[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 37 (Monday, February 26, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8283-8287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3207]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-8281-3]
Idaho: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Idaho applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). On November 9, 2006, EPA
published a proposed rule to authorize the changes and opened a public
comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2006-0830. The comment
period closed on December 11, 2006. EPA has decided that these
revisions to the Idaho hazardous waste management program satisfy all
of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization and is
authorizing these revisions to Idaho's authorized hazardous waste
management program in this final rule.
DATES: Effective Date: Final authorization for the revisions to the
hazardous waste program in Idaho shall be effective at 1 p.m. e.s.t on
February 26, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Mail Stop AWT-122, U.S. EPA
Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101, phone (206) 553-0256. E-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program.
States are required to have enforcement authority which is adequate to
enforce compliance with the requirements of the hazardous waste
program. Under RCRA Section 3009, States are not allowed to impose any
requirements which are less stringent than the Federal program. Changes
to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
Idaho's hazardous waste management program received final
authorization effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 29, 1990).
EPA also granted authorization for revisions to Idaho's program
effective on June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), on August 10,
1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), on June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April
12, 1995), on January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), on July
1, 2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), on March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322,
March 10, 2004), and on July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005).
Today's final rule addresses a program revision application that
Idaho submitted to EPA in June 2006, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21,
seeking authorization of changes to the State program. On November 9,
2006, EPA published a proposed rule announcing its intent to grant
Idaho final authorization for revisions to Idaho's hazardous waste
program and provided a period of time for the receipt of public
comments. The proposed rule can be found at 71 FR 65765.
B. What Were the Comments to EPA's Proposed Rule?
EPA received one comment letter, dated December 4, 2006, from Mr.
Chuck Broscious on behalf of the Environmental Defense Institute, Keep
Yellowstone Nuclear Free, and David B. McCoy, collectively, ``the
commenters.'' The comment letter focused on the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality's (DEQ) permitting and oversight of the Idaho
National Laboratory (INL) facility located near Idaho Falls, Idaho. In
short, the commenters question whether continued authorization of the
revised hazardous waste program in Idaho is appropriate given concerns
the commenters previously raised with EPA and its Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) with respect to the permitting of the INL
facility. Specifically, the commenters question whether Idaho's program
provides adequate enforcement of compliance with the requirements of
Subchapter C of RCRA given the application of the program at the INL
facility.
The comment letter focuses on recent permitting activities
conducted by DEQ at the INL facility. In a petition submitted to OIG on
April 28, 2006, the commenters requested that OIG review DEQ's
permitting activities at the INL facility. Similar questions were
raised in petitions submitted to EPA on August 8, 2000, on September
13, 2001, and in follow-up letters and correspondence in 2003, 2004,
and 2006 related to the 2000 and 2001 petitions.
In the 2001 petition, the commenters sought EPA's withdrawal of
Idaho's authorization to implement the hazardous waste program under
RCRA after citing permitting concerns at the INL facility. EPA, in
response to that petition, conducted an informal investigation and
determined that sufficient evidence did not exist to initiate formal
withdrawal proceedings. EPA's determination was issued on March 20,
2002, with a follow-up response on June 20, 2002. The supporting
documentation was provided to the commenters at that time and the
documentation is currently available to the public under the Freedom of
Information Act.
In 2003, the OIG requested that Region 10 conduct a second
investigation to answer a series of follow-up questions related to the
2001 petition. EPA conducted this second investigation and issued its
findings in 2003. These investigation results were also provided to Mr.
David McCoy, one of the current commenters, as part of an October 13,
2004 Freedom of
[[Page 8284]]
Information Act response. On February 5, 2004, after conducting
independent field work, OIG issued a final evaluation report which
concluded, ``Region 10 generally relied on appropriate regulatory
requirements and standards in reaching its conclusion that evidence did
not exist to commence proceedings to withdraw the State of Idaho's
authority to run its RCRA Hazardous Waste program.'' The evaluation
report concluded that evidence did not exist to commence withdrawal
proceedings. The OIG did identify areas of concern for further Regional
and State follow-up. As detailed in the Evaluation Report, OIG and
Region 10 agreed to specific follow-up actions. To document resolution
of these action items, Region 10 submitted quarterly progress reports
to the OIG Audit Liaison on January 13, 2004, April 16, 2004, July 15,
2004, October 12, 2004, February 9, 2005, and April 8, 2005. These
reports documented the steps taken by EPA and DEQ to meet the specific
actions recommended by OIG. Hard copies of all the quarterly reports
were made available to the public as part of EPA's last authorization
action effective July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273). In response to a request
by Mr. Chuck Broscious, one of the current commenters, EPA made a
hardcopy version of the 2005 authorization docket available at the
University of Idaho Library in Moscow, Idaho. As EPA stated in the 2005
authorization action (70 FR 42273), EPA considers its response to the
September 13, 2001 withdrawal petition and recommendations in the
February 5, 2004 OIG Evaluation Report complete.
In the current December 4, 2006 comment letter, the commenters
contend that permitting the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit using a
Class 3 permit modification to the existing Volume 14 INL permit
results in inappropriate and abbreviated public participation. EPA
addressed the issue of Class 3 permit modifications in the March 20,
2002 petition response. Page 26 of that EPA response states that:
* * *[I]t should be noted that the Class 3 permit modification
public participation requirements are as stringent as those under
initial permit submissions. Under the authorized program in Idaho at
IDAPA 16.01.05.012; 40 CFR Part 270.42(c), Class 3 permit
modifications fully incorporate public participation through both
pre-submission and draft issuance public comment periods. Including
the High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator as a Class 3 permit
modification to the permit is a reasonable means of addressing
complex, interrelated units in accordance with legally allowable
partial permitting under IDAPA 16.01.05.012; 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4), and
ensuring public participation.
The commenters also contend that DEQ's regulation of radiological
wastes, and enforcement of those requirements, are not adequate. With
respect to radiological issues, EPA addressed this same comment in the
2004 revision to Idaho's authorized program (69 FR 11322), concerning
closure of the INL Tank Farm Facility. EPA stated, ``[t]he commenters
failed to distinguish the RCRA `mixed waste' authority and its
application to the tanks from those radioactive solid waste issues
which may be the subject of the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] or the
AEA [Atomic Energy Act].'' Under the authorized hazardous waste
program, DEQ has authority to regulate the hazardous components of
mixed waste; however, regulation of the radiological component is
outside the scope of the RCRA program and not within the scope of the
program EPA has authority to authorize. This same point was made in the
2005 revision to Idaho's authorized program (70 FR 42273). EPA stated,
``* * * EPA observes that defense activities related to nuclear
production and propulsion programs will generally not meet the
definition of solid waste under the RCRA regulations and may be
regulated by other federal authorities.''
In publishing the Radioactive Mixed Waste Rule, EPA recognized that
wastes containing both hazardous waste and radioactive waste are
subject to regulation under RCRA. (See 51 FR 24505, July 3, 1986.) EPA
considers radioactive mixed waste to be a solid waste under the Federal
RCRA program and requires states to demonstrate regulation of the
hazardous components of radioactive mixed wastes. However, Section 1006
of RCRA precludes EPA or a State from regulating the radioactive
components where such regulation would be inconsistent with the Atomic
Energy Act, as amended (AEA). Specifically, RCRA excludes from the
definition of solid waste of ``source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material'' as defined by the AEA. Consequently, ``source, special
nuclear and byproduct material'' is exempt from the definition of
hazardous waste and therefore from Subtitle C of RCRA. Idaho's
authorized hazardous waste program is constrained by the limitations of
RCRA statutory authority and by EPA's findings and interpretations. EPA
cannot find Idaho's program to be inadequate when that authorized
hazardous waste program is addressing mixed waste to the extent
permitted by the RCRA program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional information regarding radioactive mixed waste is
located on EPA's webpage at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/mixed
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters also reference an April 28, 2006 petition to the EPA
Office of Inspector General citing concerns with the INL Advanced Test
Reactor. Most of the concerns pertain to radiological issues outside
the scope of the authorized RCRA program as described above. However,
in addition to the radiological concerns, the commenters argue that
this facility is in violation of RCRA Subtitle C because it disposes of
hazardous waste, specifically beryllium reflector blocks from the
Advanced Test Reactor, without a permit. Since beryllium powder is
listed as a P-waste under 40 CFR 261.33, the commenters argue that both
EPA and IDEQ have neglected their enforcement responsibility under RCRA
Subtitle C. As described on page III-20 of the 2006 RCRA Orientation
Manual (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/), P and U listed
hazardous waste determinations apply specifically to the disposal,
spillage, or container residue of unused, 100% pure or technical grade
chemical commercial products. Under 40 CFR 261.33, EPA and authorized
states have the authority to regulate the disposal of unused chemical
products such as beryllium powder; however, this provision does not
provide unlimited authority to regulate all beryllium-containing wastes
or discarded products, unless they are defined as a hazardous waste
under a different section of 40 CFR Part 261. Inspections of the
Advanced Test Reactor, as documented by inspection reports submitted to
the Office of Inspector General Liaison on July 15, 2004 and February
9, 2005, found no treatment, storage, or disposal activities that would
require a RCRA permit. At the time of the inspections, all identified
hazardous wastes were being handled within the regulatory criteria for
large quantity generators. Copies of these inspection reports were made
available as part of the docket for the 2005 authorization action and
are currently available to the public under the Freedom of Information
Act.
Lastly, the commenters cite concerns over the ``applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements'' (ARARs) for the INL CERCLA
Disposal Facility under EPA's Superfund Program (CERCLA). Unlike it
does in the RCRA hazardous waste program, EPA does not authorize states
to act in lieu of EPA under CERCLA authority. Therefore, the question
of whether a particular requirement is an ``applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirement'' is a question for EPA's CERCLA program and is
outside the scope of EPA's evaluation of the authorized
[[Page 8285]]
hazardous waste program in Idaho. For the above reasons, EPA has
determined that the comments included in the current comment letter do
not provide a basis to deny Idaho's application for program revision.
C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?
EPA has made a final determination that Idaho's revisions to the
Idaho authorized hazardous waste program meet all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization.
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revisions to the Idaho hazardous
waste program and authorizing the State of Idaho to operate its
hazardous waste program as described in the revision authorization
application. Idaho's authorized program will be responsible for
carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised
program application, subject to the limitations of RCRA, including the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA are
implemented by EPA and take effect in States with authorized programs
before such programs are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA
will implement those HSWA requirements and prohibitions in Idaho,
including issuing permits or portions of permits, until the State is
authorized to do so.
D. What Will Be the Effect of This Action?
The effect of today's action is that a facility in Idaho subject to
RCRA must comply with the authorized State program requirements and
with any applicable Federally-issued requirement, such as, for example,
the federal HSWA provisions for which the State is not authorized, and
RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued
requirements, in order to comply with RCRA. Idaho has enforcement
responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations
of its currently authorized program and will have enforcement
responsibilities for the revisions which are the subject of this final
rule. EPA continues to have independent enforcement authority under
RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others,
authority to:
--Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
--Enforce RCRA requirements, including State program requirements that
are authorized by EPA and any applicable Federally-issued statutes and
regulations; suspend, modify or revoke permits; and
--Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken
its own actions. This final action approving these revisions will not
impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the
regulations for which Idaho's program is being authorized are already
effective under State law.
E. What Rules Are We Authorizing With This Action?
In June 2006, Idaho submitted a complete program revision
application, seeking authorization for all delegable federal hazardous
waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2005, as incorporated by
reference in IDAPA 58.01.05(002)-(016).
F. Who Handles Permits After This Authorization Takes Effect?
Idaho will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. All permits or
portions of permits issued by EPA prior to final authorization of this
revision will continue to be administered by EPA until the effective
date of the issuance, re-issuance after modification, or denial of a
State RCRA permit or until the permit otherwise expires or is revoked,
and until EPA takes action on its permit or portion of permit. HSWA
provisions for which the State is not authorized will continue in
effect under the EPA-issued permit or portion of permit. EPA will
continue to issue permits or portions of permits for HSWA requirements
for which Idaho is not yet authorized.
G. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Idaho's Hazardous Waste
Program as Authorized in This Rule?
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by
referencing the authorized State's authorized rules in 40 CFR Part 272.
EPA is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, Subpart F for
codification of Idaho's program at a later date.
H. How Does This Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Idaho?
EPA's decision to authorize the Idaho hazardous waste program does
not include any land that is, or becomes after the date of this
authorization, ``Indian Country,'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This
includes: (1) All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian
reservations within or abutting the State of Idaho; (2) Any land held
in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and (3) Any other land,
whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian
country. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA
retains jurisdiction over ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C.
1151.
I. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined
that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to
minimize the reporting and record-keeping burden on the regulated
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that
information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or
more non-Federal respondents be approved by OPM. Since this final rule
does not establish or modify any information or record-keeping
requirements for the regulated community, it is not subject to the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
3. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
[[Page 8286]]
(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires federal agencies to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the
impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1) A small business, as codified in the Small Business Size
Regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 ; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA
has determined that this action will not have a significant impact on
small entities because the final rule will only have the effect of
authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law. After
considering the economic impacts of today's rule, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty
on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
Similarly, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Thus, the requirements of Section 203 of the
UMRA do not apply to this rule.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government.''
This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. This rule addresses the authorization of pre-
existing State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this rule.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order
12866.
9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable
[[Page 8287]]
voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not involve ``technical
standards'' as defined by the NTTAA. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and
consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National
Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States and its territories and possessions, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the
Mariana Islands. Because this rule addresses authorizing pre-existing
State rules and there are no anticipated significant adverse human
health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive
Order 12898.
11. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on the date the rule is published
in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: February 12, 2007.
Julie Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. .
[FR Doc. E7-3207 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P