Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 56775 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 5100.1 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

under the Instruction that this action is 

not likely to have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis check list 

supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.776 to read as follows: 

§ 165.776 Security Zone; Coast Guard 

Base San Juan, San Juan Harbor, Puerto 

Rico. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All waters from surface to 

bottom, encompassed by an imaginary 

line connecting the following points, 

beginning at 18°27′39′′ N, 066°06′56′′ W; 

then east to Point 2 at 18°27′39′′ N, 

066°06′52′′ W; then South to Point 3 at 

18°27′35′′ N, 066°06′52′′ W; then 

Southwest to Point 4 at 18°27′30′′ N, 

066°06′59′′ W; then northeast to Point 5 

at 18°27′35′′ N, 066°07′07′′ W; then 

north to Point 6 at 18°27′46′′ N, 

066°07′10′′ W; then back to shore at the 

northwest end of the CG facility at Point 

7 at 18°27′46′′ N, 066°07′07′′ W. These 

coordinates are based upon North 

American Datum 1983. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Vessel means every description of 

watercraft or other artificial contrivance 

used, or capable of being used, as a 

means of transportation on water, 

except U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. naval 

vessels. 

(c) Regulations. (1) No person or 

vessel may enter into the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port San Juan. 

(2) Vessels seeking to enter the 

security zone established in this section 

may contact the COTP on VHF channel 

16 or by telephone at (787) 289–2041 to 

request permission. 

Dated: September 9, 2008. 

E. Pino, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain 

of the Port San Juan. 

[FR Doc. E8–22890 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2008–0588; FRL–8722–5] 

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 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
56776 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Act, as amended (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 by October 30, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2008–0588, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Kocourek.Nina@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Nina Kocourek, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics 

(AWT–122), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2008– 

0588. 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 http:// 

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

http://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 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 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 or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & 

Toxics, Mailstop AWT–122, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 

98101, contact: Nina Kocourek, phone 

number: (206) 553–6502; or the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

1410 N. Hilton, Boise, Idaho, contact: 

John Brueck, phone number: (208) 373– 

0458. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT–122), 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101, phone number: 

(206) 553–6502, e-mail: 

kocourek.nina@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 less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

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 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? 

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, and which are 

not less stringent than existing 

requirements, take effect 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 Federal 

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 this program, but EPA 

retains its authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 

which includes, among others, the 

authority to: 

• Conduct inspections; require 

monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements; 

suspend, terminate, modify 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. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 56777 

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 Idaho’s 

authorized 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); March 10, 2004, 

effective March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322); 

July 22, 2005, effective July 22, 2005 (70 

FR 42273); and February 26, 2007, 

effective February 26, 2007 (72 FR 

8283). 

F. What Changes Are We Proposing? 

On June 24, 2008, Idaho submitted a 

program revision application seeking 

authorization for all delegable Federal 

hazardous waste regulations codified as 

of July 1, 2007, incorporated by 

reference in IDAPA 58.01.05.(002)–(016) 

and (018). 

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 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 terms, 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 

Proposed 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 codification 

actions dated December 6, 1990 (55 FR 

50327); June 11, 1992 (57 FR 24757); 

June 25, 1999 (64 FR 34180); March 8, 

2005 (70 FR 11132); and April 20, 2006 

(71 FR 20341), EPA codified at 40 CFR 

Part 272, Subpart N previous 

authorization actions for the State of 

Idaho program. EPA is reserving the 

amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, Subpart 

N for codification to 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 on these lands. 

J. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule seeks to revise the 

State of Idaho’s authorized hazardous 

waste program pursuant to section 3006 

of RCRA and imposes no requirements 

other than those currently imposed by 

State law. This proposed rule complies 

with applicable executive orders and 

statutory provisions as follows: 

1. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Executive 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. EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed 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 rule does not 

establish or modify any information or 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

regulated community and only seeks to 

authorize the pre-existing 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 EPA’s regulations in Title 

40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 

9. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

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 proposed rule 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, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
56778 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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. EPA has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities because the proposed rule 

will only have the effect of authorizing 

pre-existing requirements under State 

law and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

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. 

EPA continues to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcomes 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

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 one 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 

Administrator publishes with the rule 

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. Today’s 

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. It 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, today’s 

proposed rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 203 of 

the UMRA. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable 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’’ is 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 rule proposes to 

authorize pre-existing State rules. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

6. 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 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 because EPA 

retains its authority over Indian 

Country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this proposed rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 F.R. 

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 EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it approves a state 

program. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed 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 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 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 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 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 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 56779 

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. EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations. This proposed 

rule does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment because this rule 

proposes to authorize pre-existing State 

rules which are equivalent to, and no 

less stringent than existing federal 

requirements. 

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: September 18, 2008. 

Elin D. Miller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. E8–22800 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–1009] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1 percent annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

proposed BFE modifications for the 

communities listed in the table below. 

The purpose of this notice is to seek 

general information and comment 

regarding the proposed regulatory flood 

elevations for the reach described by the 

downstream and upstream locations in 

the table below. The BFEs and modified 

BFEs are a part of the floodplain 

management measures that the 

community is required either to adopt 

or show evidence of having in effect in 

order to qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before December 29, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1009, to 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3151, or (e-mail) 

bill.blanton@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3151 or (e-mail) 

bill.blanton@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own, or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and are also 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in these 

buildings. 

Comments on any aspect of the Flood 

Insurance Study and FIRM, other than 

the proposed BFEs, will be considered. 

A letter acknowledging receipt of any 

comments will not be sent. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Statement. This matter is not a 

rulemaking governed by the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood 

elevation determinations for notice and 

comment; however, they are governed 

by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 

1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and do not fall under the 

APA. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This proposed 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This proposed rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 67—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 67 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

§ 67.4 [Amended] 

2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be 

amended as follows: 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS