Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions, 35641-35643 [2016-13161]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations December 28, 2012; 2010 NO2 NAAQS—January 2, 2013; and 2010 SO2 NAAQS—May 30, 2013. These infrastructure SIPs are approved, with the exception of certain elements within 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), D(i)(II), and J(iii), which are conditionally approved. Connecticut submitted infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on September 4, 2008, and September 18, 2009, respectively, and elements 110(a)(2)(A), D(ii), and E(ii), which were previously conditionally approved, are now approved. Also with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, elements related to PSD, which include 110(a)(2)C(ii), D(i)(II), and J(iii) are newly conditionally approved. Connecticut also submitted an Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on December 28, 2007, and element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which was previously conditionally approved, is now approved. [FR Doc. 2016–12375 Filed 6–2–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0822; FRL–9947– 28–Region 9] Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: EPA received several comments during the open comment period on the March 23, 2016, proposed rule to authorize Nevada’s changes to the State Hazardous Waste Management program. EPA is responding to one comment opposing the action and reaffirming the effective date of the direct final rule as June 6, 2016. DATES: The final authorization is effective June 6, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street LND–1–1, San Francisco, CA 94105, amaro.laurie@ epa.gov, 415–972–3364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES SUMMARY: A. What decisions has EPA made in this rule? On November 25, 2015, and December 28, 2015, Nevada submitted final complete program revision applications seeking authorization of changes to its VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:04 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 238001 35641 C. What were the comments on EPA’s proposal and what is EPA’s response? On March 23, 2016, EPA published a proposed rule (81 FR 15497) and a direct final rule (81 FR 15440) to authorize Nevada’s November 25 and December 28, 2015, applications to make revisions to Nevada’s State Hazardous Waste Management program that correspond to certain federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008 (also known as RCRA Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by May 9, 2016, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On May 9, 2016, EPA received a comment opposing approval; however, due to the reasons explained below, EPA is not withdrawing the direct final rule but rather is responding to the comment and reaffirming the effective date of June 6, 2016, of the rule, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3)(iii)(B). EPA received four comments on the proposed rule, Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions. Three comments stated, ‘‘Good’’ and do not require a response. The fourth comment stated, ‘‘Instead of not authorizing Nevada’s antifreeze recycling program (and in the process violate 271.1(h), the partial authorization prohibition) EPA should instead require the program to be amended so it is no less stringent than EPAs [sic] requirements. This has been B. What is the effect of today’s wrong since 2009!’’ authorization decision? The State of Nevada adopted regulations for the ‘‘Recycling of Used The effect of this decision is that the Antifreeze’’ effective October 3, 1996, at changes described in Nevada’s NAC 444.8801–9071. These regulations authorization application will become are applicable to those categories of part of the authorized state hazardous antifreeze that are recycled and have waste program and therefore will be been determined to be hazardous waste federally enforceable. Nevada will because they either exhibit a continue to have primary enforcement characteristic of hazardous waste (i.e., authority and responsibility for its state the toxicity characteristic) or they are a hazardous waste program. EPA retains listed hazardous waste in the state of its authorities under RCRA sections their origin, for those categories of 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including antifreeze entering Nevada from another its authority to: State (NAC 444.8871). Under the • Conduct inspections, and require Federal code, spent antifreeze destined monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; to be recycled, as defined by Nevada, • Enforce RCRA requirements, would be subject to the requirements of including authorized state program 40 CFR 261.6(b)–(d) ‘‘Requirements for requirements, and suspend or revoke Recyclable Materials.’’ In the Nevada permits; and regulations at NAC 444.8801–9071, • Take enforcement actions regardless spent antifreeze that is recycled is not of whether the state has taken its own regulated as universal waste, but is actions. subject to requirements that are less This action does not impose stringent than the Federal regulations at additional requirements on the 40 CFR 261.6(b)–(d). Accordingly, EPA regulated community because the cannot authorize Nevada’s regulations regulations for which Nevada is being specific to the recycling of used authorized by today’s action are already antifreeze. However, Nevada has incorporated effective and are not changed by today’s the federal regulations contained in 40 action. hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008, (also known as RCRA Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA concludes that Nevada’s application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA grants Nevada final authorization to operate as part of its hazardous waste program the changes listed in Section G of the direct final rule (81 FR 15440), as further described in the authorization application. Nevada has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application. New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Nevada, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the State is granted authorization to do so. PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1 35642 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations CFR 261.6(b)–(d) at NAC 444.8632. The purpose of EPA’s notice in the Federal Register is to direct generators and recyclers of used antifreeze to comply with 40 CFR 261.1(b)–(d) as incorporated by reference in NAC 444.8632, rather than the antifreezespecific provisions at NAC 444.8801– 9071. Because Nevada’s authorized program regulates used antifreeze recycling at NAC 444.8632 in a program that is no less stringent than the federal requirements, there is no gap in coverage of used antifreeze recycling that could be considered a partial authorization, and EPA is not running afoul of the requirement contained in 40 CFR 271.1(h). Additionally, as noted in the guidance document, Clarification of EPA Policy on Authorizing Incomplete or Late ‘‘Clusters’’ Under 40 CFR 271.21 and Availability of Public Information under RCRA Section 3006(f), Nov. 6, 1992, There is regulatory history [relevant to 40 CFR 271.1(h)] which supports our interpretation that the prohibition on partial programs means States are prohibited from implementing RCRA programs that address only part of the universe of waste handlers, e.g., ‘‘generators’’, ‘‘transporters’’, ‘‘treatment, storage and disposal facilities’’. This prohibition, therefore, would not be relevant to the great majority of program revisions, since any State program that has obtained initial authorization already addresses the full universe of waste handlers. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES The prohibition contained in 40 CFR 271.1(h) therefore does not apply to this authorization decision. Nevada obtained initial authorization of its hazardous waste management program on August 19, 1985, effective November 1, 1985 (50 FR 42181), and Nevada’s federally authorized program covers the full universe of waste handlers. Accordingly, EPA affirms that the immediate final decision takes effect on June 6, 2016, as described in the direct final rule, Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions. D. Administrative Requirements The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:04 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 238001 Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes 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 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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 the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes state requirements as part of the state RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. 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 under Executive Order 12866. Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state’s application for authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies 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. 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. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental Guidelines for PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under the executive order. 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.). ‘‘Burden’’ is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing state rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements, 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. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801–808, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, this action is effective 75 days after the date of initial publication 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, and 6974(b). E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Dated: May 26, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. [FR Doc. 2016–13161 Filed 6–2–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 403 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 1331 RIN 0985–AA11 State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a final regulation that adopts, without change, the interim final rule (IFR) entitled ‘‘State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP).’’ This final rule implements a provision enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 and reflects the transfer of the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Administration for Community Living (ACL) in HHS. Prior to the interim final rule, prior regulations were issued by CMS under the authority granted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA), Section 4360. DATES: Effective June 3, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Hodges, Administration for Community Living, telephone (202) 795–7364 (Voice). This is not a toll-free number. This document will be made available in alternative formats upon request. Written correspondence can be sent to Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 330 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20201. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES SUMMARY: I. Background The State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) was created under VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:04 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 238001 Section 4360 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508). This section of the law authorized the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to make grants to States to establish and maintain health insurance advisory service programs for Medicare beneficiaries. Grant funds were made available to support information, counseling, and assistance activities relating to Medicare, Medicaid, and other related health insurance options such as: Medicare supplement insurance, long-term care insurance, managed care options, and other health insurance benefit information. In January 2014, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, Congress transferred the funding for the SHIP program from CMS to the Administration for Community Living (ACL). This transfer reflects the existing formal and informal collaborations between the SHIP programs and the networks that ACL serves. On February 4, 2016, ACL and CMS issued an IFR (81 FR 5917) that transferred all provisions of the existing SHIP regulations at 42 CFR part 403 Subpart E, (§§ 403.500 through 403.512), to a new part at 45 CFR 1331.1–1331.7. The IFR also changed all references to CMS’ administration of the program to ACL and made a technical change to reflect new Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, codified at 45 CFR part 75. This final rule adopts, without making any changes, the regulatory requirements established in the IFR. II. Comments on the IFR HHS received one responsive comment to the IFR. The commenter expressed support for the rule and optimism for the new opportunities that come with the SHIP’s transfer to ACL. We are grateful for the commenter’s support and look forward to continuing to improve the program’s effectiveness and efficiency. III. Regulatory Analysis A. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not being treated as a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354), that this regulation will not have a significant economic PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 35643 impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact of this regulation is on entities applying for SHIP funding opportunities, specifically researchers, States, public or private agencies and organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes and Tribal organizations. The regulation does not have a significant economic impact on these entities. C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1) (PRA), ACL and CMS have determined that there are no new collections of information contained in this final rule. D. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ACL and CMS are required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations prior to establishing a final rule unless it is determined for good cause that the notice and comment procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). As noted previously, Congress has already transferred the SHIP program to ACL under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. This final rule makes no changes other than aligning the location of the regulations within the Code of Federal Regulations with other ACL programs; amending the name of the administering agency to ACL; and updating a reference to new Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, which have already undergone notice and comment rulemaking, therefore, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for waiving proposed rulemaking as unnecessary. E. Waiver of Delayed Effective Date Agencies are required to delay the effective date of their final regulations by 30 days after publication, as required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), unless an exception under subsection (d) applies. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), ACL and CMS may waive the delayed effective date requirement if they find good cause and explain the basis for the waiver in the final rulemaking document or if the regulations grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction. In the present case, there is good cause to waive the delayed effective date for this final rule, because the substance of the regulation, other than the name of the administering agency, is identical to the current regulation. E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35641-35643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13161]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2015-0822; FRL-9947-28-Region 9]


Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA received several comments during the open comment period 
on the March 23, 2016, proposed rule to authorize Nevada's changes to 
the State Hazardous Waste Management program. EPA is responding to one 
comment opposing the action and reaffirming the effective date of the 
direct final rule as June 6, 2016.

DATES: The final authorization is effective June 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street LND-1-1, San Francisco, 
CA 94105, amaro.laurie@epa.gov, 415-972-3364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

    On November 25, 2015, and December 28, 2015, Nevada submitted final 
complete program revision applications seeking authorization of changes 
to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules 
promulgated between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008, (also known as 
RCRA Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA concludes that Nevada's 
application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory 
and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA 
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA 
grants Nevada final authorization to operate as part of its hazardous 
waste program the changes listed in Section G of the direct final rule 
(81 FR 15440), as further described in the authorization application.
    Nevada has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and 
disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and 
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its 
revised program application. New federal requirements and prohibitions 
imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 take effect in authorized 
states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. 
Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Nevada, 
including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, 
until the State is granted authorization to do so.

B. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that the changes described in 
Nevada's authorization application will become part of the authorized 
state hazardous waste program and therefore will be federally 
enforceable. Nevada will continue to have primary enforcement authority 
and responsibility for its state hazardous waste program. EPA retains 
its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 
including its authority to:
     Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, 
analyses or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized state 
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the state 
has taken its own actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the 
regulated community because the regulations for which Nevada is being 
authorized by today's action are already effective and are not changed 
by today's action.

C. What were the comments on EPA's proposal and what is EPA's response?

    On March 23, 2016, EPA published a proposed rule (81 FR 15497) and 
a direct final rule (81 FR 15440) to authorize Nevada's November 25 and 
December 28, 2015, applications to make revisions to Nevada's State 
Hazardous Waste Management program that correspond to certain federal 
rules promulgated between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008 (also known 
as RCRA Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA stated that if adverse 
comments were received by May 9, 2016, the rule would be withdrawn and 
not take effect. On May 9, 2016, EPA received a comment opposing 
approval; however, due to the reasons explained below, EPA is not 
withdrawing the direct final rule but rather is responding to the 
comment and reaffirming the effective date of June 6, 2016, of the 
rule, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3)(iii)(B).
    EPA received four comments on the proposed rule, Nevada: Final 
Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions. 
Three comments stated, ``Good'' and do not require a response. The 
fourth comment stated, ``Instead of not authorizing Nevada's antifreeze 
recycling program (and in the process violate 271.1(h), the partial 
authorization prohibition) EPA should instead require the program to be 
amended so it is no less stringent than EPAs [sic] requirements. This 
has been wrong since 2009!''
    The State of Nevada adopted regulations for the ``Recycling of Used 
Antifreeze'' effective October 3, 1996, at NAC 444.8801-9071. These 
regulations are applicable to those categories of antifreeze that are 
recycled and have been determined to be hazardous waste because they 
either exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste (i.e., the toxicity 
characteristic) or they are a listed hazardous waste in the state of 
their origin, for those categories of antifreeze entering Nevada from 
another State (NAC 444.8871). Under the Federal code, spent antifreeze 
destined to be recycled, as defined by Nevada, would be subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR 261.6(b)-(d) ``Requirements for Recyclable 
Materials.'' In the Nevada regulations at NAC 444.8801-9071, spent 
antifreeze that is recycled is not regulated as universal waste, but is 
subject to requirements that are less stringent than the Federal 
regulations at 40 CFR 261.6(b)-(d). Accordingly, EPA cannot authorize 
Nevada's regulations specific to the recycling of used antifreeze.
    However, Nevada has incorporated the federal regulations contained 
in 40

[[Page 35642]]

CFR 261.6(b)-(d) at NAC 444.8632. The purpose of EPA's notice in the 
Federal Register is to direct generators and recyclers of used 
antifreeze to comply with 40 CFR 261.1(b)-(d) as incorporated by 
reference in NAC 444.8632, rather than the antifreeze-specific 
provisions at NAC 444.8801-9071. Because Nevada's authorized program 
regulates used antifreeze recycling at NAC 444.8632 in a program that 
is no less stringent than the federal requirements, there is no gap in 
coverage of used antifreeze recycling that could be considered a 
partial authorization, and EPA is not running afoul of the requirement 
contained in 40 CFR 271.1(h). Additionally, as noted in the guidance 
document, Clarification of EPA Policy on Authorizing Incomplete or Late 
``Clusters'' Under 40 CFR 271.21 and Availability of Public Information 
under RCRA Section 3006(f), Nov. 6, 1992,

    There is regulatory history [relevant to 40 CFR 271.1(h)] which 
supports our interpretation that the prohibition on partial programs 
means States are prohibited from implementing RCRA programs that 
address only part of the universe of waste handlers, e.g., 
``generators'', ``transporters'', ``treatment, storage and disposal 
facilities''. This prohibition, therefore, would not be relevant to 
the great majority of program revisions, since any State program 
that has obtained initial authorization already addresses the full 
universe of waste handlers.

The prohibition contained in 40 CFR 271.1(h) therefore does not apply 
to this authorization decision. Nevada obtained initial authorization 
of its hazardous waste management program on August 19, 1985, effective 
November 1, 1985 (50 FR 42181), and Nevada's federally authorized 
program covers the full universe of waste handlers. Accordingly, EPA 
affirms that the immediate final decision takes effect on June 6, 2016, 
as described in the direct final rule, Nevada: Final Authorization of 
State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions.

D. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action 
from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 
4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore this 
action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes state 
requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, 
I certify that this action 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.). Because this action authorizes 
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 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does 
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal 
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000). This action 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 
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes state 
requirements as part of the state RCRA hazardous waste program without 
altering the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is 
not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on 
environmental health or safety risks. 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 
under Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for 
authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. 
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it 
reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any 
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard 
that otherwise satisfies 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. 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. EPA has complied 
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 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. 
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.). ``Burden'' is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive Order 12898 
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on 
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing state rules 
which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing 
federal requirements, 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides 
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule 
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each 
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect 
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, 
this action is effective 75 days after the date of initial publication 
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, and 6974(b).


[[Page 35643]]


    Dated: May 26, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-13161 Filed 6-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.