Idaho: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions, 32628-32632 [2019-14019]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32628
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
VIII. Other Considerations
Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An analytical method is not required
for enforcement purposes since the
Agency is establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance
without any numerical limitation.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
IX. Conclusion
Accordingly, EPA finds that
exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid,
methyl ester, polymer with ethene and
2,5-furandione from the requirement of
a tolerance will be safe.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes a tolerance
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require
any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers,
food processors, food handlers, and food
retailers, not States or tribes, nor does
this action alter the relationships or
distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress
in the preemption provisions of FFDCA
section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency
has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States
or tribal governments, on the
relationship between the national
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this action. In addition, this action
does not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
XI. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 27, 2019.
Donna Davis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.960, add alphabetically the
polymer ‘‘2-Propenoic acid, methyl
ester, polymer with ethene and 2,5furandione, minimum number average
molecular weight (in amu), 10,500’’ to
the table to read as follows:
■
§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.
*
PO 00000
*
Frm 00022
*
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
Polymer
CAS No.
*
*
*
2-Propenoic acid, methyl
ester, polymer with ethene
and 2,5-furandione, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu),
10,500 ...............................
*
*
*
*
*
88450–35–5
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–14521 Filed 7–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R10–RCRA–2018–0298; FRL–9995–
77–Region 10]
Idaho: Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final authorization.
AGENCY:
Idaho applied to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for final authorization of certain changes
to its hazardous waste program under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The
EPA reviewed Idaho’s application and
has determined that these changes
satisfy all requirements needed to
qualify for final authorization. The EPA
published a proposed rule on September
5, 2018, prior to taking this final action
to authorize these changes. The EPA
received five comments, one of which
was supportive of this authorization
action and four of which were not
applicable to this authorization action.
DATES: This final authorization is
effective August 8, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Mail
Stop 15–H04, Seattle, Washington
98101, email: mccullough.barbara@
epa.gov or phone number (206) 553–
2416.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
A. Why are revisions to state programs
necessary?
States that have received final
authorization from the EPA under RCRA
Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must
maintain a hazardous waste program
that is equivalent to, consistent with,
and no less stringent than the Federal
program. As the Federal program
changes, states must change their
E:\FR\FM\09JYR1.SGM
09JYR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
programs and ask the EPA to authorize
their changes. Changes to state programs
may be necessary when federal or state
statutory or regulatory authority is
modified or when certain other changes
occur. Most commonly, states must
change their programs because of
changes to the EPA’s regulations
codified in title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
Idaho State’s hazardous waste
management program was initially
approved on March 26, 1990 and
became effective on April 9, 1990. As
explained in Section E in this
document, it has been revised and
reauthorized numerous times since
then. On March 18, 2018, Idaho
submitted a program revision
application to the EPA requesting
authorization for all delegable Federal
hazardous waste regulations codified as
of July 1, 2016, incorporated by
reference in IDAPA 58.01.05.000 et seq.,
which were adopted and effective in the
State of Idaho on March 29, 2017. This
authorization revision request includes
the following federal rules for which
Idaho is being authorized for the first
time: Conditional Exclusions from Solid
and Hazardous Waste for Solvent
Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448, July
31, 2013) ; Conditional Exclusion for
Carbon Dioxide Streams in Geologic
Sequestration Activities (79 FR 350,
January 3, 2014); Modification of the
Hazardous Waste Manifest SystemElectronic Manifests (79 FR 7518,
February 7, 2014); Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste- CFR
Correction (79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014);
Revisions to the Export Provisions of
Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220,
June 26, 2014); Definition of Solid
Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015);
Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable
Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule (80
FR 18777, April 8, 2015); Disposal of
Coal Combustion Residuals from
Electric Utilities (80 FR 21302, April 17,
2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals from Electric UtilitiesCorrection of the Effective Date (80 FR
37988, July 2, 2015); and Transboundary
Shipments of Hazardous Wastes
Between OECD Member Countries—
Revisions to the List of OECD Member
Countries (80 FR 37992, July 2, 2015).
The EPA is authorizing Idaho’s
revised hazardous waste program in its
entirety through July 1, 2016, as
described above.
B. What decisions has the EPA made in
this rule?
The EPA has reviewed Idaho’s
application to revise its authorized
program and has determined that it
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
meets the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA.
Therefore, the EPA is granting Idaho
final authorization to operate its
hazardous waste management program
with the changes described in the
authorization application. Idaho will
continue to have responsibility for
permitting Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its
borders (except in Indian country (18
U.S.C. 1151)) and for carrying out the
aspects of the RCRA program described
in its revised program application,
subject to the limitations of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New
Federal requirements and prohibitions
imposed by Federal regulations that the
EPA promulgates under the authority of
HSWA, and which are not less stringent
than existing requirements, take effect
in authorized States before the States are
authorized for the requirements. Thus,
the EPA will implement those
requirements and prohibitions in Idaho,
including issuing permits, until Idaho is
granted authorization to do so.
C. What is the effect of this
authorization decision?
A person in Idaho subject to RCRA
must comply with the authorized State
requirements in lieu of the
corresponding Federal requirements.
Additionally, such persons will have to
comply with any applicable Federal
requirements, such as HSWA
regulations issued by the EPA for which
the State has not received authorization
and RCRA requirements that are not
supplanted by authorized State
requirements. Idaho continues to have
enforcement authorities and
responsibilities under its State
hazardous waste management program
for violations of its program. However,
the EPA retains authority under RCRA
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
which includes, among others, the
authority to:
• Conduct inspections, which may
include but is not limited to requiring
monitoring, tests, analyses, and/or
reports;
• Abate conditions that may present
an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health and the
environment;
• Enforce RCRA requirements, which
may include but is not limited to
suspending, terminating, modifying,
and/or revoking permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless
of whether Idaho has taken its own
actions.
The action to approve these revisions
will not impose additional requirements
on the regulated community because the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32629
regulations for which Idaho is
requesting authorization are already
effective under State law and are not
changed by the act of authorization.
D. What were the comments received
on this authorization action?
The EPA published a proposed rule
under Docket ID No. EPA–R10–2018–
0298 on September 5, 2018 (83 FR
45068), prior to taking this final action
to authorize these changes. The EPA
received five comments during the
public comment period of this action.
All of the comments received are
included in the docket for this action.
One of the comments received was
supportive of Idaho updating its
hazardous waste program to continue its
alignment with the federal hazardous
waste program. The remaining four
comments covered a variety of topics,
including: A comparison between
American regulations and Chinese
regulations; hydroelectric powerplants;
waste altering marine life in the ocean;
and alleged violations of RCRA at the
Department of Energy’s Idaho National
Laboratory. We do not consider these
comments to be germane or relevant to
this action and therefore not adverse to
this action. The comments lack the
required specificity to the proposed
hazardous waste program regulatory
revision and the relevant requirements
of RCRA. Moreover, none of these four
comments addressed a specific
regulation or provision in question or
recommended a different action on this
authorization revision from what EPA
proposed.
E. What has Idaho previously been
authorized for?
Idaho initially received final
authorization for its hazardous waste
management program effective April 9,
1990 (55 FR 11015, March 26, 1990).
Subsequently, the EPA authorized
revisions to the State’s program effective
June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6,
1992), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757,
June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR
18549, April 12, 1995), January 19, 1999
(63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1,
2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March
10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March 10, 2004),
July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22,
2005), February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8283,
February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008
(73 FR 78647, December 23, 2008), July
11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012)
and September 21, 2015 (80 FR 20726,
August 20, 2015).
F. What changes is the EPA authorizing
with this action?
The EPA is authorizing revisions to
Idaho’s authorized program described in
E:\FR\FM\09JYR1.SGM
09JYR1
32630
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Idaho’s official program revision
application, submitted to the EPA on
March 29, 2018, and deemed complete
by the EPA on April 4, 2018. The EPA
has determined that Idaho’s hazardous
waste management program revisions as
described in the March 29, 2018 State’s
authorization revision application
satisfy the requirements necessary to
quality for final authorization.
Regulatory revisions that are less
stringent than the Federal program
requirements are not authorized. Idaho’s
authorized hazardous waste
management program, as amended by
these provisions, remains equivalent to,
consistent with, and is no less stringent
than the Federal RCRA program.
Therefore, the EPA is authorizing the
State for the following program changes:
Conditional Exclusions from Solid and
Hazardous Waste for Solvent
Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448, July
31, 2013) ; Conditional Exclusion for
Carbon Dioxide Streams in Geologic
Sequestration Activities (79 FR 350,
January 3, 2014); Modification of the
Hazardous Waste Manifest System—
Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518,
February 7, 2014); Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste—CFR
Correction (79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014);
Revisions to the Export Provisions of
Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220,
June 26, 2014); Definition of Solid
Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015);
Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable
Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule (80
FR 18777, April 8, 2015); Disposal of
Coal Combustion Residuals from
Electric Utilities (80 FR 21302, April 17,
2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals from Electric Utilities—
Correction of the Effective Date (80 FR
37988, July 2, 2015); and Transboundary
Shipments of Hazardous Wastes
Between OECD Member Countries—
Revisions to the List of OECD Member
Countries (80 FR 37992, July 2, 2015).
G. Where are the revised State rules
different from the Federal rules?
Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA
may not authorize State rules that are
less stringent than the Federal program.
Any State rules that are less stringent do
not supplant the Federal regulations.
State rules that are broader in scope
than the Federal program requirements
are allowed but are not authorized. State
rules that are equivalent to, and State
rules that are more stringent than the
Federal program may be authorized, in
which case those provisions are
enforceable by the EPA.
This section discusses certain rules in
this action where the EPA has made the
finding that Idaho’s program is more
stringent, and also discusses certain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
portions of the Federal program that are
not delegable to the State because of the
Federal government’s special role in
foreign policy matters and because of
national concerns that arise with certain
decisions.
Idaho is currently more stringent than
the Federal program in its adoption of
40 CFR 260.43 (2015) and 40 CFR
261.4(a)(24) (2015) at IDAPA
58.01.05.004 and 58.01.05.005. Both of
these regulations include provisions
from the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste
(DSW) Rule that has been vacated and
replaced with the less stringent
requirements found at 40 CFR 260.43
(2018) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25)
(2018), which were reinstated from the
2008 DSW Rule. Idaho will be revising
its regulations to include this update as
required by the vacatur to be equivalent
to the Federal program.
The EPA cannot delegate certain
Federal requirements associated with
the following rules: Modification of the
Hazardous Waste Manifest System—
Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518,
February 7, 2014), Revisions to the
Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube
Rule (79 FR 36220, June 26, 2014), and
Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous
Wastes Between OECD Member
Countries—Revisions to the List of
OECD Member Countries (80 FR 37992,
July 2, 2015). Idaho has adopted these
requirements and appropriately
preserved EPA’s authority to implement
them.
H. Who handles permits after the
authorization takes effect?
Idaho will continue to issue permits
for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the
permits it issues. If the EPA issued
permits prior to authorizing Idaho for
these revisions, these permits would
continue in force until the effective date
of the State’s issuance or denial of a
State hazardous waste permit, at which
time the EPA would modify the existing
EPA permit to expire at an earlier date,
terminate the existing EPA permit for
cause, or allow the existing EPA permit
to otherwise expire by its terms, except
for those facilities located in Indian
country. The EPA will not issue new
permits or new portions of permits for
provisions for which Idaho is
authorized. The EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA
requirements for which Idaho is not
authorized.
I. How does this action affect Indian
country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Idaho?
The EPA’s decision to authorize the
Idaho hazardous waste management
program does not include any land that
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
is, or becomes after the date of this
authorization, ‘‘Indian Country,’’ as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian
country includes:
1. All lands within the exterior
boundaries of Indian reservations
within or abutting the State of Idaho;
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S.
for an Indian tribe; and
3. Any other land, whether on or off
an Indian reservation, that qualifies as
Indian country.
Therefore, this program revision does
not extend to Indian country where the
EPA will continue to implement and
administer the RCRA program.
II. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule revises the State of
Idaho’s authorized hazardous waste
management program pursuant to
Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no
requirements other than those currently
imposed by State law. This rule
complies with applicable executive
orders and statutory provisions as
follows:
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Federal
agencies must determine whether the
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’, and
therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the E.O.. The E.O.
defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
as one that is likely to result in a rule
that may: (1) Have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way, the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the E.O.. The EPA has
determined that this final authorization
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this
final authorization does not establish or
modify any information or
recordkeeping requirements for the
E:\FR\FM\09JYR1.SGM
09JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
regulated community and only seeks to
finalize authorization for the preexisting requirements under State law
and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing, and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in
title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR
part 9.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
generally requires Federal agencies to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of this
authorization on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
defined by the Small Business
Administration’s size regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. I certify that this
final authorization will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because the final authorization will only
have the effect of authorizing preexisting requirements under State law
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4) establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,
the EPA generally must prepare a
written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, Section 205
of the UMRA generally requires the EPA
to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most 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 the EPA to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the rule an explanation
why the alternative was not adopted.
Before the EPA establishes any
regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under Section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of the EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements. This final
authorization contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. It proposes to impose no
new enforceable duty on any state, local
or tribal governments or the private
sector. Similarly, the EPA has also
determined that this final authorization
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Thus, this
final authorization is not subject to the
requirements of Sections 202 and 203 of
the UMRA.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32631
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final authorization does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of
government, as specified in E.O. 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
document authorizes pre-existing State
rules. Thus, E.O. 13132 does not apply
to this final authorization. In the spirit
of E.O. 13132, and consistent with the
EPA policy to promote communications
between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically
solicited comment on this authorization
from State and local officials.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR
22951, November 9, 2000), requires the
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This final authorization
does not have tribal implications, as
specified in E.O. 13175 because the EPA
retains its authority over Indian
Country. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not
apply to this final authorization.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under Section 5–501 of the E.O. has the
potential to influence the regulation.
This action is not subject to E.O. 13045
because it approves a state program.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This final authorization is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, as discussed in detail above.
9. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), (Pub. L. 104–
113, 12(d)) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the
E:\FR\FM\09JYR1.SGM
09JYR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
32632
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Federal agency decides not to
use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. This authorization
does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. The
EPA has determined that this final
authorization will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations.
This final authorization does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment
because this document authorizes preexisting State rules which are equivalent
to and no less stringent than existing
Federal requirements.
Dated: June 13, 2019.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region
10.
11. The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801–808
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801–808, generally provides that
before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a
report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority
This final action is issued under the
authority of sections 1006, 2002(a),
3006, and 3024 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g.
[FR Doc. 2019–14019 Filed 7–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information contact: John
Yowell, National Program Chemicals
Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: 202–564–1213; email address:
yowell.john@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
I. Executive Summary
40 CFR Part 745
A. Does this action apply to me?
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0166; FRL–9995–49]
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you conduct LBP activities
in accordance with 40 CFR 745.227, if
you operate a training program required
to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225,
if you are a firm or individual who must
be certified to conduct LBP activities in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if
you conduct rehabilitations in
accordance with 24 CFR part 35. You
may also be affected by this action if
you operate a laboratory that is
recognized by EPA’s National Lead
Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NLLAP) in accordance with 40 CFR
745.90, 745.223, 745.227, 745.327. You
may also be affected by this action, in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.107 and 24
CFR 35.88, as the seller or lessor of
target housing, which is most pre-1978
housing. See 40 CFR 745.103 and 24
CFR 35.86. For further information
regarding the authorization status of
states, territories, and tribes, contact the
National Lead Information Center at
1–800–424–LEAD (5323). The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Building construction (NAICS code
236), e.g., single-family housing
construction, multi-family housing
construction, residential remodelers.
RIN 2070–AJ82
Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard
Standards and the Definition of LeadBased Paint
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Addressing childhood lead
exposure is a priority for EPA. As part
of EPA’s efforts to reduce childhood
lead exposure, EPA evaluated the
current dust-lead hazard standards
(DLHS) and the definition of lead-based
paint (LBP). Based on this evaluation,
this final rule revises the DLHS from 40
mg/ft2 and 250 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2 and 100
mg/ft2 on floors and window sills,
respectively. EPA is also finalizing its
proposal to make no change to the
definition of LBP because insufficient
information exists to support such a
change at this time.
DATES: This final rule is effective
January 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0166, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket),
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR1.SGM
09JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32628-32632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14019]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0298; FRL-9995-77-Region 10]
Idaho: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program
Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Idaho applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.
The EPA reviewed Idaho's application and has determined that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization. The EPA published a proposed rule on September 5, 2018,
prior to taking this final action to authorize these changes. The EPA
received five comments, one of which was supportive of this
authorization action and four of which were not applicable to this
authorization action.
DATES: This final authorization is effective August 8, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Mail Stop 15-H04, Seattle, Washington
98101, email: [email protected] or phone number (206) 553-
2416.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?
States that have received final authorization from the EPA under
RCRA Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes,
states must change their
[[Page 32629]]
programs and ask the EPA to authorize their changes. Changes to state
programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory
authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most
commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to the
EPA's regulations codified in title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
Idaho State's hazardous waste management program was initially
approved on March 26, 1990 and became effective on April 9, 1990. As
explained in Section E in this document, it has been revised and
reauthorized numerous times since then. On March 18, 2018, Idaho
submitted a program revision application to the EPA requesting
authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous waste regulations
codified as of July 1, 2016, incorporated by reference in IDAPA
58.01.05.000 et seq., which were adopted and effective in the State of
Idaho on March 29, 2017. This authorization revision request includes
the following federal rules for which Idaho is being authorized for the
first time: Conditional Exclusions from Solid and Hazardous Waste for
Solvent Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448, July 31, 2013) ; Conditional
Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide Streams in Geologic Sequestration
Activities (79 FR 350, January 3, 2014); Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Manifest System- Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7,
2014); Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste- CFR Correction
(79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014); Revisions to the Export Provisions of
Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June 26, 2014); Definition of Solid
Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015); Response to Vacaturs of the
Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule (80 FR 18777, April 8,
2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities
(80 FR 21302, April 17, 2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals
from Electric Utilities- Correction of the Effective Date (80 FR 37988,
July 2, 2015); and Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between
OECD Member Countries--Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries
(80 FR 37992, July 2, 2015).
The EPA is authorizing Idaho's revised hazardous waste program in
its entirety through July 1, 2016, as described above.
B. What decisions has the EPA made in this rule?
The EPA has reviewed Idaho's application to revise its authorized
program and has determined that it meets the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, the EPA is granting Idaho
final authorization to operate its hazardous waste management program
with the changes described in the authorization application. Idaho will
continue to have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian
country (18 U.S.C. 1151)) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA
program described in its revised program application, subject to the
limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and
which are not less stringent than existing requirements, take effect in
authorized States before the States are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits, until Idaho is
granted authorization to do so.
C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?
A person in Idaho subject to RCRA must comply with the authorized
State requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements.
Additionally, such persons will have to comply with any applicable
Federal requirements, such as HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for
which the State has not received authorization and RCRA requirements
that are not supplanted by authorized State requirements. Idaho
continues to have enforcement authorities and responsibilities under
its State hazardous waste management program for violations of its
program. However, the EPA retains authority under RCRA sections 3007,
3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, the authority to:
Conduct inspections, which may include but is not limited
to requiring monitoring, tests, analyses, and/or reports;
Abate conditions that may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health and the environment;
Enforce RCRA requirements, which may include but is not
limited to suspending, terminating, modifying, and/or revoking permits;
and
Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Idaho has
taken its own actions.
The action to approve these revisions will not impose additional
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for
which Idaho is requesting authorization are already effective under
State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.
D. What were the comments received on this authorization action?
The EPA published a proposed rule under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-2018-
0298 on September 5, 2018 (83 FR 45068), prior to taking this final
action to authorize these changes. The EPA received five comments
during the public comment period of this action. All of the comments
received are included in the docket for this action. One of the
comments received was supportive of Idaho updating its hazardous waste
program to continue its alignment with the federal hazardous waste
program. The remaining four comments covered a variety of topics,
including: A comparison between American regulations and Chinese
regulations; hydroelectric powerplants; waste altering marine life in
the ocean; and alleged violations of RCRA at the Department of Energy's
Idaho National Laboratory. We do not consider these comments to be
germane or relevant to this action and therefore not adverse to this
action. The comments lack the required specificity to the proposed
hazardous waste program regulatory revision and the relevant
requirements of RCRA. Moreover, none of these four comments addressed a
specific regulation or provision in question or recommended a different
action on this authorization revision from what EPA proposed.
E. What has Idaho previously been authorized for?
Idaho initially received final authorization for its hazardous
waste management program effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March
26, 1990). Subsequently, the EPA authorized revisions to the State's
program effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10,
1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April
12, 1995), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1,
2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March
10, 2004), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005), February 26,
2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647,
December 23, 2008), July 11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012) and
September 21, 2015 (80 FR 20726, August 20, 2015).
F. What changes is the EPA authorizing with this action?
The EPA is authorizing revisions to Idaho's authorized program
described in
[[Page 32630]]
Idaho's official program revision application, submitted to the EPA on
March 29, 2018, and deemed complete by the EPA on April 4, 2018. The
EPA has determined that Idaho's hazardous waste management program
revisions as described in the March 29, 2018 State's authorization
revision application satisfy the requirements necessary to quality for
final authorization. Regulatory revisions that are less stringent than
the Federal program requirements are not authorized. Idaho's authorized
hazardous waste management program, as amended by these provisions,
remains equivalent to, consistent with, and is no less stringent than
the Federal RCRA program. Therefore, the EPA is authorizing the State
for the following program changes: Conditional Exclusions from Solid
and Hazardous Waste for Solvent Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448, July
31, 2013) ; Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide Streams in
Geologic Sequestration Activities (79 FR 350, January 3, 2014);
Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System--Electronic
Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014); Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste--CFR Correction (79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014); Revisions
to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June
26, 2014); Definition of Solid Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015);
Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification
Rule (80 FR 18777, April 8, 2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals from Electric Utilities (80 FR 21302, April 17, 2015);
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities--
Correction of the Effective Date (80 FR 37988, July 2, 2015); and
Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD Member
Countries--Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries (80 FR 37992,
July 2, 2015).
G. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?
Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA may not authorize State rules that
are less stringent than the Federal program. Any State rules that are
less stringent do not supplant the Federal regulations. State rules
that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are
allowed but are not authorized. State rules that are equivalent to, and
State rules that are more stringent than the Federal program may be
authorized, in which case those provisions are enforceable by the EPA.
This section discusses certain rules in this action where the EPA
has made the finding that Idaho's program is more stringent, and also
discusses certain portions of the Federal program that are not
delegable to the State because of the Federal government's special role
in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise
with certain decisions.
Idaho is currently more stringent than the Federal program in its
adoption of 40 CFR 260.43 (2015) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) (2015) at
IDAPA 58.01.05.004 and 58.01.05.005. Both of these regulations include
provisions from the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) Rule that has
been vacated and replaced with the less stringent requirements found at
40 CFR 260.43 (2018) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) (2018), which
were reinstated from the 2008 DSW Rule. Idaho will be revising its
regulations to include this update as required by the vacatur to be
equivalent to the Federal program.
The EPA cannot delegate certain Federal requirements associated
with the following rules: Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest
System--Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014), Revisions
to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June
26, 2014), and Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD
Member Countries--Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries (80 FR
37992, July 2, 2015). Idaho has adopted these requirements and
appropriately preserved EPA's authority to implement them.
H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?
Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for
which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. If
the EPA issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions,
these permits would continue in force until the effective date of the
State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which
time the EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an
earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the
existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those
facilities located in Indian country. The EPA will not issue new
permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is
authorized. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for
HSWA requirements for which Idaho is not authorized.
I. How does this action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Idaho?
The EPA's decision to authorize the Idaho hazardous waste
management program does not include any land that is, or becomes after
the date of this authorization, ``Indian Country,'' as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations
within or abutting the State of Idaho;
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that
qualifies as Indian country.
Therefore, this program revision does not extend to Indian country
where the EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA
program.
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule revises the State of Idaho's authorized hazardous
waste management program pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes
no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This
rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions
as follows:
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
Federal agencies must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'', and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the E.O.. The E.O. defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely
affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.. The EPA has
determined that this final authorization is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this final authorization does not establish or modify any
information or recordkeeping requirements for the
[[Page 32631]]
regulated community and only seeks to finalize authorization for the
pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires Federal agencies
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of this authorization on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. I certify that this final authorization will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because the final authorization will only have the effect of
authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the rule an explanation why the alternative was not
adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This
final authorization contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. It proposes to impose no new
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. Similarly, the EPA has also determined that this final
authorization contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, this
final authorization is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202
and 203 of the UMRA.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final authorization does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of
government, as specified in E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This document authorizes pre-existing State rules. Thus, E.O. 13132
does not apply to this final authorization. In the spirit of E.O.
13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications
between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically
solicited comment on this authorization from State and local officials.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This final
authorization does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O.
13175 because the EPA retains its authority over Indian Country. Thus,
E.O. 13175 does not apply to this final authorization.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of
the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it approves a state program.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This final authorization is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under E.O. 12866,
as discussed in detail above.
9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d)) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs the
[[Page 32632]]
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Federal agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
authorization does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this
final authorization will not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations. This final authorization does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment because this
document authorizes pre-existing State rules which are equivalent to
and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements.
11. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority
This final action is issued under the authority of sections 1006,
2002(a), 3006, and 3024 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g.
Dated: June 13, 2019.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-14019 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
