Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision, 52194-52198 [2015-21385]
Download as PDF
52194
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
postpone the effectiveness of such
future rule or action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA—Missouri
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
2. In § 52. 1320 amend the table in
paragraph (c) by revising the entry for
Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 and the
table in paragraph (d) by adding entry
(29) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1320
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
Missouri citation
State effective
date
Title
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of
Missouri
*
10–6.120 ........................
*
*
Restriction of Emissions
of Lead from Specific
Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations.
*
*
*
*
*
*
3/30/09
*
*
*
*
8/28/15 and [Insert
Federal Register citation].
*
*
*
Paragraph (3)(B)1 and Table, Provision Pertaining to Limitations of Lead Emissions from
Specific Installations, have not been approved as a part of the SIP.
The requirement to limit main stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 gr/dscf lead in
Paragraph (3)(B)2 has not been approved as
a part of the SIP.
*
*
*
(d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS
Name of source
Order/permit number
State effective
date
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
(29) Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Consent Judgment 13IR–CC00016
*
[FR Doc. 2015–21199 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am]
7/29/13
*
*
8/28/15 [Insert Federal Register
citation]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
40 CFR Part 271
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
[EPA–R05–RCRA–2014–0689; FRL–9933–
29—Region 5]
Michigan: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Final rule.
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
Michigan 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). On March 31,
2015, EPA published a proposed rule to
authorize the changes and opened a
public comment period under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2014–0689. The
comment period closed on June 1, 2015.
EPA received no comments on the
proposed rule. EPA has decided that the
changes to Michigan’s program satisfy
all requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization, and EPA is
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
authorizing those changes to Michigan’s
authorized hazardous waste program in
this final rule.
Final authorization for the
changes to the hazardous waste program
in Michigan will be effective at 1 p.m.
EST on August 28, 2015.
DATES:
Docket: All documents in
the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index under Docket
Identification No. EPA–2014–R05–
RCRA–2014–0689. Although listed in
the index, some of the information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically at regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the following addresses,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays, between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,
contact: Judith Greenberg, telephone
(312) 886–4179; or Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality,
Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan
Street, Lansing, Michigan, contact:
Ronda Blayer, telephone (517) 284–
6555.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith Greenberg, U.S. EPA, Region 5,
Land and Chemicals Division, 77 West
Jackson Blvd., Mail Code LR–8J,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, email:
greenberg.judith@epa.gov, phone
number (312) 886–4179.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Why are revisions to State programs
necessary?
States which have received final
authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must
maintain a hazardous waste program
that is equivalent to, consistent with,
and no less stringent than the federal
program. As the federal program
changes, states must change their
programs and ask EPA to authorize the
changes. Changes to state programs may
be necessary when federal or state
statutory or regulatory authority is
modified or when certain other changes
occur. Most commonly, states must
change their programs because of
changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
B. What decisions have we made in this
rule?
EPA has made a final determination
that Michigan’s revisions to its
authorized hazardous waste
management program meet all of the
statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA for authorization.
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the
revised State of Michigan hazardous
waste management program, as
described in the Attorney General’s
Statement in the June 2014
authorization revision application, and
as discussed in section E of this rule.
Michigan has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its
borders (except in Indian Country) and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA
program covered by 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 take effect in
authorized states before they are
authorized for the requirements. Thus,
EPA will implement those requirements
and prohibitions in Michigan, including
issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.
C. What has Michigan previously been
authorized for?
Michigan’s hazardous waste
management program received final
authorization effective on October 16,
1986 (51 FR 36804–36805, October 16,
1986). Subsequently, EPA authorized
revisions to the State’s program effective
January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608,
November 24, 1989); January 24, 1991
(56 FR 18517, January 24, 1991);
November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244,
October 1, 1993); January 13, 1995 (60
FR 3095, January 13, 1995); April 8,
1996 (61 FR 4742, February 8, 1996);
November 14, 1997 (62 FR 61775,
November 14, 1997); June 1, 1999 (64
FR 10111, March 2, 1999); July 31, 2002
(67 FR 49617, July 31, 2002); March 9,
2006 (71 FR 12141, March 9, 2006);
January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077, January 7,
2008); and March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345,
March 2, 2010).
D. What is the effect of this
authorization decision?
The effect of this decision is that a
facility in Michigan subject to RCRA has
to comply with the authorized state
requirements in lieu of the
corresponding federal requirements in
order to comply with RCRA, and those
authorized requirements will be
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52195
federally enforceable. Additionally,
such persons must comply with any
applicable federal requirements, such
as, for example, HSWA requirements
issued by EPA for which the state has
not received authorization, and RCRA
requirements that are not supplanted by
authorized state-issued requirements.
Michigan continues to have
enforcement responsibilities under its
state hazardous waste program for
violations of such program, but EPA
retains its authority under RCRA
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
and any other applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions, which include,
among others, authority to:
• Perform inspections; require
monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements;
suspend, terminate, modify or revoke
permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless
of whether the State has taken its own
actions.
This final action approving these
revisions does not impose additional
requirements on the regulated
community because the regulations for
which Michigan is authorized are
already effective under state law and are
not changed by EPA’s final action.
E. What changes are we authorizing
with today’s action?
This final rule addresses a program
revision application that Michigan
submitted to EPA in June 2014, in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, seeking
authorization of changes to the state
program. On March 31, 2015, EPA
published a proposed rule (80 FR
17021) stating the Agency’s intent to
grant final authorization for revisions to
Michigan’s hazardous waste
management program. The public
comment period on this proposed rule
ended on June 1, 2015. EPA received no
comments during the public comment
period.
EPA has determined that Michigan’s
changes to its program satisfy all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization. With this final
action, EPA authorizes Michigan for the
following federal rules (a table with a
list of the State analogs is provided in
the March 31, 2015, proposed rule) and
the following state-initiated changes:
• NESHAP: Final Standards for
Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I
Final Replacement Standards and Phase
II) Amendments, 73 FR 18970, April 8,
2008, Checklist 217.1
1 Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to
federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal
Register notice; EPA publishes these checklists as
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
Continued
28AUR1
52196
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
• F019 Exemption for Wastewater
Treatment Sludges from Auto
Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating
Processes, June 4, 2008, 73 FR 31756,
Checklist 218.
• Academic Laboratories Generator
Standards, December 1, 2008, 73 FR
72912, Checklist 220.
• OECD Requirements: Export
Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries,
January 8, 2010, 75 FR 1236, Checklist
222.
• Hazardous Waste Technical
Corrections and Clarifications Rule, as
amended, March 16, 2010, 75 FR 12989;
and June 4, 2010, 75 FR 31716,
Checklist 223.
• Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts,
December 17, 2010, 75 FR 78918,
Checklist 225.
• Corrections to the Academic
Generator Standards, December 20,
2010, 75 FR 79304, Checklist 226.
• Revisions of the Treatment
Standards for Carbamate Wastes, June
13, 2011, 75 FR 34147, Checklist 227.
• Hazardous Waste Technical
Corrections and Clarifications, April 13,
2012, 77 FR 22229, Checklist 228.
• Equivalent state-initiated changes:
Michigan administrative rules R
299.9102 (definition of ‘‘construction
permit’’ removed), R 299.9106(e)
(definition of ‘‘operating license’’
modified), R 299.9224, R 299.9225, R
299.9304(2)(b), R 299.9409(4), R
299.9501 (except second sentence only
of paragraph (3)(d)), R 299.9505, R
299.9524, R 299.9603, R 299.9604(2), R
299.9605, R 299.9609, R 299.9610(3), R
299.9612, R 299.9615, R 299.9616, R
299.9623, R 299.9629, R 299.9640, R
299.9707, R 299.9708, R 299.9808, and
R 299.9821, effective November 5, 2013.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
F. Which revised state rules are
different from the federal rules?
The most significant differences
between the state rules we are
authorizing and their analogous federal
rules are summarized below. It should
be noted that this summary does not
describe every difference or every detail
regarding the differences that are
described. Members of the regulated
community are advised to read the
complete rules to ensure that they
understand the requirements with
which they will need to comply.
EPA has found that aspects of the
Michigan program are more stringent
than the federal program. All of these
more stringent requirements are part of
the federally enforceable RCRA program
aids to states to use for development of their
authorization revision application. See EPA’s RCRA
State Authorization Web site at https://www.epa.gov/
epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
authorized by the EPA and must be
complied with in addition to the state
requirements which track the minimum
federal requirements. These more
stringent requirements are found at:
Michigan’s rules at (references are to
the Michigan Administrative Code):
R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h) and (i); R 299.9608(1), (6) and
(8); R 299.9615; and R 299.9702(1) are
more stringent than the federal analogs
at 40 CFR §§ 265.56(b), 265.71, 265.72,
265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a),
265.193, 265.194, 265.197, 265.201, and
265.340(b)(1) since the State rules
include provisions that require
compliance with standards equivalent
to 40 CFR part 264 rather than 40 CFR
part 265.
Michigan’s rules at R 299.9601(2)(a)
and R 299.9602 are more stringent since
the rules impose requirements regarding
environmental and human health
standards generally.
Michigan’s rules at R 299.9615(4) are
more stringent since the State rules
require tank systems to also comply
with Michigan 1941 Act 207 standards
(which govern above-ground storage
tanks).
Michigan’s rules at R 299.9623(9) are
more stringent since the State rules
require incinerators to comply with
Michigan Part 55 standards (which
address air pollution).
Michigan does not allow containment
buildings, making the state
requirements more stringent than the
federal requirements at 40 CFR
262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d);
262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part 264
subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD;
and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I, Tables
1 and 2.
Michigan’s rules at R 299.9629(7)–
(7)(c) are more stringent, since the State
rules require (1) timely notification of
an exceedance of a groundwater/surface
water interface standard based on acute
toxicity and established pursuant to part
201 and part 31 of Act 451; and (2)
implementation of interim measures to
prevent exceedance at the monitoring
wells along with a proposal and
schedule for completing corrective
action to prevent a discharge that
exceeds the standard.
Michigan’s rules at R 299.11002(1)
and (2) are more stringent than the
federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and
(d)(1) since the State adopts updated
versions of the ‘‘Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code.’’
EPA has also found that aspects of
Michigan’s revised program are broader
in scope than the federal program. State
provisions that EPA determines are
broader in scope are not part of the
federally authorized program and are
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
not federally enforceable. Michigan’s
program revisions include the following
rules that are broader in scope than the
federal program (references are to the
Michigan Administrative Code): R
299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second
sentence only) and R 299.9507, as
amended effective November 5, 2013.
The following Michigan
administrative rules that were broader
in scope than the federal program were
rescinded effective November 5, 2013: R
299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223
(Table 204b), R 299.9904, R 299.9905, R
299.9906, and R 299.11101, R
299.11102, R 299.11103, R 299.11104, R
299.11105, R 299.11106, and R
299.11107.
EPA does not authorize States to
administer federal import and export
functions in any section of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations. Although
states do not receive authorization to
administer the federal government’s
import and export functions, found in
40 CFR part 262, subparts E, F and H,
state programs are still required to adopt
the federal import and export provisions
to maintain their equivalency with the
federal program. The State amended the
following state import and export rules
to include the federal rule on
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD)
Requirements; Export Shipments of
Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 1236,
January 8, 2010): R 299.9301(7); R
299.9309(1), (3) and (4); R 299.9312(1)
and (2); R 299.9401(5); R 299.9601(2)(c),
(3) and (9); R 299.9605(1) and (4); R
299.9608(1), (4) and (8); R 299.9804(7)
and (8); and R 299.11003(1)(k), (m), (n)
and (p) and (2).
G. Who handles permits after final
authorization takes effect?
Michigan will issue permits for all the
provisions for which it is authorized
and will administer the permits it
issues. EPA will continue to administer
any RCRA hazardous waste permits or
portions of permits which EPA issued
prior to the effective date of the final
authorization until they expire or are
terminated. EPA will not issue any more
new permits or new portions of permits
for the provisions listed above after the
effective date of the final authorization.
EPA will continue to implement and
issue permits for HSWA requirements
for which Michigan is not yet
authorized.
H. How does today’s action affect
Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Michigan?
Michigan is not authorized to carry
out its hazardous waste program in
Indian Country within the State, as
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This
includes:
1. All lands within the exterior
boundaries of Indian reservations
within the State of Michigan;
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, authorizing Michigan for
these revisions does not affect Indian
Country in Michigan. EPA continues to
implement and administer the RCRA
program in Indian Country. It is EPA’s
long-standing position that the term
‘‘Indian lands’’ used in past Michigan
hazardous waste approvals is
synonymous with the term ‘‘Indian
Country.’’ Washington Dep’t of Ecology
v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1467, n.1
(9th Cir. 1985). See 40 CFR 144.3 and
258.2.
I. What is codification and is EPA
codifying Michigan’s hazardous waste
program as authorized in this rule?
Codification is the process of placing
a state’s statutes and regulations that
comprise a state’s authorized hazardous
waste program into the Code of Federal
Regulations. We do this by referencing
the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part
272. Michigan’s rules, up to and
including those revised October 19,
1991, have previously been codified
through incorporation-by-reference
effective April 24, 1989 (54 FR 7421,
February 21, 1989); as amended
effective March 31, 1992 (57 FR 3724,
January 31, 1992). We reserve the
amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart
X, for the codification of Michigan’s
program changes until a later date.
J. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
This proposed rule only authorizes
hazardous waste requirements pursuant
to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no
requirements other than those imposed
by state law (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, Section A. Why Are
Revisions to State Programs Necessary?).
Therefore, this rule complies with
applicable executive orders and
statutory provisions as follows:
1. Executive Order 18266: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations
and Regulatory Review
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from its review
under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive
Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21,
2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule authorizes state
requirements for the purpose of RCRA
3006 and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those required by
state law. Accordingly, I certify that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) does not apply to this
rule because it will not have federalism
implications (i.e., 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 the
various levels of government).
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) does not apply to
this rule because it will not have tribal
implications (i.e., substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, or
on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes).
52197
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001), because it is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866.
9. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
EPA approves state programs as long
as they meet criteria required by RCRA,
so it would be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, in its review of
a state program, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard
in place of another standard that meets
the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply to this rule.
10. Executive Order 12988
As required by Section 3 of Executive
Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,
1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct.
11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation
of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings
EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18,
1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance
with the Attorney General’s
Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings issued under the
executive order.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
12. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations
Because this rule proposes
authorization of pre-existing state rules
and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law and
there are no anticipated significant
adverse human health or environmental
effects, the rule is not subject to
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866 and because the EPA does
not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
13. Congressional Review Act
EPA will submit a report containing
this rule and other information required
by the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to the publication in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
52198
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘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: August 10, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015–21385 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 150121066–5717–02]
RIN 0648–BE81
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; notice of adjusted
2015 Purse Seine and Reserve category
quotas.
AGENCY:
NMFS hereby modifies the
baseline annual U.S. quota and
subquotas for Atlantic bluefin tuna
(BFT). Specifically for 2015, NMFS
augments the Reserve category quota
with available underharvest of the 2014
adjusted U.S. BFT quota and also
recalculates the Purse Seine and Reserve
category quotas that were announced
earlier this year (consistent with the
Amendment 7 annual reallocation
process) to reflect the increased U.S.
quota. Furthermore, NMFS makes minor
modifications to the regulations
regarding Atlantic tunas purse seine
auxiliary vessel activity under the
‘‘transfer at sea’’ provisions. This action
is necessary to implement binding
recommendations of the International
Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
(ATCA), and to achieve domestic
management objectives under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:56 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES: Effective September 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Supporting documents such
as the Environmental Assessments and
Fishery Management Plans described
below may be downloaded from the
HMS Web site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
sfa/hms/. These documents also are
available upon request from Sarah
McLaughlin or Brad McHale at the
telephone number below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale,
978–281–9260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic
bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna,
yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Atlantic
tunas’’) are managed under the dual
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and ATCA. As an active member of
ICCAT, the United States implements
binding ICCAT recommendations.
ATCA authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate
regulations, as may be necessary and
appropriate to carry out ICCAT
recommendations. The authority to
issue regulations under the MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA has been
delegated from the Secretary to the
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
NMFS.
Background
Background information about the
need to modify the U.S. BFT base quota
and the subquotas for all domestic
fishing categories, as well as the
regulatory text regarding Atlantic tunas
purse seine auxiliary vessel activity
under the ‘‘transfer at sea’’ provisions,
were provided in the preamble to the
proposed rule (80 FR 33467, June 12,
2015) and most of that information is
not repeated here.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
In this final rule, NMFS is changing
text at § 635.27(a)(4)(ii), to reflect the
equal allocation of the baseline Purse
Seine category quota that is finalized in
this action among the five individual
Purse Seine category participants.
NMFS inadvertently omitted this
calculation in the regulatory text for the
proposed rule. Specifically, in the
proposed rule, NMFS proposed
updating the baseline Purse Seine quota
to 184.3 mt (§ 635.27(a)(4)(i)) to reflect
the increased U.S. quota. However,
NMFS did not carry this change through
to the codified text in § 635.27(a)(4)(ii)
to reflect the division of that Purse
Seine category quota equally among the
five individual Purse Seine fishery
participants. The existing regulatory text
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
specifies that annually, NMFS will
make equal allocations of the baseline
Purse Seine category quota described
under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of the section
to individual Purse Seine participants.
To reflect the increase in the baseline
Purse Seine category quota to 184.3 mt
for each Purse Seine category
participant, NMFS is updating the
amount in the regulatory text at
§ 635.27(a)(4)(ii) to 36.9 mt (i.e., 184.3
mt/5 = 36.9 mt each). Because the
change in the final rule simply reflects
a mathematical function of the amount
in § 635.27(a)(4)(i) and corrects the nowoutdated number for the individual
Purse Seine participants in
§ 635.27(a)(4)(ii) and does not alter the
formula used or substance of the
proposed rule, NMFS has determined
that it is appropriate to make this
change in this final rule.
2014 ICCAT Recommendation
At its November 2014 meeting, ICCAT
adopted a western Atlantic BFT TAC of
2,000 mt annually for 2015 and 2016
after considering the results of the 2014
BFT stock assessment and following
negotiations among Contracting Parties
(ICCAT Recommendation 14–05). This
TAC, which is an increase from the
1,750-mt TAC that has applied annually
since 2011, is consistent with scientific
advice from the 2014 stock assessment,
which indicated that annual catches of
less than 2,250 mt would have a 50percent probability of allowing the
spawning stock biomass to be at or
above its 2013 level by 2019 under
either recruitment scenario, and that
annual catches of 2,000 mt or less
would continue to allow stock growth
under both the low and high
recruitment scenarios for the remainder
of the rebuilding program. All TAC,
quota, and weight information
discussed in this notice are whole
weight amounts.
For 2015 and 2016, the ICCAT
Recommendation also makes the
following allocations from the western
BFT 2,000-mt TAC for bycatch related to
directed longline fisheries in the
Northeast Distant gear restricted area
(NED): 15 mt for Canada and 25 mt for
the United States. Following subtraction
of these allocations from the TAC, the
recommendation allocates the
remainder to the United States (54.02
percent), Canada (22.32 percent) Japan
(17.64 percent), Mexico (5.56 percent),
UK (0.23 percent), and France (0.23
percent). For the United States, 54.02
percent of the remaining 1,960 mt is
1,058.79 mt annually for 2015 and 2016.
This represents an increase of
approximately 135 mt (approximately
14 percent) from the U.S. baseline BFT
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52194-52198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21385]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689; FRL-9933-29--Region 5]
Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Michigan 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). On
March 31, 2015, EPA published a proposed rule to authorize the changes
and opened a public comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-
2014-0689. The comment period closed on June 1, 2015. EPA received no
comments on the proposed rule. EPA has decided that the changes to
Michigan's program satisfy all requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization, and EPA is
[[Page 52195]]
authorizing those changes to Michigan's authorized hazardous waste
program in this final rule.
DATES: Final authorization for the changes to the hazardous waste
program in Michigan will be effective at 1 p.m. EST on August 28, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index under Docket Identification No. EPA-2014-R05-
RCRA-2014-0689. Although listed in the index, some of the information
is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the following addresses, Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois, contact: Judith Greenberg, telephone (312) 886-4179;
or Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Constitution Hall, 525
West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan, contact: Ronda Blayer,
telephone (517) 284-6555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Greenberg, U.S. EPA, Region 5,
Land and Chemicals Division, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Mail Code LR-8J,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, email: greenberg.judith@epa.gov, phone number
(312) 886-4179.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to
state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
B. What decisions have we made in this rule?
EPA has made a final determination that Michigan's revisions to its
authorized hazardous waste management program meet all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization.
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revised State of Michigan hazardous
waste management program, as described in the Attorney General's
Statement in the June 2014 authorization revision application, and as
discussed in section E of this rule. Michigan has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within
its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects
of the RCRA program covered by 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 take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for
the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Michigan, including issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.
C. What has Michigan previously been authorized for?
Michigan's hazardous waste management program received final
authorization effective on October 16, 1986 (51 FR 36804-36805, October
16, 1986). Subsequently, EPA authorized revisions to the State's
program effective January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608, November 24, 1989);
January 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517, January 24, 1991); November 30, 1993 (58
FR 51244, October 1, 1993); January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095, January 13,
1995); April 8, 1996 (61 FR 4742, February 8, 1996); November 14, 1997
(62 FR 61775, November 14, 1997); June 1, 1999 (64 FR 10111, March 2,
1999); July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49617, July 31, 2002); March 9, 2006 (71 FR
12141, March 9, 2006); January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077, January 7, 2008);
and March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345, March 2, 2010).
D. What is the effect of this authorization decision?
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Michigan subject
to RCRA has to comply with the authorized state requirements in lieu of
the corresponding federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA,
and those authorized requirements will be federally enforceable.
Additionally, such persons must comply with any applicable federal
requirements, such as, for example, HSWA requirements issued by EPA for
which the state has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements
that are not supplanted by authorized state-issued requirements.
Michigan continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its state
hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains
its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, and any
other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, which include,
among others, authority to:
Perform inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses
or reports;
Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend, terminate, modify or
revoke permits; and
Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
This final action approving these revisions does not impose
additional requirements on the regulated community because the
regulations for which Michigan is authorized are already effective
under state law and are not changed by EPA's final action.
E. What changes are we authorizing with today's action?
This final rule addresses a program revision application that
Michigan submitted to EPA in June 2014, in accordance with 40 CFR
271.21, seeking authorization of changes to the state program. On March
31, 2015, EPA published a proposed rule (80 FR 17021) stating the
Agency's intent to grant final authorization for revisions to
Michigan's hazardous waste management program. The public comment
period on this proposed rule ended on June 1, 2015. EPA received no
comments during the public comment period.
EPA has determined that Michigan's changes to its program satisfy
all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization.
With this final action, EPA authorizes Michigan for the following
federal rules (a table with a list of the State analogs is provided in
the March 31, 2015, proposed rule) and the following state-initiated
changes:
NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors
(Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Amendments, 73 FR
18970, April 8, 2008, Checklist 217.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to federal
regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice; EPA
publishes these checklists as aids to states to use for development
of their authorization revision application. See EPA's RCRA State
Authorization Web site at https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52196]]
F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto
Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes, June 4, 2008, 73 FR 31756,
Checklist 218.
Academic Laboratories Generator Standards, December 1,
2008, 73 FR 72912, Checklist 220.
OECD Requirements: Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid
Batteries, January 8, 2010, 75 FR 1236, Checklist 222.
Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications
Rule, as amended, March 16, 2010, 75 FR 12989; and June 4, 2010, 75 FR
31716, Checklist 223.
Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts, December 17, 2010, 75
FR 78918, Checklist 225.
Corrections to the Academic Generator Standards, December
20, 2010, 75 FR 79304, Checklist 226.
Revisions of the Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes,
June 13, 2011, 75 FR 34147, Checklist 227.
Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications,
April 13, 2012, 77 FR 22229, Checklist 228.
Equivalent state-initiated changes:
Michigan administrative rules R 299.9102 (definition of
``construction permit'' removed), R 299.9106(e) (definition of
``operating license'' modified), R 299.9224, R 299.9225, R
299.9304(2)(b), R 299.9409(4), R 299.9501 (except second sentence only
of paragraph (3)(d)), R 299.9505, R 299.9524, R 299.9603, R
299.9604(2), R 299.9605, R 299.9609, R 299.9610(3), R 299.9612, R
299.9615, R 299.9616, R 299.9623, R 299.9629, R 299.9640, R 299.9707, R
299.9708, R 299.9808, and R 299.9821, effective November 5, 2013.
F. Which revised state rules are different from the federal rules?
The most significant differences between the state rules we are
authorizing and their analogous federal rules are summarized below. It
should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference or
every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of
the regulated community are advised to read the complete rules to
ensure that they understand the requirements with which they will need
to comply.
EPA has found that aspects of the Michigan program are more
stringent than the federal program. All of these more stringent
requirements are part of the federally enforceable RCRA program
authorized by the EPA and must be complied with in addition to the
state requirements which track the minimum federal requirements. These
more stringent requirements are found at:
Michigan's rules at (references are to the Michigan Administrative
Code):
R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i); R
299.9608(1), (6) and (8); R 299.9615; and R 299.9702(1) are more
stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR Sec. Sec. 265.56(b),
265.71, 265.72, 265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a), 265.193, 265.194,
265.197, 265.201, and 265.340(b)(1) since the State rules include
provisions that require compliance with standards equivalent to 40 CFR
part 264 rather than 40 CFR part 265.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(2)(a) and R 299.9602 are more
stringent since the rules impose requirements regarding environmental
and human health standards generally.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9615(4) are more stringent since the
State rules require tank systems to also comply with Michigan 1941 Act
207 standards (which govern above-ground storage tanks).
Michigan's rules at R 299.9623(9) are more stringent since the
State rules require incinerators to comply with Michigan Part 55
standards (which address air pollution).
Michigan does not allow containment buildings, making the state
requirements more stringent than the federal requirements at 40 CFR
262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d); 262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part
264 subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD; and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I,
Tables 1 and 2.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9629(7)-(7)(c) are more stringent, since
the State rules require (1) timely notification of an exceedance of a
groundwater/surface water interface standard based on acute toxicity
and established pursuant to part 201 and part 31 of Act 451; and (2)
implementation of interim measures to prevent exceedance at the
monitoring wells along with a proposal and schedule for completing
corrective action to prevent a discharge that exceeds the standard.
Michigan's rules at R 299.11002(1) and (2) are more stringent than
the federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and (d)(1) since the State
adopts updated versions of the ``Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code.''
EPA has also found that aspects of Michigan's revised program are
broader in scope than the federal program. State provisions that EPA
determines are broader in scope are not part of the federally
authorized program and are not federally enforceable. Michigan's
program revisions include the following rules that are broader in scope
than the federal program (references are to the Michigan Administrative
Code): R 299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second sentence only) and R
299.9507, as amended effective November 5, 2013.
The following Michigan administrative rules that were broader in
scope than the federal program were rescinded effective November 5,
2013: R 299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223 (Table 204b), R 299.9904, R
299.9905, R 299.9906, and R 299.11101, R 299.11102, R 299.11103, R
299.11104, R 299.11105, R 299.11106, and R 299.11107.
EPA does not authorize States to administer federal import and
export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. Although states do not receive authorization to administer
the federal government's import and export functions, found in 40 CFR
part 262, subparts E, F and H, state programs are still required to
adopt the federal import and export provisions to maintain their
equivalency with the federal program. The State amended the following
state import and export rules to include the federal rule on
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Requirements; Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR
1236, January 8, 2010): R 299.9301(7); R 299.9309(1), (3) and (4); R
299.9312(1) and (2); R 299.9401(5); R 299.9601(2)(c), (3) and (9); R
299.9605(1) and (4); R 299.9608(1), (4) and (8); R 299.9804(7) and (8);
and R 299.11003(1)(k), (m), (n) and (p) and (2).
G. Who handles permits after final authorization takes effect?
Michigan will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue
to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits
which EPA issued prior to the effective date of the final authorization
until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any more new
permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed above
after the effective date of the final authorization. EPA will continue
to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Michigan
is not yet authorized.
H. How does today's action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Michigan?
Michigan is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program
in Indian Country within the State, as
[[Page 52197]]
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations
within the State of Michigan;
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, authorizing Michigan for these revisions does not affect
Indian Country in Michigan. EPA continues to implement and administer
the RCRA program in Indian Country. It is EPA's long-standing position
that the term ``Indian lands'' used in past Michigan hazardous waste
approvals is synonymous with the term ``Indian Country.'' Washington
Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1467, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985).
See 40 CFR 144.3 and 258.2.
I. What is codification and is EPA codifying Michigan's hazardous waste
program as authorized in this rule?
Codification is the process of placing a state's statutes and
regulations that comprise a state's authorized hazardous waste program
into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the
authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. Michigan's rules, up to and
including those revised October 19, 1991, have previously been codified
through incorporation-by-reference effective April 24, 1989 (54 FR
7421, February 21, 1989); as amended effective March 31, 1992 (57 FR
3724, January 31, 1992). We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272,
subpart X, for the codification of Michigan's program changes until a
later date.
J. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements
pursuant to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no requirements other than
those imposed by state law (see Supplementary Information, Section A.
Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?). Therefore, this rule
complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as
follows:
1. Executive Order 18266: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its
review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA
3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by
state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply
to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (i.e.,
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 the various levels of government).
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not
apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (i.e.,
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes).
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA 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 (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined
in Executive Order 12866.
9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
EPA approves state programs as long as they meet criteria required
by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in
its review of a state program, to require the use of any particular
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets
the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply to this rule.
10. Executive Order 12988
As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18,
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance
with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation
of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the
executive order.
12. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing state
rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health
or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
13. Congressional Review Act
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information
required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to the publication in the Federal
Register. This action is not a
[[Page 52198]]
``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: August 10, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-21385 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P