81 FR 35641 - Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 107 (June 3, 2016)

Page Range		35641-35643
FR Document		2016-13161
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.
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 107 (Friday, June 3, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35641-35643]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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, [email protected], 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
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 35641

December 28, 2012; 2010 NO2 hazardous waste program that C. What were the comments on EPA’s
NAAQS—January 2, 2013; and 2010 SO2 correspond to certain federal rules proposal and what is EPA’s response?
NAAQS—May 30, 2013. These promulgated between July 1, 2005, and On March 23, 2016, EPA published a
infrastructure SIPs are approved, with June 30, 2008, (also known as RCRA proposed rule (81 FR 15497) and a
the exception of certain elements within Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA direct final rule (81 FR 15440) to
110(a)(2)(C)(ii), D(i)(II), and J(iii), which concludes that Nevada’s application to authorize Nevada’s November 25 and
are conditionally approved. Connecticut revise its authorized program meets all December 28, 2015, applications to
submitted infrastructure SIPs for the of the statutory and regulatory make revisions to Nevada’s State
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on requirements established by RCRA, as Hazardous Waste Management program
September 4, 2008, and September 18, set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 that correspond to certain federal rules
2009, respectively, and elements U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. promulgated between July 1, 2005, and
110(a)(2)(A), D(ii), and E(ii), which were Therefore, EPA grants Nevada final June 30, 2008 (also known as RCRA
previously conditionally approved, are authorization to operate as part of its Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA stated
now approved. Also with respect to the hazardous waste program the changes that if adverse comments were received
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, elements listed in Section G of the direct final by May 9, 2016, the rule would be
related to PSD, which include rule (81 FR 15440), as further described withdrawn and not take effect. On May
110(a)(2)C(ii), D(i)(II), and J(iii) are in the authorization application. 9, 2016, EPA received a comment
newly conditionally approved. Nevada has responsibility for opposing approval; however, due to the
Connecticut also submitted an permitting treatment, storage, and reasons explained below, EPA is not
Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour disposal facilities within its borders withdrawing the direct final rule but
ozone NAAQS on December 28, 2007, (except in Indian country) and for rather is responding to the comment and
and element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which was carrying out the aspects of the RCRA reaffirming the effective date of June 6,
previously conditionally approved, is program described in its revised 2016, of the rule, pursuant to 40 CFR
now approved. program application. New federal 271.21(b)(3)(iii)(B).
[FR Doc. 2016–12375 Filed 6–2–16; 8:45 am] requirements and prohibitions imposed EPA received four comments on the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P by federal regulations that EPA proposed rule, Nevada: Final
promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 Management Program Revisions. Three
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION take effect in authorized states at the comments stated, ‘‘Good’’ and do not
AGENCY same time that they take effect in require a response. The fourth comment
unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will stated, ‘‘Instead of not authorizing
40 CFR Part 271 implement those requirements and Nevada’s antifreeze recycling program
[EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0822; FRL–9947– prohibitions in Nevada, including the (and in the process violate 271.1(h), the
28–Region 9] issuance of new permits implementing partial authorization prohibition) EPA
those requirements, until the State is should instead require the program to be
Nevada: Final Authorization of State granted authorization to do so. amended so it is no less stringent than
Hazardous Waste Management EPAs [sic] requirements. This has been
B. What is the effect of today’s
Program Revisions wrong since 2009!’’
authorization decision?
The State of Nevada adopted
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
The effect of this decision is that the regulations for the ‘‘Recycling of Used
Agency (EPA).
changes described in Nevada’s Antifreeze’’ effective October 3, 1996, at
ACTION: Final rule. authorization application will become NAC 444.8801–9071. These regulations
part of the authorized state hazardous are applicable to those categories of
SUMMARY: EPA received several
waste program and therefore will be antifreeze that are recycled and have
comments during the open comment
federally enforceable. Nevada will been determined to be hazardous waste
period on the March 23, 2016, proposed
continue to have primary enforcement because they either exhibit a
rule to authorize Nevada’s changes to
authority and responsibility for its state characteristic of hazardous waste (i.e.,
the State Hazardous Waste Management
hazardous waste program. EPA retains the toxicity characteristic) or they are a
program. EPA is responding to one
its authorities under RCRA sections listed hazardous waste in the state of
comment opposing the action and
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including their origin, for those categories of
reaffirming the effective date of the
its authority to: antifreeze entering Nevada from another
direct final rule as June 6, 2016.
• Conduct inspections, and require State (NAC 444.8871). Under the
DATES: The final authorization is Federal code, spent antifreeze destined
effective June 6, 2016. monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
to be recycled, as defined by Nevada,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: • Enforce RCRA requirements,
would be subject to the requirements of
Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental including authorized state program
40 CFR 261.6(b)–(d) ‘‘Requirements for
Protection Agency Region 9, 75 requirements, and suspend or revoke
Recyclable Materials.’’ In the Nevada
Hawthorne Street LND–1–1, San permits; and
regulations at NAC 444.8801–9071,
Francisco, CA 94105, amaro.laurie@ • Take enforcement actions regardless spent antifreeze that is recycled is not
epa.gov, 415–972–3364. of whether the state has taken its own regulated as universal waste, but is
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: actions. subject to requirements that are less
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

This action does not impose stringent than the Federal regulations at
A. What decisions has EPA made in this additional requirements on the 40 CFR 261.6(b)–(d). Accordingly, EPA
rule? regulated community because the cannot authorize Nevada’s regulations
On November 25, 2015, and December regulations for which Nevada is being specific to the recycling of used
28, 2015, Nevada submitted final authorized by today’s action are already antifreeze.
complete program revision applications effective and are not changed by today’s However, Nevada has incorporated
seeking authorization of changes to its action. the federal regulations contained in 40

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:04 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
purpose of EPA’s notice in the Federal action authorizes pre-existing Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under
Register is to direct generators and requirements under state law and does the executive order. This rule does not
recyclers of used antifreeze to comply not impose any additional enforceable impose an information collection
with 40 CFR 261.1(b)–(d) as duty beyond that required by state law, burden under the provisions of the
incorporated by reference in NAC it does not contain any unfunded Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
444.8632, rather than the antifreeze- mandate or significantly or uniquely U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). ‘‘Burden’’ is
specific provisions at NAC 444.8801– affect small governments, as described defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive
9071. Because Nevada’s authorized in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,
program regulates used antifreeze of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538). For the 1994) establishes federal executive
recycling at NAC 444.8632 in a program same reason, this action also does not policy on environmental justice. Its
that is no less stringent than the federal significantly or uniquely affect the main provision directs federal agencies,
requirements, there is no gap in communities of tribal governments, as to the greatest extent practicable and
coverage of used antifreeze recycling specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 permitted by law, to make
that could be considered a partial FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This environmental justice part of their
authorization, and EPA is not running action will not have substantial direct mission by identifying and addressing,
afoul of the requirement contained in 40 effects on the states, on the relationship as appropriate, disproportionately high
CFR 271.1(h). Additionally, as noted in between the national government and and adverse human health or
the guidance document, Clarification of the states, or on the distribution of environmental effects of their programs,
EPA Policy on Authorizing Incomplete power and responsibilities among the policies, and activities on minority
or Late ‘‘Clusters’’ Under 40 CFR 271.21 various levels of government, as populations and low-income
and Availability of Public Information specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 populations in the United States.
under RCRA Section 3006(f), Nov. 6, FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it Because this rule authorizes pre-existing
1992, merely authorizes state requirements as state rules which are at least equivalent
There is regulatory history [relevant to 40 part of the state RCRA hazardous waste to, and no less stringent than existing
CFR 271.1(h)] which supports our program without altering the federal requirements, and imposes no
interpretation that the prohibition on partial relationship or the distribution of power additional requirements beyond those
programs means States are prohibited from and responsibilities established by imposed by state law, and there are no
implementing RCRA programs that address RCRA. This action also is not subject to anticipated significant adverse human
only part of the universe of waste handlers, Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
e.g., ‘‘generators’’, ‘‘transporters’’, ‘‘treatment, health or environmental effects, the rule
April 23, 1997), because it is not is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
storage and disposal facilities’’. This
economically significant and it does not
prohibition, therefore, would not be relevant The Congressional Review Act, 5
to the great majority of program revisions, make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This rule is not U.S.C. 801–808, generally provides that
since any State program that has obtained before a rule may take effect, the agency
initial authorization already addresses the subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That promulgating the rule must submit a
full universe of waste handlers.
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, rule report, which includes a copy of
The prohibition contained in 40 CFR the rule, to each House of the Congress
271.1(h) therefore does not apply to this Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant and to the Comptroller General of the
authorization decision. Nevada obtained United States. EPA will submit a report
initial authorization of its hazardous regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. containing this document and other
waste management program on August required information to the U.S. Senate,
19, 1985, effective November 1, 1985 (50 Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA the U.S. House of Representatives, and
FR 42181), and Nevada’s federally grants a state’s application for the Comptroller General of the United
authorized program covers the full authorization as long as the state meets States prior to publication in the
universe of waste handlers. the criteria required by RCRA. It would Federal Register. A major rule cannot
Accordingly, EPA affirms that the thus be inconsistent with applicable law take effect until 60 days after it is
immediate final decision takes effect on for EPA, when it reviews a state published in the Federal Register. This
June 6, 2016, as described in the direct authorization application, to require the action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
final rule, Nevada: Final Authorization use of any particular voluntary by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, this action
of State Hazardous Waste Management consensus standard in place of another is effective 75 days after the date of
Program Revisions. standard that otherwise satisfies the initial publication in the Federal
requirements of RCRA. Thus, the Register.
D. Administrative Requirements requirements of section 12(d) of the
The Office of Management and Budget National Technology Transfer and List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
(OMB) has exempted this action from Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
the requirements of Executive Orders 272 note) do not apply. As required by Environmental protection,
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 Administrative practice and procedure,
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing Confidential business information,
2011). Therefore this action is not this rule, EPA has taken the necessary Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
subject to review by OMB. This action steps to eliminate drafting errors and transportation, Indian lands,
authorizes state requirements for the ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

purpose of RCRA section 3006 and and provide a clear legal standard for Reporting and recordkeeping
imposes no additional requirements affected conduct. EPA has complied requirements.
beyond those imposed by state law. with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR Authority: This action is issued under the
Accordingly, I certify that this action 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and
will not have a significant economic takings implications of the rule in 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
impact on a substantial number of small accordance with the ‘‘Attorney amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 6974(b).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:04 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 35643

Dated: May 26, 2016. Section 4360 of the Omnibus Budget impact on a substantial number of small
Alexis Strauss, Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 entities. The primary impact of this
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. (Pub. L. 101–508). This section of the regulation is on entities applying for
[FR Doc. 2016–13161 Filed 6–2–16; 8:45 am] law authorized the Centers for Medicare SHIP funding opportunities, specifically
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
& Medicaid Services (CMS) to make researchers, States, public or private
grants to States to establish and agencies and organizations, institutions
maintain health insurance advisory of higher education, and Indian tribes
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND service programs for Medicare and Tribal organizations. The regulation
HUMAN SERVICES beneficiaries. Grant funds were made does not have a significant economic
available to support information, impact on these entities.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid counseling, and assistance activities
C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Services relating to Medicare, Medicaid, and
other related health insurance options In accordance with the Paperwork
42 CFR Part 403 such as: Medicare supplement Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch.
insurance, long-term care insurance, 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1) (PRA),
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND managed care options, and other health ACL and CMS have determined that
HUMAN SERVICES insurance benefit information. In there are no new collections of
January 2014, in the Consolidated information contained in this final rule.
45 CFR Part 1331 Appropriations Act of 2014, Congress
D. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
transferred the funding for the SHIP
RIN 0985–AA11 program from CMS to the Under the Administrative Procedure
State Health Insurance Assistance Administration for Community Living Act (APA), ACL and CMS are required
Program (SHIP) (ACL). This transfer reflects the existing to publish a notice of proposed
formal and informal collaborations rulemaking and provide the public with
AGENCY: Administration for Community between the SHIP programs and the an opportunity to comment on proposed
Living (ACL), Department of Health and networks that ACL serves. regulations prior to establishing a final
Human Services (HHS) and Centers for On February 4, 2016, ACL and CMS rule unless it is determined for good
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), issued an IFR (81 FR 5917) that cause that the notice and comment
HHS. transferred all provisions of the existing procedure is impracticable, unnecessary
ACTION: Final rule. SHIP regulations at 42 CFR part 403 or contrary to public interest. 5 U.S.C.
Subpart E, (§§ 403.500 through 403.512), 553(b). As noted previously, Congress
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and to a new part at 45 CFR 1331.1–1331.7. has already transferred the SHIP
Human Services is issuing a final The IFR also changed all references to program to ACL under the Consolidated
regulation that adopts, without change, CMS’ administration of the program to Appropriations Act of 2014. This final
the interim final rule (IFR) entitled ACL and made a technical change to rule makes no changes other than
‘‘State Health Insurance Assistance reflect new Uniform Administrative aligning the location of the regulations
Program (SHIP).’’ This final rule Requirements, Cost Principles, and within the Code of Federal Regulations
implements a provision enacted by the Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, with other ACL programs; amending the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of codified at 45 CFR part 75. This final name of the administering agency to
2014 and reflects the transfer of the rule adopts, without making any ACL; and updating a reference to new
State Health Insurance Assistance changes, the regulatory requirements Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Program (SHIP) from the Centers for established in the IFR. Cost Principles, and Audit
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in Requirements for HHS Awards, which
the Department of Health and Human II. Comments on the IFR
have already undergone notice and
Services (HHS) to the Administration HHS received one responsive comment rulemaking, therefore, there is
for Community Living (ACL) in HHS. comment to the IFR. The commenter good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for
Prior to the interim final rule, prior expressed support for the rule and waiving proposed rulemaking as
regulations were issued by CMS under optimism for the new opportunities that unnecessary.
the authority granted by the Omnibus come with the SHIP’s transfer to ACL.
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 We are grateful for the commenter’s E. Waiver of Delayed Effective Date
(OBRA), Section 4360. support and look forward to continuing Agencies are required to delay the
DATES: Effective June 3, 2016. to improve the program’s effectiveness effective date of their final regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh and efficiency. by 30 days after publication, as required
Hodges, Administration for Community III. Regulatory Analysis under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), unless an
Living, telephone (202) 795–7364 exception under subsection (d) applies.
(Voice). This is not a toll-free number. A. Executive Order 12866 Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), ACL and CMS
This document will be made available This rule is not being treated as a may waive the delayed effective date
in alternative formats upon request. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under requirement if they find good cause and
Written correspondence can be sent to section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. explain the basis for the waiver in the
Administration for Community Living, Accordingly, the rule has not been final rulemaking document or if the
U.S. Department of Health and Human reviewed by the Office of Management regulations grant or recognize an
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Services, 330 C St. SW., Washington, DC and Budget. exemption or relieve a restriction.
20201. In the present case, there is good
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis cause to waive the delayed effective
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. date for this final rule, because the
I. Background 605(b), the Regulatory Flexibility Act substance of the regulation, other than
The State Health Insurance Assistance (Pub. L. 96–354), that this regulation the name of the administering agency, is
Program (SHIP) was created under will not have a significant economic identical to the current regulation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:04 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1
Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:29:48
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:29:48
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		The final authorization is effective June 6, 2016.
Contact		Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street LND-1-1, San Francisco, CA 94105, [email protected], 415-972-3364.
FR Citation		81 FR 35641
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Administrative Practice and Procedure; Confidential Business Information; Hazardous Waste; Hazardous Waste Transportation; Indian Lands; Intergovernmental Relations; Penalties and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements