Document ID: EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0298-0027
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions: Idaho
Posted Date: 2019-07-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32628-32632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14019]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0298; FRL-9995-77-Region 10]

Idaho: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program 
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final authorization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Idaho applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. 
The EPA reviewed Idaho's application and has determined that these 
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final 
authorization. The EPA published a proposed rule on September 5, 2018, 
prior to taking this final action to authorize these changes. The EPA 
received five comments, one of which was supportive of this 
authorization action and four of which were not applicable to this 
authorization action.

DATES: This final authorization is effective August 8, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Mail Stop 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 
98101, email: mccullough.barbara@epa.gov or phone number (206) 553-
2416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States that have received final authorization from the EPA under 
RCRA Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous 
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less 
stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, 
states must change their

[[Page 32629]]

programs and ask the EPA to authorize their changes. Changes to state 
programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory 
authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most 
commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to the 
EPA's regulations codified in title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
    Idaho State's hazardous waste management program was initially 
approved on March 26, 1990 and became effective on April 9, 1990. As 
explained in Section E in this document, it has been revised and 
reauthorized numerous times since then. On March 18, 2018, Idaho 
submitted a program revision application to the EPA requesting 
authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous waste regulations 
codified as of July 1, 2016, incorporated by reference in IDAPA 
58.01.05.000 et seq., which were adopted and effective in the State of 
Idaho on March 29, 2017. This authorization revision request includes 
the following federal rules for which Idaho is being authorized for the 
first time: Conditional Exclusions from Solid and Hazardous Waste for 
Solvent Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448, July 31, 2013) ; Conditional 
Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide Streams in Geologic Sequestration 
Activities (79 FR 350, January 3, 2014); Modification of the Hazardous 
Waste Manifest System- Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 
2014); Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste- CFR Correction 
(79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014); Revisions to the Export Provisions of 
Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June 26, 2014); Definition of Solid 
Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015); Response to Vacaturs of the 
Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule (80 FR 18777, April 8, 
2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities 
(80 FR 21302, April 17, 2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals 
from Electric Utilities- Correction of the Effective Date (80 FR 37988, 
July 2, 2015); and Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between 
OECD Member Countries--Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries 
(80 FR 37992, July 2, 2015).
    The EPA is authorizing Idaho's revised hazardous waste program in 
its entirety through July 1, 2016, as described above.

B. What decisions has the EPA made in this rule?

    The EPA has reviewed Idaho's application to revise its authorized 
program and has determined that it meets the statutory and regulatory 
requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, the EPA is granting Idaho 
final authorization to operate its hazardous waste management program 
with the changes described in the authorization application. Idaho will 
continue to have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and 
Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian 
country (18 U.S.C. 1151)) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 
program described in its revised program application, subject to the 
limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal 
regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and 
which are not less stringent than existing requirements, take effect in 
authorized States before the States are authorized for the 
requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and 
prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits, until Idaho is 
granted authorization to do so.

C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    A person in Idaho subject to RCRA must comply with the authorized 
State requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements. 
Additionally, such persons will have to comply with any applicable 
Federal requirements, such as HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for 
which the State has not received authorization and RCRA requirements 
that are not supplanted by authorized State requirements. Idaho 
continues to have enforcement authorities and responsibilities under 
its State hazardous waste management program for violations of its 
program. However, the EPA retains authority under RCRA sections 3007, 
3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, the authority to:
     Conduct inspections, which may include but is not limited 
to requiring monitoring, tests, analyses, and/or reports;
     Abate conditions that may present an imminent and 
substantial endangerment to human health and the environment;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, which may include but is not 
limited to suspending, terminating, modifying, and/or revoking permits; 
and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Idaho has 
taken its own actions.
    The action to approve these revisions will not impose additional 
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for 
which Idaho is requesting authorization are already effective under 
State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.

D. What were the comments received on this authorization action?

    The EPA published a proposed rule under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-2018-
0298 on September 5, 2018 (83 FR 45068), prior to taking this final 
action to authorize these changes. The EPA received five comments 
during the public comment period of this action. All of the comments 
received are included in the docket for this action. One of the 
comments received was supportive of Idaho updating its hazardous waste 
program to continue its alignment with the federal hazardous waste 
program. The remaining four comments covered a variety of topics, 
including: A comparison between American regulations and Chinese 
regulations; hydroelectric powerplants; waste altering marine life in 
the ocean; and alleged violations of RCRA at the Department of Energy's 
Idaho National Laboratory. We do not consider these comments to be 
germane or relevant to this action and therefore not adverse to this 
action. The comments lack the required specificity to the proposed 
hazardous waste program regulatory revision and the relevant 
requirements of RCRA. Moreover, none of these four comments addressed a 
specific regulation or provision in question or recommended a different 
action on this authorization revision from what EPA proposed.

E. What has Idaho previously been authorized for?

    Idaho initially received final authorization for its hazardous 
waste management program effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 
26, 1990). Subsequently, the EPA authorized revisions to the State's 
program effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10, 
1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 
12, 1995), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1, 
2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March 
10, 2004), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005), February 26, 
2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647, 
December 23, 2008), July 11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012) and 
September 21, 2015 (80 FR 20726, August 20, 2015).

F. What changes is the EPA authorizing with this action?

    The EPA is authorizing revisions to Idaho's authorized program 
described in

[[Page 32630]]

Idaho's official program revision application, submitted to the EPA on 
March 29, 2018, and deemed complete by the EPA on April 4, 2018. The 
EPA has determined that Idaho's hazardous waste management program 
revisions as described in the March 29, 2018 State's authorization 
revision application satisfy the requirements necessary to quality for 
final authorization. Regulatory revisions that are less stringent than 
the Federal program requirements are not authorized. Idaho's authorized 
hazardous waste management program, as amended by these provisions, 
remains equivalent to, consistent with, and is no less stringent than 
the Federal RCRA program. Therefore, the EPA is authorizing the State 
for the following program changes: Conditional Exclusions from Solid 
and Hazardous Waste for Solvent Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448, July 
31, 2013) ; Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide Streams in 
Geologic Sequestration Activities (79 FR 350, January 3, 2014); 
Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System--Electronic 
Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014); Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste--CFR Correction (79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014); Revisions 
to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June 
26, 2014); Definition of Solid Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015); 
Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification 
Rule (80 FR 18777, April 8, 2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion 
Residuals from Electric Utilities (80 FR 21302, April 17, 2015); 
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities--
Correction of the Effective Date (80 FR 37988, July 2, 2015); and 
Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD Member 
Countries--Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries (80 FR 37992, 
July 2, 2015).

G. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA may not authorize State rules that 
are less stringent than the Federal program. Any State rules that are 
less stringent do not supplant the Federal regulations. State rules 
that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are 
allowed but are not authorized. State rules that are equivalent to, and 
State rules that are more stringent than the Federal program may be 
authorized, in which case those provisions are enforceable by the EPA.
    This section discusses certain rules in this action where the EPA 
has made the finding that Idaho's program is more stringent, and also 
discusses certain portions of the Federal program that are not 
delegable to the State because of the Federal government's special role 
in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise 
with certain decisions.
    Idaho is currently more stringent than the Federal program in its 
adoption of 40 CFR 260.43 (2015) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) (2015) at 
IDAPA 58.01.05.004 and 58.01.05.005. Both of these regulations include 
provisions from the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) Rule that has 
been vacated and replaced with the less stringent requirements found at 
40 CFR 260.43 (2018) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) (2018), which 
were reinstated from the 2008 DSW Rule. Idaho will be revising its 
regulations to include this update as required by the vacatur to be 
equivalent to the Federal program.
    The EPA cannot delegate certain Federal requirements associated 
with the following rules: Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest 
System--Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014), Revisions 
to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June 
26, 2014), and Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD 
Member Countries--Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries (80 FR 
37992, July 2, 2015). Idaho has adopted these requirements and 
appropriately preserved EPA's authority to implement them.

H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for 
which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. If 
the EPA issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions, 
these permits would continue in force until the effective date of the 
State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which 
time the EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an 
earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the 
existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those 
facilities located in Indian country. The EPA will not issue new 
permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is 
authorized. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for 
HSWA requirements for which Idaho is not authorized.

I. How does this action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 
Idaho?

    The EPA's decision to authorize the Idaho hazardous waste 
management program does not include any land that is, or becomes after 
the date of this authorization, ``Indian Country,'' as defined in 18 
U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:
    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations 
within or abutting the State of Idaho;
    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
    3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that 
qualifies as Indian country.
    Therefore, this program revision does not extend to Indian country 
where the EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA 
program.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revises the State of Idaho's authorized hazardous 
waste management program pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes 
no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This 
rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions 
as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
Federal agencies must determine whether the regulatory action is 
``significant'', and therefore subject to OMB review and the 
requirements of the E.O.. The E.O. defines ``significant regulatory 
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely 
affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary 
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the 
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal 
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.. The EPA has 
determined that this final authorization is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is therefore not 
subject to OMB review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
because this final authorization does not establish or modify any 
information or recordkeeping requirements for the

[[Page 32631]]

regulated community and only seeks to finalize authorization for 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 the 
EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires Federal agencies 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes 
of assessing the impacts of this authorization on small entities, small 
entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small 
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 
town, school district, or special district with a population of less 
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. I certify that this final authorization will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because the final authorization will only have the effect of 
authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

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, the 
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 the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the rule an explanation why the alternative was not 
adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that 
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This 
final authorization contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. It proposes to impose no new 
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the 
private sector. Similarly, the EPA has also determined that this final 
authorization contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, this 
final authorization is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 
and 203 of the UMRA.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final authorization does not have federalism implications. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of 
government, as specified in E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 
This document authorizes pre-existing State rules. Thus, E.O. 13132 
does not apply to this final authorization. In the spirit of E.O. 
13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications 
between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically 
solicited comment on this authorization 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 the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This final 
authorization does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O. 
13175 because the EPA retains its authority over Indian Country. Thus, 
E.O. 13175 does not apply to this final authorization.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of 
the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is 
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it approves a state program.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final authorization is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it 
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under E.O. 12866, 
as discussed in detail above.

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d)) (15 U.S.C. 272), 
directs the

[[Page 32632]]

EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities 
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Federal agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
authorization does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the 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 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this 
final authorization will not have disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 
populations. This final authorization does not affect the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment because this 
document authorizes pre-existing State rules which are equivalent to 
and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements.

11. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides 
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule 
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each 
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect 
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, 
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority

    This final action is issued under the authority of sections 1006, 
2002(a), 3006, and 3024 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 
U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g.

    Dated: June 13, 2019.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-14019 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P