Idaho: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision, 8283-8287 [E7-3207]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 37 (Monday, February 26, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8283-8287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3207]


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

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

[[Page 8284]]

Information Act response. On February 5, 2004, after conducting 
independent field work, OIG issued a final evaluation report which 
concluded, ``Region 10 generally relied on appropriate regulatory 
requirements and standards in reaching its conclusion that evidence did 
not exist to commence proceedings to withdraw the State of Idaho's 
authority to run its RCRA Hazardous Waste program.'' The evaluation 
report concluded that evidence did not exist to commence withdrawal 
proceedings. The OIG did identify areas of concern for further Regional 
and State follow-up. As detailed in the Evaluation Report, OIG and 
Region 10 agreed to specific follow-up actions. To document resolution 
of these action items, Region 10 submitted quarterly progress reports 
to the OIG Audit Liaison on January 13, 2004, April 16, 2004, July 15, 
2004, October 12, 2004, February 9, 2005, and April 8, 2005. These 
reports documented the steps taken by EPA and DEQ to meet the specific 
actions recommended by OIG. Hard copies of all the quarterly reports 
were made available to the public as part of EPA's last authorization 
action effective July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273). In response to a request 
by Mr. Chuck Broscious, one of the current commenters, EPA made a 
hardcopy version of the 2005 authorization docket available at the 
University of Idaho Library in Moscow, Idaho. As EPA stated in the 2005 
authorization action (70 FR 42273), EPA considers its response to the 
September 13, 2001 withdrawal petition and recommendations in the 
February 5, 2004 OIG Evaluation Report complete.
    In the current December 4, 2006 comment letter, the commenters 
contend that permitting the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit using a 
Class 3 permit modification to the existing Volume 14 INL permit 
results in inappropriate and abbreviated public participation. EPA 
addressed the issue of Class 3 permit modifications in the March 20, 
2002 petition response. Page 26 of that EPA response states that:

    * * *[I]t should be noted that the Class 3 permit modification 
public participation requirements are as stringent as those under 
initial permit submissions. Under the authorized program in Idaho at 
IDAPA 16.01.05.012; 40 CFR Part 270.42(c), Class 3 permit 
modifications fully incorporate public participation through both 
pre-submission and draft issuance public comment periods. Including 
the High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator as a Class 3 permit 
modification to the permit is a reasonable means of addressing 
complex, interrelated units in accordance with legally allowable 
partial permitting under IDAPA 16.01.05.012; 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4), and 
ensuring public participation.

    The commenters also contend that DEQ's regulation of radiological 
wastes, and enforcement of those requirements, are not adequate. With 
respect to radiological issues, EPA addressed this same comment in the 
2004 revision to Idaho's authorized program (69 FR 11322), concerning 
closure of the INL Tank Farm Facility. EPA stated, ``[t]he commenters 
failed to distinguish the RCRA `mixed waste' authority and its 
application to the tanks from those radioactive solid waste issues 
which may be the subject of the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] or the 
AEA [Atomic Energy Act].'' Under the authorized hazardous waste 
program, DEQ has authority to regulate the hazardous components of 
mixed waste; however, regulation of the radiological component is 
outside the scope of the RCRA program and not within the scope of the 
program EPA has authority to authorize. This same point was made in the 
2005 revision to Idaho's authorized program (70 FR 42273). EPA stated, 
``* * * EPA observes that defense activities related to nuclear 
production and propulsion programs will generally not meet the 
definition of solid waste under the RCRA regulations and may be 
regulated by other federal authorities.''
    In publishing the Radioactive Mixed Waste Rule, EPA recognized that 
wastes containing both hazardous waste and radioactive waste are 
subject to regulation under RCRA. (See 51 FR 24505, July 3, 1986.) EPA 
considers radioactive mixed waste to be a solid waste under the Federal 
RCRA program and requires states to demonstrate regulation of the 
hazardous components of radioactive mixed wastes. However, Section 1006 
of RCRA precludes EPA or a State from regulating the radioactive 
components where such regulation would be inconsistent with the Atomic 
Energy Act, as amended (AEA). Specifically, RCRA excludes from the 
definition of solid waste of ``source, special nuclear, or byproduct 
material'' as defined by the AEA. Consequently, ``source, special 
nuclear and byproduct material'' is exempt from the definition of 
hazardous waste and therefore from Subtitle C of RCRA. Idaho's 
authorized hazardous waste program is constrained by the limitations of 
RCRA statutory authority and by EPA's findings and interpretations. EPA 
cannot find Idaho's program to be inadequate when that authorized 
hazardous waste program is addressing mixed waste to the extent 
permitted by the RCRA program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Additional information regarding radioactive mixed waste is 
located on EPA's webpage at https://www.epa.gov/radiation/mixed 
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters also reference an April 28, 2006 petition to the EPA 
Office of Inspector General citing concerns with the INL Advanced Test 
Reactor. Most of the concerns pertain to radiological issues outside 
the scope of the authorized RCRA program as described above. However, 
in addition to the radiological concerns, the commenters argue that 
this facility is in violation of RCRA Subtitle C because it disposes of 
hazardous waste, specifically beryllium reflector blocks from the 
Advanced Test Reactor, without a permit. Since beryllium powder is 
listed as a P-waste under 40 CFR 261.33, the commenters argue that both 
EPA and IDEQ have neglected their enforcement responsibility under RCRA 
Subtitle C. As described on page III-20 of the 2006 RCRA Orientation 
Manual (https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/), P and U listed 
hazardous waste determinations apply specifically to the disposal, 
spillage, or container residue of unused, 100% pure or technical grade 
chemical commercial products. Under 40 CFR 261.33, EPA and authorized 
states have the authority to regulate the disposal of unused chemical 
products such as beryllium powder; however, this provision does not 
provide unlimited authority to regulate all beryllium-containing wastes 
or discarded products, unless they are defined as a hazardous waste 
under a different section of 40 CFR Part 261. Inspections of the 
Advanced Test Reactor, as documented by inspection reports submitted to 
the Office of Inspector General Liaison on July 15, 2004 and February 
9, 2005, found no treatment, storage, or disposal activities that would 
require a RCRA permit. At the time of the inspections, all identified 
hazardous wastes were being handled within the regulatory criteria for 
large quantity generators. Copies of these inspection reports were made 
available as part of the docket for the 2005 authorization action and 
are currently available to the public under the Freedom of Information 
Act.
    Lastly, the commenters cite concerns over the ``applicable or 
relevant and appropriate requirements'' (ARARs) for the INL CERCLA 
Disposal Facility under EPA's Superfund Program (CERCLA). Unlike it 
does in the RCRA hazardous waste program, EPA does not authorize states 
to act in lieu of EPA under CERCLA authority. Therefore, the question 
of whether a particular requirement is an ``applicable or relevant and 
appropriate requirement'' is a question for EPA's CERCLA program and is 
outside the scope of EPA's evaluation of the authorized

[[Page 8285]]

hazardous waste program in Idaho. For the above reasons, EPA has 
determined that the comments included in the current comment letter do 
not provide a basis to deny Idaho's application for program revision.

C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    EPA has made a final determination that Idaho's revisions to the 
Idaho authorized hazardous waste program meet all of the statutory and 
regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization. 
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revisions to the Idaho hazardous 
waste program and authorizing the State of Idaho to operate its 
hazardous waste program as described in the revision authorization 
application. Idaho's authorized program will be responsible for 
carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised 
program application, subject to the limitations of RCRA, including 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 are 
implemented by EPA and take effect in States with authorized programs 
before such programs are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA 
will implement those HSWA requirements and prohibitions in Idaho, 
including issuing permits or portions of permits, until the State is 
authorized to do so.

D. What Will Be the Effect of This Action?

    The effect of today's action is that a facility in Idaho subject to 
RCRA must comply with the authorized State program requirements and 
with any applicable Federally-issued requirement, such as, for example, 
the federal HSWA provisions for which the State is not authorized, and 
RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued 
requirements, in order to comply with RCRA. Idaho has enforcement 
responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations 
of its currently authorized program and will have enforcement 
responsibilities for the revisions which are the subject of this final 
rule. EPA continues to have independent enforcement authority under 
RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, 
authority to:

--Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
--Enforce RCRA requirements, including State program requirements that 
are authorized by EPA and any applicable Federally-issued statutes and 
regulations; suspend, modify or revoke permits; and
--Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken 
its own actions. This final action approving these revisions will not 
impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the 
regulations for which Idaho's program is being authorized are already 
effective under State law.

E. What Rules Are We Authorizing With This Action?

    In June 2006, Idaho submitted a complete program revision 
application, seeking authorization for all delegable federal hazardous 
waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2005, as incorporated by 
reference in IDAPA 58.01.05(002)-(016).

F. Who Handles Permits After This Authorization Takes Effect?

    Idaho will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is 
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. All permits or 
portions of permits issued by EPA prior to final authorization of this 
revision will continue to be administered by EPA until the effective 
date of the issuance, re-issuance after modification, or denial of a 
State RCRA permit or until the permit otherwise expires or is revoked, 
and until EPA takes action on its permit or portion of permit. HSWA 
provisions for which the State is not authorized will continue in 
effect under the EPA-issued permit or portion of permit. EPA will 
continue to issue permits or portions of permits for HSWA requirements 
for which Idaho is not yet authorized.

G. 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. EPA does this by 
referencing the authorized State's authorized rules in 40 CFR Part 272. 
EPA is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, Subpart F for 
codification of Idaho's program at a later date.

H. How Does This Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 
Idaho?

    EPA's decision to authorize the Idaho hazardous waste 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. This 
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 
retains jurisdiction over ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 
1151.

I. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 final 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

    The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to 
minimize the reporting and record-keeping burden on the regulated 
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information 
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that 
information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or 
more non-Federal respondents be approved by OPM. Since this final rule 
does not establish or modify any information or record-keeping 
requirements for the regulated community, it is not subject to the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

[[Page 8286]]

(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, as codified in the Small Business Size 
Regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 ; (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 impact on 
small entities because the final rule will only have the effect of 
authorizing pre-existing requirements under 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 
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 final 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.
    This 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, the requirements of Section 203 of the 
UMRA do not apply to this rule.

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 addresses the 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'' (65 FR 67249, 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.

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''), 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 the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable

[[Page 8287]]

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 addresses authorizing pre-existing 
State rules and there are no anticipated significant adverse human 
health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive 
Order 12898.

11. Congressional Review Act

    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. 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). This rule will be effective on the date the rule is published 
in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

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

    Authority: This 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: February 12, 2007.
Julie Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. .
 [FR Doc. E7-3207 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P