[Federal Register: December 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 247)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78647-78651]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de08-14]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R10-RCRA-2008-0588; FRL-8755-9]
Idaho: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Idaho applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). On September
30, 2008, EPA published a proposed rule to authorize the changes and
opened a public comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2008-
0588. On October 28, 2008, EPA published notification of an extension
of the comment period for the proposed rule. The comment period closed
on November 20, 2008. EPA has decided that the revisions to the Idaho
hazardous waste management program satisfy all of the requirements
necessary to qualify for final authorization and EPA is authorizing
these revisions to Idaho's authorized hazardous waste management
program in this final rule.
DATES: Effective Date: Final authorization for the revisions to the
hazardous waste program in Idaho shall be effective at 1 p.m. EST on
December 23, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Kocourek, Mail Stop AWT-122, U.S.
EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone (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
section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to and consistent with the Federal
program. States are required to have enforcement authority which is
adequate to enforce compliance with the requirements of the hazardous
waste program. Under section 3009, States are not allowed to impose any
requirements which are less stringent than the Federal program. Changes
to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
Idaho's hazardous waste management program received final
authorization effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 29, 1990).
EPA also granted authorization to revisions to Idaho's program
effective on: 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) and February 26,
2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007).
This final rule addresses a program revision application that Idaho
submitted to EPA in June 2008, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21,
seeking authorization of changes to the State program. On September 30,
2008, EPA
[[Page 78648]]
published a proposed rule (73 FR 56775) stating the Agency's intent to
grant final authorization for revisions to Idaho's hazardous waste
program. EPA published an administrative extension of the comment
period on October 28, 2008 (73 FR 63917), to extend the public comment
period from October 30, 2008 to November 20, 2008.
B. What Were the Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule?
EPA received two sets of comments on the proposed rule from two
separate commenters. The first set of comments came from a commenter
who submitted written comments on each proposed revision to the
authorized Idaho hazardous waste program for the past several years.
The comments submitted for this revision restated past arguments
concerning revisions to the authorized Idaho hazardous waste program.
The commenter objected to EPA's action to revise Idaho's hazardous
waste program because the commenter objects to certain aspects of how
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) carries out the
authorized program at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) facility. In
2007, the same commenter, on the basis of the same objections,
petitioned the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to initiate a
formal investigation into EPA's decision to revise the Idaho authorized
program at that time. The OIG responded to the 2007 petition on July
13, 2008, by closing the case without further action. EPA respects the
commenter's participation in the public process but believes no new
concerns are raised in the current comments.
The comments received from the second commenter raised numerous
issues, which are addressed in this response. The commenter questioned
whether EPA impermissibly adopted rules promulgated pursuant to non-
HSWA authority and rules promulgated as ``less stringent'' under HSWA.
HSWA, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), changed many aspects of hazardous
waste management under RCRA. The legislative history of HSWA (98 Cong.
Senate Report 284, HSWA Leg. Hist. 30, pages 6-7) explains, in part:
These amendments also recognize that safe disposal, storage and
treatment opportunities are limited and that the most effective way
to protect human health and the environment is to minimize the
opportunities for exposure by reducing or eliminating the generation
of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible. Rather than
creating a rigorous regulatory program, provisions are included to
encourage generators to voluntarily reduce the quantity and toxicity
of all wastes. The amendments do not authorize the EPA or any other
organization or person to intrude into the production-process or
production decisions of individual generators. Taken as a whole, the
reported bill emphasizes two concepts. First, wherever feasible, the
generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as
expeditiously as possible. Second, waste that is nevertheless
generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to
minimize the present and future threat to human health and the
environment.
After passage of HSWA, EPA distinguished rules promulgated by EPA
pursuant to the new HSWA authority from rules promulgated pursuant to
the authority that pre-dated, but was not supplanted by, HSWA; EPA
referred to the latter as ``non-HSWA'' rules. The issue of which
authority, HSWA or non-HSWA, EPA exercises in each EPA rulemaking is
distinguishable from EPA's determination of whether a new rule
promulgated by EPA under either authority is ``more stringent'' or
``less stringent'' than the regulations that had been promulgated
earlier and are being revised. EPA explains the authority it is using,
HSWA or non-HSWA, in each rulemaking. That explanation is generally
found in the Federal Register notice for each proposed and final rule
in the discussion of how the regulatory changes will be administered
and enforced in the State.
Regulations determined to be ``more stringent'' under HSWA or non-
HSWA authority are regulations which each state must adopt to retain
authorization for its hazardous waste program. Regulations determined
to be ``less stringent'' under HSWA or non-HSWA authority are
regulations which each state is encouraged, but not required, to adopt
to retain its authorized hazardous waste program. HSWA regulations are
not all ``more stringent'' than the regulations promulgated under RCRA
before HSWA. Nor did Congress require all HSWA regulations to be more
stringent; nothing in the statute, and no language in the legislative
history, directs EPA to promulgate only ``more stringent'' provisions
under HSWA authority.
Since the passage of HSWA, EPA has been highly selective when
designating which new regulations will apply directly in every State
immediately upon the effective date of the new regulations. New
regulations EPA characterizes as promulgated under HSWA authority and
as more stringent apply directly in all states, including states with
authorized hazardous waste programs, upon their effective dates and are
implemented and enforced directly and immediately by EPA until the
State is authorized to implement and enforce those regulations. Upon
authorization, those regulations authorized as a part of the State
hazardous waste program are the federally enforceable requirements in
that State.
The commenter questioned whether it was permissible for EPA to
allow a state to adopt rules promulgated by EPA as ``less stringent
than federal requirements.'' EPA exercises discretionary authority as
provided by Congress in section 2002 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6912, to
regulate hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment
and, barring explicit language in the statute, nothing in the act or
amendments thereto prohibits EPA from promulgating new regulations that
are ``less stringent'' or ``neutral'' relative to regulations that were
promulgated earlier. If EPA promulgates new regulations to replace
existing regulations, the newer regulations are, upon their effective
date, the federal requirements against which a state program is
compared when reviewing a revision to an authorized state hazardous
waste program. The ``less stringent'' requirements are the federal
requirements under RCRA in States without authorized hazardous waste
programs. Those newer regulations which are less stringent than former
regulations, may be, but are not required to be, adopted by states to
retain an authorized hazardous waste program.
Section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929, bars a state from imposing
less stringent requirements than those authorized under Subchapter III
of RCRA respecting the same matter governed by such regulations. There
is no bar prohibiting a state from imposing more stringent requirements
and there is no bar prohibiting a state from adopting federal
requirements which are promulgated by EPA as less stringent or neutral
requirements as compared to regulations that were promulgated by EPA
earlier. If a state adopts and is authorized for those ``less
stringent'' regulations, the federally enforceable RCRA requirements in
the State are those newly authorized requirements.
The commenter questioned whether EPA was allowing the Attorney
General (AG) of Idaho to ``circumvent'' a rule-by-rule comparison of
the federal regulations adopted by Idaho and the Idaho Statutes. The
Idaho AG did submit a rule-by-rule statement citing specific statutory
authority for each rule adopted by Idaho. EPA reviewed this statement,
which was included in the docket for the rule and is Appendix I to the
Idaho application. The ``Revised Attorney General's Statement for Final
Authorization of Changes to the Federal
[[Page 78649]]
RCRA Program Through July 1, 2007'' amends and supplements the AG
statements in previous authorization applications. The table presented
in the AG statement and certified by the AG contains a rule-by-rule
review. EPA reviewed each state rule and state statute cited in the AG
statement. This independent EPA review was the basis for EPA's decision
to propose authorizing the revision to the Idaho authorized hazardous
waste program. Pursuant to 40 CFR 271.1(e), the Administrator (or
delegated authority, in this case, the Regional Administrator) shall
approve State programs which conform to the applicable requirements of
that rule in Subpart A--Requirements for Final Authorization. Based on
its review of the complete Idaho application, EPA concluded that the
revisions to Idaho's program conformed to the applicable requirements
of Subpart A.
The commenter also questioned whether optional rules, not required
to be adopted, must be compared to the Idaho Statutes to ensure 40 CFR
271.1 is met in light of the fact, according to the commenter, that the
Idaho AG claims the State of Idaho must adopt all regulations
promulgated by EPA, even those promulgated which are less stringent
than existing regulations. EPA did not see any language in the AG
statement, or elsewhere in Idaho's application, indicating that the
State of Idaho must adopt all regulations promulgated by EPA, even
those less stringent. However, the AG does cite directly to Idaho
Statute 39-4404 (Consistency with federal law) in the AG Statement and
in the rule-by-rule comparison. That provision of the Idaho Statutes,
acknowledging the desire of the legislature to avoid the existence of
duplicative, overlapping or conflicting state and regulatory systems,
directs the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality (Board) to promulgate
rules which are consistent with RCRA and the federal regulations
adopted by EPA to implement RCRA. The Board is barred from promulgating
any rule that would impose conditions or requirements more stringent or
broader in scope than RCRA and the RCRA regulations promulgated by EPA.
There is no statutory language directing the Board to immediately
adopt less stringent rules promulgated by EPA to replace earlier, more
stringent requirements. However, the AG has opined that the statutory
language acts as a directive to the Board to promulgate rules which are
consistent with RCRA and allows and encourages Idaho to adopt all less-
stringent and optional rules promulgated by EPA. In reviewing each of
Idaho's rules against the Idaho Statutes, EPA agreed with the AG that
adopting such rules was permissible under both Idaho state law and
under RCRA, as amended by HSWA, and that such adoption met the
requirements of 40 CFR 271.1.
Finally, the commenter questioned whether the RCRA Burden Reduction
Initiative impermissibly removed the manifest notification required to
be sent to each state with the shipment of waste-derived fertilizers
citing to sections 3002 and 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6922 and 6929.
Section 3002(a)(5) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6922(a)(5), directs the
Administrator to promulgate regulations to establish standards
applicable to generators as may be necessary to protect human health
and the environment regarding the use of a manifest system and any
other reasonable means necessary to assure that all hazardous waste
generated is designated for treatment, storage, or disposal in, and
arrives at, treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (except where
waste was generated) for which a permit was issued. Pursuant to section
3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929, no regulation adopted under RCRA can be
construed to prohibit any State from requiring the State be provided
with a copy of each manifest used in connection with hazardous waste
generated in that State or transported to a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility within that State. The Burden Reduction Initiative
(BRI), which became effective as an optional rule on May 4, 2006,
streamlines EPA's information collection requirements to ensure that
only information actually needed and used to implement the RCRA program
is collected while retaining the goals of protecting human health and
the environment.
Changes in manifest requirements made to earlier federal
requirements by the BRI generally concern notice under the land
disposal regulations at 40 CFR Part 268. The BRI does not prohibit any
State from requiring a copy of a manifest. States were not required to
adopt the BRI and States that do not adopt the BRI can require a copy
of the manifest. A State is not barred from adopting the BRI by section
3009 of RCRA.
EPA believes the Agency has the necessary authority to promulgate
the rules in the federal program, including those in this revision to
Idaho's authorized hazardous waste program. Moreover, EPA believes that
Idaho has the necessary authority to adopt the rules that are included
in this revision of the Idaho authorized hazardous waste program.
C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?
EPA has made a final determination that Idaho's revisions to the
Idaho authorized hazardous waste program meet all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization.
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revisions to the Idaho hazardous
waste program and authorizing the State of Idaho to operate its
hazardous waste program as described in the revision authorization
application. Idaho's authorized program will be responsible for
carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised
program application, subject to the limitations of RCRA, including the
HSWA.
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA as more
stringent are implemented by EPA and take effect in States with
authorized programs before such programs are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those HSWA requirements and
prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits or portions of
permits, until the State is authorized to do so.
D. What Will Be the Effect of This Action?
The effect of this action is that a facility in Idaho subject to
RCRA must comply with the authorized State program requirements and
with any applicable Federally-issued requirement, such as, for example,
the federal HSWA more stringent provisions for which the State is not
authorized, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized
State-issued requirements, in order to comply with RCRA. Idaho has
enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program
for violations of its currently authorized program and will have
enforcement responsibilities for the revisions which are the subject of
this final rule. EPA continues to have independent enforcement
authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which
include, among others, authority to:
--Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses or
reports;
--Enforce RCRA requirements, including State program requirements
that are authorized by EPA and any applicable Federally-issued statutes
and regulations; suspend, modify or revoke permits; and
--Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has
taken its own actions.
[[Page 78650]]
This final action approving these revisions will not impose additional
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for
which Idaho's program is being authorized are already effective under
State law.
E. What Rules Are We Authorizing With This Action?
In June 2008, Idaho submitted a complete program revision
application, seeking authorization for all delegable federal hazardous
waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2007, as incorporated by
reference in IDAPA 58.01.05(002)-(016) and (018). EPA is authorizing
those rules in this action.
F. Who Handles Permits After This 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.
G. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Idaho's Hazardous Waste
Program as Authorized in This Rule?
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by referencing the
authorized State's authorized rules in 40 CFR Part 272. EPA is
reserving the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, Subpart F for codification
of Idaho's program at a later date.
H. How Does This Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Idaho?
EPA's decision to authorize the Idaho hazardous waste program does
not include any land that is, or becomes after the date of this
authorization, ``Indian Country,'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This
includes: (1) All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian
reservations within or abutting the State of Idaho; (2) Any land held
in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and (3) Any other land,
whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian
country. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA
retains jurisdiction over ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C.
1151.
I. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule revises 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
final 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 final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final 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 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 this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by
the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR Part
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on small entities because
the final 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 this final rule, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title
[[Page 78651]]
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The
action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. Those entities are already
subject to the regulatory requirements that are included in the
revisions to the State program in this final action.
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 final 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 final rule authorizes pre-existing State rules. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because EPA
retains its authority over Indian Country. EPA specifically solicited
additional comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials and no
tribe commented on this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this final rule.
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 final 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 final 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, 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. EPA has
determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations. This final rule does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment because this
rule authorizes pre-existing State rules which are equivalent to, and
no less stringent than existing federal requirements.
11. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 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: December 16, 2008.
Elin D. Miller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. E8-30516 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P