8280 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal Register, NARA is proposing to 

revise the reproduction fee schedule in 

36 CFR part 1258 to reflect the current 

costs of providing copies of archival 

records. In the past, NARA has applied 

the fee schedule in § 1258.12 to our 

records center holdings when the 

agency that owns the records did not 

have a separate fee schedule. 

NARA provides records storage 

services at the Federal Records Center 

Program (FRCP) national and regional 

records centers on a reimbursable basis 

to Federal agencies. The FRCP charges 

the agencies for the use of the space, 

retrieving and refiling records, and other 

administrative matters related to agency 

records. The records of other agencies 

stored in Federal records centers still 

belong to the agencies that created and 

maintained them, and NARA provides 

public access to those records only as 

authorized by the owning agency. 

As a fully reimbursable program, 

FRCP must recover all costs for making 

copies of agency records from the 

agency or the agency’s customer. 

Because we are providing copies in 

accordance with the owning agency’s 

instructions, the agency, not NARA, 

must determine the extent to which the 

costs will be borne by the agency or the 

agency’s customer. Thus, it is not 

appropriate to include the records 

center program in the fee schedule set 

forth in part 1258. 

This interim final rule is not a 

significant regulatory action for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. As required 

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I 

certify that this rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because it 

affects individual researchers. This 

regulation does not have any federalism 

implications. This rule is not a major 

rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8, 

Congressional Review of Agency 

Rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1258 

Archives and records. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, NARA amends part 1258 of 

title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 1258–FEES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1258 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2116(c) and 2307. 

■ 2. Amend § 1258.2 by removing 

paragraph (b) and redesignating 

paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1258.2 What does the NARA 

reproduction fee schedule cover? 

* * * * * 

(b) Records filed with the Office of the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: February 20, 2007. 

Allen Weinstein, 

Archivist of the United States. 

[FR Doc. E7–3162 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 70 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0625; FRL–8280–8] 

State Operating Permit Programs; 

West Virginia; Amendment to the 

Definitions of a ‘‘Major Source’’ and 

‘‘Volatile Organic Compound’’

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to amend the State of West 

Virginia’s operating permit program to 

correct the definitions of ‘‘major source’’

and ‘‘volatile organic compound.’’ West 

Virginia’s revision was submitted in 

response to the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1990 that required 

States to submit to EPA program 

revisions in accordance with the Federal 

Title V regulations. EPA granted final 

approval of West Virginia’s operating 

permit program on November 23, 2001. 

West Virginia amended its operating 

permit program to address the Federal 

EPA amendment to the Federal Title V 

regulations, which went into effect on 

November 27, 2001, and this action 

approves this amendment. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

granting approval of West Virginia’s 

amendment to the Title V operating 

permit program should do so at this 

time. 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 27, 

2007 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

March 28, 2007. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–

R03–OAR–2006–0625 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: campbell.dave@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–2006–0625, David 

Campbell, Chief, Permits and Technical 

Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–2006–0625. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

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 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

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 your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to 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, 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 EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8281 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE, Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rosemarie Nino, (215) 814–3377, or by 

e-mail at nino.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 10, 2003, the State of West 

Virginia submitted an amendment to its 

State operating permit program. This 

amendment is the subject of this 

document and this section provides 

additional information on the 

amendment by addressing the following 

questions: 

What is the State operating permit program? 

What are the State operating permit program 

requirements? 

What is being addressed in this document? 

What is not being addressed in this 

document? 

What changes to West Virginia’s operating 

permit program is EPA approving? 

Changes to West Virginia’s Operating Permit 

Program That Corrects a Deficiency 

What action is being taken by EPA? 

What is the State operating permit 

program? 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 required all States to develop 

operating permit programs that meet 

certain Federal criteria. When 

implementing the operating permit 

programs, the States require certain 

sources of air pollution to obtain 

permits that contain all of their 

applicable requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The focus of the 

operating permit program is to improve 

enforcement by issuing each source a 

permit that consolidates all of its 

applicable CAA requirements into a 

federally-enforceable document. By 

consolidating all of the applicable 

requirements for a given air pollution 

source into an operating permit, the 

source, the public, and the State 

environmental agency can more easily 

understand what CAA requirements 

apply and how compliance with those 

requirements is determined. 

Sources required to obtain an 

operating permit under this program 

include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution 

and certain other sources specified in 

the CAA or in EPA’s implementing 

regulations. For example, all sources 

regulated under the acid rain program, 

regardless of size, must obtain operating 

permits. Examples of ‘‘major’’ sources 

include those that have the potential to 

emit 100 tons per year or more of 

volatile organic compounds, carbon 

monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, or particulate matter (PM10 and 

PM2.5); those that emit 10 tons per year 

of any single hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) specifically listed under the 

CAA; or those that emit 25 tons per year 

or more of a combination of HAPs. In 

areas that are not meeting the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for ozone, carbon monoxide, or 

particulate matter, major sources are 

defined by the gravity of the 

nonattainment classification. 

What are the State operating permit 

program requirements? 

The minimum program elements for 

an approvable operating permit program 

are those mandated by Title V of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and 

established by EPA’s implementing 

regulations at title 40, part 70—‘‘State 

Operating Permit Programs’’ in the Code 

of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 70). 

Title V required state and local air 

pollution control agencies to develop 

operating permit programs and submit 

them to EPA for approval by November 

23, 2001. Under Title V, State and local 

air pollution control agencies that 

implement operating permit programs 

are called ‘‘permitting authorities’’. 

The State was granted final full 

approval effective on November 23, 

2001. On September 10, 2003, West 

Virginia submitted an amendment to its 

currently EPA-approved Title V 

operating permit program. In general, 

West Virginia amended its operating 

permit program regulation (45 CSR 30) 

to correct (1) the definition of ‘‘major 

source;’’ (2) strike the existing definition 

of ‘‘volatile organic compound’’ (VOC) 

and insert in its place the reference to 

the federal definition of VOC; and, (3) 

to make other administrative 

corrections, i.e., revise Director to 

Secretary, Division to Department, 

Office to Division and filing and 

effective date changes. These changes 

will make regulation 45 CSR 30 

consistent with the corresponding 

provisions of 40 CFR part 70, which 

went into effect on November 27, 2001. 

What is being addressed in this 

document? 

West Virginia has revised 45 CSR 30, 

Section 2, Definitions of the State of 

West Virginia Regulations Governing 

the Control of Air Pollution to be 

consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 

part 70.2 which went into effect on 

November 27, 200l. West Virginia 

amended the definition of a ‘‘major 

source’’ by removing part of the existing 

definition which stated ‘‘All other 

stationary source categories regulated by 

a standard promulgated under section 

111 or section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 

but only with respect to those air 

pollutants that have been regulated for 

that category’’ and inserted in its place 

‘‘Any other stationary source category, 

which as of August 7, 1980 is being 

regulated under section 111 or 112 of 

the Clean Air Act.’’ This would require 

a source belonging to a source category 

subject to federal New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) or 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants Standards 

(NESHAPs) standard to include fugitive 

emissions of all regulated pollutants, 

not just the pollutants regulated by the 

particular NSPS or NESHAP, in its 

calculation of major source status only 

if the relevant standard was 

promulgated as of August 7, 1980. 

West Virginia has stricken the 

definition of ‘‘volatile organic 

compound’’ (VOC) and inserted in its 

place the reference to the Federal 

definition of VOC. This change will 

make this aspect of 45 CSR 30 

consistent with the Federal rule. EPA 

has no objection to this revision. 

In addition, West Virginia included 

the following administrative 

corrections: (1) Revise Director to 

Secretary, Division to Department, 

Office to Division; (2) filing date from 

June 21, 2001 to April 21, 2003, the 

effective date from July 1, 2001 to June 

1, 2003; and the former rule dates for 

filing from April 27, 1994 to June 21, 

2001 and effective April 27, 1994 to July 

1, 2001. EPA has no objection to these 

revisions. 

What is not being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is not opening the entirety of 

West Virginia’s Title V operating permit 

program up to public comment, we are 

only addressing changes listed above. 

What changes to West Virginia’s 

operating permit program is EPA 

approving? 

West Virginia has revised 45 CSR 

30—Definitions (‘‘major source,’’

‘‘volatile organic compound,’’ and other 

administrative changes as mentioned 

above) of the State of West Virginia 

Regulations Governing the Control of 

Air Pollution to be consistent with the 

provision of 40 CFR part 70, which went 

into effect on November 27, 2001. 

Changes to West Virginia’s Operating 

Permit Program That Corrects a 

Deficiency 

EPA has reviewed West Virginia’s 

September 10, 2003 program 

amendment in conjunction with the 

portion of West Virginia’s program that 

was earlier approved. Based on this 

review, EPA is granting full approval of 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
8282 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

West Virginia’s amended operating 

permit program. EPA has determined 

that this amendment to West Virginia’s 

operating permit program adequately 

addresses any deficiency. West 

Virginia’s operating permit program, 

including this amendment submitted on 

September 10, 2003, fully meets the 

minimum requirements of 40 CFR part 

70. 

What action is being taken by EPA? 

The State of West Virginia has 

satisfactorily addressed a program 

deficiency when EPA made a change to 

the Federal rule. The operating permit 

program amendment that is the subject 

of this document considered together 

with that portion of West Virginia’s 

operating permit program that was 

earlier approved fully satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the 

Clean Air Act. Therefore, EPA is taking 

direct final action to fully approve the 

West Virginia Title V operating permit 

program in accordance with 40 CFR 

70.2 definitions of ‘‘a major source’’ and 

‘‘volatile organic compound.’’

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rule’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve this amendment to West 

Virginia’s operating permit program if 

adverse comments are filed relevant to 

the issues discussed in this action. This 

rule will be effective on April 27, 2007. 

If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, 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 action merely approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

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 approves pre-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 rule also does 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 between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it 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), because it merely 

approves 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 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 approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing State operating permit 

program submissions, EPA’s role is to 

approve State choices, 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 

(VCS), EPA has no authority to 

disapprove an operating permit program 

for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews an operating 

permit program submission, to use VCS 

in place of an operating permit program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 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. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this 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. EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney 

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the executive order. 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.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 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 rule 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 of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 27, 2007. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action fully 

approving West Virginia’s Title V 

operating permit program may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Operating 

permits, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 16, 2007. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR part 70 is amended as follows: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8283 

PART 70—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 70 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Appendix A to Part 70 is amended 

by adding paragraph (e) in the entry for 

West Virginia to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval 

Status of State and Local Operating 

Permits Programs 

* * * * * 

West Virginia 

* * * * * 

(e) The West Virginia Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control submitted program amendment 

on September 10, 2003. This rule 

amendment contained in the September 

10, 2003 submittal is necessary to make 

the current definitions of a ‘‘major 

source’’ and ‘‘volatile organic 

compound’’ consistent with the 

corresponding provisions of 40 CFR part 

70, which went into effect on November 

27, 2001. The State is hereby granted 

approval effective on April 27, 2007. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 07–847 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–8281–3] 

Idaho: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Idaho applied to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for final authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). On November 9, 2006, EPA 

published a proposed rule to authorize 

the changes and opened a public 

comment period under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R10–RCRA–2006–0830. The 

comment period closed on December 

11, 2006. EPA has decided that these 

revisions to the Idaho hazardous waste 

management program satisfy all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization and is authorizing 

these revisions to Idaho’s authorized 

hazardous waste management program 

in this final rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: Final 

authorization for the revisions to the 

hazardous waste program in Idaho shall 

be effective at 1 p.m. e.s.t on February 

26, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, Mail Stop AWT–122, U.S. EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98101, phone (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 and consistent with 

the Federal program. States are required 

to have enforcement authority which is 

adequate to enforce compliance with the 

requirements of the hazardous waste 

program. Under RCRA Section 3009, 

States are not allowed to impose any 

requirements which are less stringent 

than the Federal program. 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 EPA’s regulations 

in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 260 

through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

Idaho’s hazardous waste management 

program received final authorization 

effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, 

March 29, 1990). EPA also granted 

authorization for revisions to Idaho’s 

program effective on June 5, 1992 (57 FR 

11580, April 6, 1992), on August 10, 

1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), on 

June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 12, 

1995), on January 19, 1999 (63 FR 

56086, October 21, 1998), on July 1, 

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

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

2004), and on July 22, 2005 (70 FR 

42273, July 22, 2005). 

Today’s final rule addresses a 

program revision application that Idaho 

submitted to EPA in June 2006, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, seeking 

authorization of changes to the State 

program. On November 9, 2006, EPA 

published a proposed rule announcing 

its intent to grant Idaho final 

authorization for revisions to Idaho’s 

hazardous waste program and provided 

a period of time for the receipt of public 

comments. The proposed rule can be 

found at 71 FR 65765. 

B. What Were the Comments to EPA’s 

Proposed Rule? 

EPA received one comment letter, 

dated December 4, 2006, from Mr. 

Chuck Broscious on behalf of the 

Environmental Defense Institute, Keep 

Yellowstone Nuclear Free, and David B. 

McCoy, collectively, ‘‘the commenters.’’

The comment letter focused on the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality’s (DEQ) permitting and 

oversight of the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL) facility located near 

Idaho Falls, Idaho. In short, the 

commenters question whether 

continued authorization of the revised 

hazardous waste program in Idaho is 

appropriate given concerns the 

commenters previously raised with EPA 

and its Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) with respect to the permitting of 

the INL facility. Specifically, the 

commenters question whether Idaho’s 

program provides adequate enforcement 

of compliance with the requirements of 

Subchapter C of RCRA given the 

application of the program at the INL 

facility. 

The comment letter focuses on recent 

permitting activities conducted by DEQ 

at the INL facility. In a petition 

submitted to OIG on April 28, 2006, the 

commenters requested that OIG review 

DEQ’s permitting activities at the INL 

facility. Similar questions were raised in 

petitions submitted to EPA on August 8, 

2000, on September 13, 2001, and in 

follow-up letters and correspondence in 

2003, 2004, and 2006 related to the 2000 

and 2001 petitions. 

In the 2001 petition, the commenters 

sought EPA’s withdrawal of Idaho’s 

authorization to implement the 

hazardous waste program under RCRA 

after citing permitting concerns at the 

INL facility. EPA, in response to that 

petition, conducted an informal 

investigation and determined that 

sufficient evidence did not exist to 

initiate formal withdrawal proceedings. 

EPA’s determination was issued on 

March 20, 2002, with a follow-up 

response on June 20, 2002. The 

supporting documentation was 

provided to the commenters at that time 

and the documentation is currently 

available to the public under the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

In 2003, the OIG requested that 

Region 10 conduct a second 

investigation to answer a series of 

follow-up questions related to the 2001 

petition. EPA conducted this second 

investigation and issued its findings in 

2003. These investigation results were 

also provided to Mr. David McCoy, one 

of the current commenters, as part of an 

October 13, 2004 Freedom of 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES