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian country within the State. 7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health & Safety Risks This proposed rule is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not economically significant

and it is not based on hea lth or safety risks. 8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not subject to EO 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory

action as defined in EO 12866. 9. National Technology Tr ansfer Advancement Act EPA approves State programs as long as th ey meet criteria required by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EP A, in its review of a State program, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets the requirements of RCRA. Thus, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advance Act does not apply to this proposed rule.

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to A ddress Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. Because this rule addresses authorizing pr e-existing State rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law and there are no anticipate d significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

11. Executive Order 12988