Document ID: EPA-R10-RCRA-2006-0830-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Federal Register, Proposed Rule, 71 FR 65765, Dated November 9, 2006
Posted Date: 2006-11-09T05:00Z

[Federal Register: November 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 217)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 65765-65768]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09no06-22]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-8237-8]

 
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 Act (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 December 11, 
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2006-0830 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
     Mail: Jeff Hunt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT-122) 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-
2006-0830. 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, 1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, Washington, contact: Jeff 
Hunt, phone number: (206) 553-0256; or Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, Boise, Idaho, contact: John 
Brueck, phone number: (208) 373-0458.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT-122), 
1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (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, 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 in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in This 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 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 include, among 
others, the authority to:
     Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses, 
or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend or revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State 
has taken its own actions.

[[Page 65766]]

    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.

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); and July 22, 2005, effective July 22, 2005 (70 FR 
42273).

F. What Changes Are We Proposing?

    On June 16, 2006, Idaho submitted a program revision application 
seeking authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous waste 
regulations codified as of July 1, 2005, incorporated by reference in 
IDAPA 58.01.05.(002)-(016). With the exception of the non-delegable 
provisions described below, we have preliminarily determined that 
Idaho's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the 
requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization.
    In reviewing the authorization package, EPA discovered that Idaho 
inadvertently incorporated by reference sections of the Federal rule 
``Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous 
Waste Manifest System; Final Rule'' (March 4, 2005, 70 FR 10776) 
related to the national registry for printing and distribution of 
hazardous waste manifest forms as described in 40 CFR 262.21 and 
associated references in 40 CFR 262.54(e), 262.60, 264.71(a)(3), and 
265.71(a)(3). In an Addendum to the Revised Attorney General's 
Statement dated September 29, 2006, Idaho clarified that it is not 
seeking authorization for these non-delegable provisions and intends to 
amend its regulations to remove these provisions. EPA will retain 
direct authority for implementation of all non-delegable provisions, 
and Idaho has agreed to refer all applicants seeking approval of 
manifest forms to the EPA Office of Solid Waste as described in the 
rule.

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 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 all previous authorization actions for the State of 
Idaho program. EPA is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, 
Subpart N for codification of this current revision to Idaho's program 
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 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 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. It has been 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 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

[[Page 65767]]

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 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

3. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., 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 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, 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. 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 rule, I 
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

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 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 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 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 rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small government entities. Thus, today's 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 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 seeks authorization of pre-existing 
State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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 rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive 
Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children.

[[Page 65768]]

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

    This 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''), Pub. L. 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, 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 rule does not 
involve ``technical standards'' as defined by the NTTAA. 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

    To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and 
consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National 
Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States and its territories and possessions, the District of 
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the 
Mariana Islands. Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-
existing State rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law and there are no anticipated significant 
adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous 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: October 18, 2006.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. E6-18486 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P