Idaho: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision, 56775-56779 [E8-22800]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56775
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Idaho has applied to EPA for
final authorization of certain changes to
its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
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:
• https://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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 https://
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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).
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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);
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56777
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,
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
56778
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56779
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:
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56775-56779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22800]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 56776]]
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:
https://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
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The https://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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
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 https://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.
[[Page 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,
[[Page 56778]]
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 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 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 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
[[Page 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
