[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29354-29357]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11785]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0380; FRL-9911-25-Region 6]

Finding of Failure To Submit a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration State Implementation Plan Revision for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5); Arkansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finding that the
State of Arkansas has not made a necessary Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission to
address the PSD permitting of PM2.5 emissions, as required
by the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, the EPA is determining that
Arkansas has not submitted a SIP revision to address the
PM2.5 PSD increments and implementing regulations as
promulgated by EPA on October 20, 2010. The deadline for the State to
make the required submittal was July 20, 2012. The CAA requires EPA to
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the
outstanding PSD SIP elements by no later than 24 months after the
effective date of this finding. EPA is making this finding in
accordance with section 110 and part C of the CAA.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is May 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley, Air permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is (214) 665-
2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good
cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a
rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment.
The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule
final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no
significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to
submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states
have made no submissions to meet the requirement. No additional fact
gathering is necessary. Thus, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. Furthermore, providing notice and comment would be
impracticable because of the limited time provided under the CAA for
making such determinations. EPA believes that because of the limited
time provided to make findings of failure to submit regarding SIP
submissions, Congress did not intend such findings to be subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking. Finally, notice and comment would be
contrary to the public interest because it would divert Agency
resources from the critical substantive review of submitted SIPs. See
58 FR 51270, 51272, note 17 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853
(August 4, 1994). The EPA finds that these constitute good cause under
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
    EPA has also determined that today's Finding of Failure to Submit
for Arkansas is effective immediately upon publication because this
final action falls under the good cause exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
of the APA. The expedited effective date for this action is authorized
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30
days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good
cause found and published with the rule.'' The EPA has determined that
there is good cause for making this rule effective upon publication
because the PSD SIP element is already overdue and the state has been
made aware of applicable provisions of the CAA relating to overdue SIP
revisions. The State of Arkansas failed to submit a required PSD SIP
revision by the mandated deadline of July 20, 2012. We have previously
alerted Arkansas through meetings that it has failed to make the
submittal by the deadline. Also on May 9, 2014, we sent a letter to
Arkansas, explaining that we were planning to take the action we are
finalizing today. Consequently, the State has been on notice that
today's action was pending. The State and general public are aware of
applicable provisions of the CAA that relate to failure to submit a
required implementation plan. In addition, this action only starts a
24-month ``clock'' wherein the EPA must promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan. Furthermore, the purpose of the 30-day waiting
period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a
reasonable time to prepare before the final rule takes effect. Whereas
here, the affected parties, such as the State of Arkansas and sources
within the State, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the
Finding of Failure to Submit takes effect. After numerous discussions
with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to resolve
outstanding issues, the EPA has determined that moving as expeditiously
as practicable on this finding is in the best interest of the
implementation of the required PSD permitting program. The EPA finds
that the above reasons support an effective date prior to thirty days
after the date of publication and constitute good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3).
    Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview
    A. Overview of the PM NAAQS Requirements
    B. Revisions to the PSD Program To Implement the PM NAAQS
    1. Required Components of the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule
    2. Required Components of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD
Increment--SILs--SMC Rule
    3. Optional Components of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD
Increment--SILs--SMC Rule
II. Finding of Failure To Submit
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

I. Background and Overview

A. Overview of the PM NAAQS Requirements

    The EPA initially established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) under section 109 of the
CAA in 1971. Since then, the EPA has made a number of changes to these
standards to reflect

continually expanding scientific information. The revisions to the PM
NAAQS are briefly summarized below.
     In 1971, the EPA established NAAQS for PM, measured as
Total Suspended Particles (TSP) (36 FR 8186). The primary standards
were 260 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once
per year, and 75 [mu]g/m\3\, annual geometric mean. The secondary
standard was 150 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour, not to be exceeded more than once
per year.
     In July 1987, the EPA changed the indicator for PM from
TSP to PM10, the latter including particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 [mu]m. (52 FR
24634). The EPA also revised the primary standards by (1) replacing the
24-hour TSP standard with a 24-hour PM10 standard of 150
[mu]g/m\3\ with no more than one expected exceedance per year, and (2)
replacing the annual TSP standard with a PM10 standard of 50
[mu]g/m\3\, annual arithmetic mean. The secondary standard was revised
by replacing it with 24-hour and annual PM10 standards
identical in all respects to the primary standards.
     In July 1997, the EPA determined that although the PM
NAAQS should continue to focus on PM10, the fine and coarse
fractions of PM10 should be considered separately (62 FR
38652). New standards were added, using PM2.5 as the
indicator for fine particles. The PM10 standards were
retained for the purpose of regulating the coarse fraction of
PM10. The EPA established two new PM2.5
standards: an annual standard of 15 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year
average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from
single or multiple monitors sited to represented community-wide air
quality and a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within the area.
     On October 17, 2006, the EPA promulgated revisions to the
NAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10 with an effective date
of December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). We lowered the 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 from 65 [mu]g/m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and retained the
existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\. In addition,
we retained the existing PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 mg/m\3\,
and revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS (set at 50 mg/m\3\).
     On January 15, 2013, the EPA promulgated revisions to the
NAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10 with an effective date
of March 18, 2013 (78 FR 3086). We lowered the annual standard for
PM2.5 to 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard at the level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. For
PM10, the EPA retained the current 24-hour PM10
primary and secondary standards.

B. Revisions to the PSD Program To Implement the PM NAAQS

    To implement the PM NAAQS for PSD purposes, EPA issued two separate
final rules that establish the New Source Review (NSR) permitting
requirements for PM2.5: the NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule promulgated on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), and the
PM2.5 PSD Increments--Significant Impact Levels (SILs)--
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) Rule promulgated on October
20, 2010 (75 FR 64864).
1. Required Components of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation
Rule
    EPA's final NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule required
states to submit applicable SIP revisions to EPA no later than May 16,
2011, to address this rule's PSD and nonattainment NSR SIP
requirements. With respect to PSD permitting, the SIP revision
submittals are required to: (1) Address directly emitted
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)) that contribute
to the secondary formation of PM2.5; (2) establish
significant emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor
pollutants; and (3) account for gases that condense to form particles
(condensables) in PM2.5 and PM10 applicability
determinations and emission limits in PSD permits.
2. Required Components of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment--
SILs--SMC Rule
    The PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule required states
to submit SIP revisions to EPA by July 20, 2012, adopting provisions
equivalent to or at least as stringent as the PM2.5 PSD
increments and associated implementing regulations. Specifically, the
SIP rule requires a state's submitted PSD SIP revision to adopt and
submit for EPA approval the PM2.5 increments issued pursuant
to section 166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of
air quality in areas meeting the NAAQS. States were also required to
adopt and submit for EPA approval revisions to the definitions for
``major source baseline date,'' ``minor source baseline date,'' and
``baseline area'' as part of the implementing regulations for the
PM2.5 increment.
3. Optional Components of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment--
SILs--SMC Rule
    The PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule also allowed
States to discretionarily adopt and submit for EPA approval: (1) SILs,
which are used as a screening tool to evaluate the impact a proposed
new major source or major modification may have on the NAAQS or PSD
increment; and (2) a SMC (also a screening tool) which is used to
determine the subsequent level of data gathering required for a PSD
permit application for emissions of PM2.5. However, on
January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia granted a request from the EPA to vacate and remand portions
of the federal PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2))
establishing the SILs for PM2.5 so that the EPA could
reconcile the inconsistency between the regulatory text and certain
statements in the preamble to the 2010 final rule. Sierra Club v. EPA,
705 F.3d 458, 463-64. The court declined to vacate the portion of the
federal PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) establishing SILs for
PM2.5 that did not contain the same inconsistency in the
regulatory text. Id. at 465-66. The court further vacated the portions
of the PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)) establishing a PM2.5 SMC, finding that
the EPA lacked legal authority to adopt and use the PM2.5
SMC to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement to
compile and submit ambient monitoring data. Id. at 468-69. On December
9, 2013, EPA issued a good cause final rule formally removing the
affected SILs and SMC provisions from the CFR. See 78 FR 73698. As
such, SIP submittals should no longer include the vacated
PM2.5 SILs at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) and
vacated PM2.5 SMC provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c)
and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) for PM2.5 PSD permitting. EPA notes
that today's finding of failure to submit for the State of Arkansas
does not include the optional SILs and SMC component of the
PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule.

II. Finding of Failure To Submit

    The EPA is making a finding that the State of Arkansas has failed
to submit a required PSD SIP revision to address the implementation and
permitting of PM2.5 emissions in the Arkansas PSD program.
Specifically, we are finding that Arkansas failed to submit a SIP
revision, addressing the required PM2.5 PSD elements
establishing increments and the implementing regulations by the
specified deadline of July 20, 2012, as required by the 2010
PM2.5 PSD Increments--SILs--SMC Rule. By no later than 24
months after the effective date of this ruling, the EPA is required by
the Act to promulgate a FIP for Arkansas to address the
PM2.5 PSD requirements for increment. In addition, CAA
section 110(c) provides that EPA

can promulgate a FIP immediately after making the finding of failure to
submit a required SIP, as late as two years after making the finding,
or any time in between. This finding of failure to submit does not
impose sanctions or set deadlines for imposing sanctions as described
in section 179 of the CAA, because this finding does not pertain to the
elements of a part D, title I plan for nonattainment areas as required
under section 110(a)(2)(I) and because this action is not a SIP call
pursuant to section 110(k)(5). This action will be effective on May 22,
2014.
    This action also does not make a finding of failure to submit for
Arkansas regarding the required PM2.5 PSD SIP revision due
on May 19, 2011, pursuant to the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule. EPA previously promulgated a partial approval and
partial disapproval of the Arkansas infrastructure SIP for the 1997
ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on August 20,
2012. See 77 FR 50033. The partial disapproval was specific to the
Arkansas PSD program for failing to include the required PSD elements
from the May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule. EPA's
disapproval as to these required SIP revisions started a separate FIP
clock because the Arkansas PSD program lacked the PM2.5 PSD
revisions as required by the 2008 rule. This separate FIP clock will
expire on September 19, 2014.
    EPA recognizes that the PM2.5 PSD elements from 2008 and
2010 are necessary for proper functioning of the PSD program for
issuing permits for PM2.5. As described above, we also
acknowledge that we now have two separate FIP clocks running for
PM2.5 PSD elements with respect to Arkansas. The first
clock, expiring on September 19, 2014, is for the PSD revisions
required by the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule. The
second clock, ending 24-months from the effective date of today's
finding, addresses the PSD revisions required by the 2010
PM2.5 PSD Increments--SILs--SMC Rule. Pursuant to the CAA,
EPA will promulgate a FIP to address the entirety of the
PM2.5 PSD permitting requirements in order to satisfy both
FIP clocks and section 110(c) of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive Order
13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under EO 12866 and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This final rule does not establish any new information collection
requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule
relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit PSD SIPs
under section 166(b) to satisfy certain prevention of significant
deterioration requirements under the CAA for the PM2.5
NAAQS. Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or
provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in
the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other
statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small
governmental jurisdictions. For the purpose of assessing the impacts of
this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business that is a small industry entity as defined in the U.S.
Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards (See 13 CFR 121);
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will
not impose any requirements on small entities. This action relates to
the requirement in the CAA for states to submit PSD SIPs under section
166(b) to satisfy certain prevention of significant deterioration
requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Because EPA has
made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements under the APA and any other statute, it
is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the RFA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538 for state, local and tribal governments and the private sector.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. This action relates to the
requirement in the CAA for states to submit PSD SIPs under section
166(b) to satisfy certain prevention of significant deterioration
requirements under the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. This rule
merely finds that Arkansas has not met that requirement. Accordingly,
no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector result from this action.
    Additionally, because EPA has made a ``good cause'' that this
action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA
or any other statute, it is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is

defined in the EO to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, or the relationship between the national
government and the states or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final
rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme whereby states
take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS. This rule will not
modify the relationship of the states and the EPA for purposes of
developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, EO 13132 does not
apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    EO 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in EO 13175. This rule responds to the
requirement in the CAA for states to submit PSD SIPs under section
166(b) to satisfy certain prevention of significant deterioration
requirements under the CAA for PM2.5 NAAQS. No tribe is
subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under
section 166(b) within 21 months of promulgation of PSD regulations
under section 166(a).

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it merely finds that Arkansas has failed to
make a submission that is required under the Act to implement the
PM2.5 NAAQS.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in EO
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This
action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not
consider the use of any VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This notice is making a finding that the State of Arkansas
failed to submit a SIP revision that provides certain basic permitting
requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make any rule
effective ``at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule
determines'' if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and
public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the
public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief
statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a
good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an
effective date of May 22, 2014. EPA submitted a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action
is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will
be effective May 22, 2014.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 21, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
Relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 9, 2014.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-11785 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 44606]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14787-000]

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On June 13, 2016, the Black Canyon Hydro, LLC filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Seminoe Pumped
Storage Project (project) to be located at the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's (Reclamation) Seminoe Reservoir on the North Platte
River, near Rawlins, Carbon County, Wyoming. The project would occupy
lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued,
is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Two new
intake structures located in Reclamation's 20,291-acre Seminoe
Reservoir; (2) two new concrete-faced, rock-fill upper reservoirs--one
85 acres and one 63 acres--located on either side of, and about 1,000
feet above, Seminoe Reservoir; (3) a 3,000-foot-long, 18.8-foot
diameter, low pressure tunnel and 1,250-foot-long, 18.8-foot-diameter,
pressure shaft leading to a 250-foot-long, 65-foot-wide, 170-foot-high
powerhouse located 1,300 feet east of Seminoe Reservoir in an
underground cavern with a 2,800-foot-long access tunnel and a 1,300-
foot-long, 22.6-foot wide tailrace; (5) a 1,300-foot-long, 22.6-foot-
diameter, low pressure tunnel and 1,800-foot-long, 16.1-foot-diameter
pressure shaft leading to a 220-foot-long, 55-foot-wide, 120-foot-high
powerhouse located 2,800 feet north-northwest of Seminoe reservoir in
an underground cavern with a 800-foot-long access tunnel and a 2,800-
foot-long, 19.3-foot-diameter tailrace; (6) three 133.3-megawatt (MW)
adjustable-speed, reversible pump turbines in the east powerhouse; and
(7) three 100-MW adjustable-speed reversible pump-turbines in the west
powerhouse. The project would also include a double-circuit, 230-
kilovolt (kV) transmission line connecting either at PacifiCorp's
planned Aeolus Substation located northwest of Medicine Bow, Wyoming,
or the planned northern terminal for the TransWest Express DC Line near
Sinclair, Wyoming. If the Aeolus interconnection alternative is built,
the line would parallel the existing Western Area Power
Administration's (WAPA) Miracle Mile-Cheyenne-Ault 230-kV transmission
line. If the TransWest interconnection alternative is built, the line
would parallel or consist of a rebuild of the existing WAPA Miracle
Mile-Sinclair, 115 kV transmission line. The estimated annual
generation would be 1,839,600 MW-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Matthew Shapiro, Chief Executive Officer,
Gridflex Energy, LLC, 1210 W. Franklin Street, Suite 2, Boise, ID
83702, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Suzanne Novak; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14787-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14787) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 30, 2016.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16167 Filed 7-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41343-41344]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0426; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-22]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Coshocton, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH.
This action as the result of an airspace review caused by the
development of new instrument procedures at this airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 10, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH, to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 28897; May 14, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0426 to
amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface by adding an extension 2 miles each side of the
217[deg] bearing from the Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH,
extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 9.3 miles
southwest of the airport.
    This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
development of new instrument procedures at this airport.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and

no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71 --DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Coshocton, OH [Amended]

Richard Downing Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]18'37'' N, long. 81[deg]51'09'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Richard Downing Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 037[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.6 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 2 miles each side of the 217[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.3 miles southwest of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 6, 2020.
Steven T. Phillips,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-14864 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


44659 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Rules and Regulations [ FR Doc. 03   19285 Filed 7   29   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 261 and 279 [ RCRA   1998   0015; FRL   7537   4]

RIN 2050   AF07 Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Recycled Used Oil Management Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today's final rule eliminates drafting errors and ambiguities in the used oil management standards. Specifically, this rule clarifies when used oil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs) is regulated under the RCRA used oil management standards and when it is not; that mixtures of conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG) waste and used oil are subject to the RCRA used oil management standards irrespective of how that mixture is to be recycled; and that the initial marketer of used oil that meets the used oil fuel specification need only keep a record of a shipment of used oil to the facility to which the initial marketer delivers the used oil. DATES: This final rule will become effective on September 29, 2003. ADDRESSES: Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the EPA Docket Center, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The Docket ID Number is RCRA   1998   0015. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Call Center at ( 800) 424   9346 or TDD ( 800) 553   7672 ( hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call ( 703) 412   9810 or TDD ( 703) 412   3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Mike Svizzero by mail at Office of Solid Waste ( 5303W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, by phone at ( 703) 308   0046, or by Internet e mail at svizzero. michael@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA   1998   0015. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is ( 202) 566   0270. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, select `` search'' and then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Outline of Today's Document I. Authority II. Background and Regulatory Amendments A. Applicability of the Used Oil Management Standards to PCB Contaminated Used Oil B. Mixtures of CESQG Waste and Used Oil C. Clarification of the Recordkeeping Requirements for Marketers of On Specification Used Oil III. State Authority IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 J. Congressional Review Act V. Effective Date I. Authority These regulations are issued under the authority of sections 1004, 1006, 2002( a), 3001 through 3007, 3010, 3013, 3014, 3016 through 3018, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and as amended by the Used Oil Recycling Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 6901, 6905, 6912( a), 6921 through 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937 through 6939 and 6974.

II. Background and Regulatory Amendments Today's final rule reinstates, with some modifications, three amendments to the RCRA used oil management standards of 40 CFR Part 279. These amendments were issued on May 6, 1998 as a direct final rule, but were retracted on July 14, 1998 because of adverse public comment to the amendments ( see 63 FR 24963 and 63 FR 25006). One of the withdrawn amendments, applicability of the used oil management standards to PCB contaminated used oil, was a clarification of the applicability of the RCRA used oil management standards to PCB contaminated used oil. This clarification was undertaken as part of a settlement agreement to resolve a lawsuit challenging a final rule promulgated on May 3, 1993, ( 58 FR 26420) regarding EPA's used oil regulations. Edison Electric Institute v. U. S. EPA ( D. C. Circuit No. 93   1474). Specifically, the May 1993 rule corrected technical errors and provided clarifying amendments to the used oil management standards promulgated on September 10, 1992 ( 57 FR 41566). The other amendments reinstated today clarify ( 1) that mixtures of conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG) waste and used oil are subject to the used oil management standards irrespective of how that mixture is to be recycled and ( 2) that the initial marketer of used oil that meets the used oil fuel specification need only keep a record of a shipment of used oil to the facility to which the initial marketer delivers the used oil.

A. Applicability of the Used Oil Management Standards to PCB Contaminated Used Oil Today's rule amends 40 CFR 279.10( i) to clarify the applicability of the RCRA used oil management standards to used oil containing PCBs. The amendment clarifies that used oil that contains less than 50 ppm of PCBs is generally subject to regulation under the RCRA used oil management standards. However, the amendment notes that the VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 52 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYR1. SGM 30JYR1 44660 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) prohibition against the dilution of PCB concentrations below regulatory thresholds ( 40 CFR 761.1( b)( 5)) applies to the dilution of PCB containing used oil. Used oil, therefore, that contains, or contained prior to dilution, 50 ppm or greater of PCBs is not subject to regulation under the RCRA used oil management standards, because the TSCA regulations at 40 CFR Part 761 provide comprehensive management of such used oil. For used oil that contains PCB concentrations of 2 ppm or greater, but less than 50 ppm ( other than those diluted to below 50 ppm), TSCA regulates the burning of used oil for energy recovery at 40 CFR 761.20( e). Such used oil is also regulated under the RCRA used oil management standards at 40 CFR Part 279. Table 1 shows the applicability of the RCRA and TSCA regulations as they pertain to used oil containing PCBs that is to be burned for energy recovery. Please note, under the TSCA regulations at 40 CFR 761.20( e)( 2), used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery is presumed to contain 2 ppm or greater of PCBs unless shown otherwise by testing or other information. Used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery and has been shown to contain less than 2 ppm PCBs ( if it has not been diluted) is subject to record keeping and retention requirements under TSCA ( 40 CFR 761.20( e)( 2), ( e)( 4)) and is regulated under the RCRA used oil management standards. TSCA regulations prohibit the burning for energy recovery of used oil that contains ( or contained prior to dilution) PCB concentrations of 50 ppm or greater ( 40 CFR 761.20( a)).

TABLE 1.   REGULATION OF USED OIL CONTAINING PCBS THAT IS TO BE BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY UNDER 40 CFR PART 279 ( RCRA REGULATIONS) AND 40 CFR PART 761 ( TSCA REGULATIONS).

Range of PCB contamination levels in used oil ( ppm) Does RCRA regulate this used oil if it is to be burned for energy recovery? b Does TSCA regulate this used oil if it is to be burned for energy recovery? b Demonstrated to contain less than 2 ............................... Yes ( part 279) .................... Yes ( 761.20( e)( 2), ( e)( 4)). a 2 to less than 50 ............................................................... Yes ( part 279) .................... Yes ( 761.20( e)). 50 and greater .................................................................. No ( part 279) ...................... Yes ( prohibited) ( 761.60).

a Used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery is presumed to contain 2 ppm or greater of PCBs unless shown otherwise by testing or other information. TSCA imposes record keeping and retention requirements. b Assumes no dilution. No person may avoid any provision under TSCA specifying a PCB concentration by diluting the PCBs, unless otherwise provided. See 40 CFR 761.1( b)( 5).

Used oil containing less than 50 ppm PCBs that is recycled in a manner other than being burned for energy recovery is generally excluded from TSCA requirements except where: ( 1) Used oil was diluted to below 50 ppm PCBs, or ( 2) the PCB containing used oil or source of the PCB containing used oil to be recycled was not legally manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce or used under TSCA. See 40 CFR 761.3 ( definition of `` excluded PCB products''); 761.20( a)( 1); and 761.20( c). However, 40 CFR 761.20( d) of the TSCA regulations prohibits the use of used oil that contains any detectable concentration of PCBs as a sealant, coating, or dust control agent. This prohibition specifically includes road oiling and general dust control. Use of used oil as a dust suppressant is also prohibited under RCRA except in a state that has received authorization from EPA to allow use of used oil as a dust suppressant. Currently no states have received such authorization. In the event that a state were authorized to use used oil as a dust suppressant pursuant to 40 CFR 279.82, the prohibition in 40 CFR 761.20( d) would still apply, however.

Dilution of PCB Containing Used Oil The Agency received comment on the May 6, 1998 proposal ( 63 FR 24963) related to the applicability of the dilution prohibition of 40 CFR 761.1( b)( 5) to used oil that contains PCBs. One commenter raised a concern that the May 6, 1998 proposal was unclear as to how PCB contaminated used oils that have been diluted ( below either the 50 ppm or 2 ppm TSCA PCB regulatory thresholds) are regulated. Used oil that contains PCBs may not be diluted under TSCA to avoid a particular regulatory requirement unless otherwise specifically provided by the TSCA regulations. The TSCA PCB regulations at 40 CFR 761.1( b)( 5) prohibit the dilution of PCBs to avoid regulatory requirements. This prohibition is repeated in the definition of `` excluded PCB products'' in 40 CFR 761.3. Accordingly, used oil that contained PCB concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm and that was subsequently diluted to a concentration of less than 50 ppm PCBs, is still regulated under TSCA as used oil that contains a PCB concentration of 50 ppm or greater. This diluted used oil is subject to comprehensive management under TSCA and, therefore, is not regulated under the RCRA used oil management standards. Likewise, used oil that contained a maximum PCB concentration of 2 ppm or greater, but less than 50 ppm, which is subsequently diluted to a concentration of less than 2 ppm, is still regulated under TSCA as used oil that contains a concentration greater than 2 ppm PCBs. ( Note, however, that used oils of unknown concentration can be mixed with other such used oils in a common container and subsequently tested to determine if it is less than 2 ppm PCB. See 40 CFR 761.20( e)( 2) and 761.60( g)( 2)). The TSCA regulations do allow, however, for the decontamination of used oil at PCB concentrations of 50 ppm or greater to a concentration below 2 ppm if specified decontamination methods ( e. g., filtering) are used. Such decontaminated used oil is exempt from most TSCA management standards ( other than 40 CFR 761.20( e)( 2), ( e)( 4) and 761.79( f)) and is regulated under the RCRA used oil management standards. See 40 CFR 761.79( a)( 3) and 761.79( b).

Applicability of the Used Oil Fuel Specification to PCB Containing Used Oil There has been confusion in the regulated community that the presence of PCBs in used oil is one of the criteria for determining whether a used oil fuel subject to the RCRA used oil management standards meets the fuel specification standard such that it may be burned for energy recovery without further regulation under RCRA. In fact, one of the comments received in response to the May 6, 1998 proposal implied that used oil that contains PCB concentrations of 2 ppm or greater, but less than 50 ppm is off specification used oil due to its PCB content. This is incorrect. As described above, the concentration of PCBs in used oil is relevant to determining whether a used VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 52 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYR1. SGM 30JYR1 44661 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Rules and Regulations oil is subject to the RCRA used oil management standards. However, for those used oils subject to the RCRA used oil management standards, the presence of PCBs is not one of the criteria for determining whether a used oil fuel meets the used oil fuel specification. However, used oil that contains PCB concentrations of 2 ppm or greater, but less than 50 ppm, and is burned for energy recovery is also subject to requirements under the TSCA PCB regulations, specifically 40 CFR 761.20( e). These TSCA requirements incorporate by reference certain RCRA Part 279 `` off specification'' used oil requirements. ( See the discussion below for an explanation of the regulation of PCB containing used oil that is burned for energy recovery.)

RCRA Requirements The RCRA used oil specification criteria are set forth at 40 CFR 279.11. The specification criteria establish which used oil fuels may be burned in nonindustrial burners without regulation under RCRA. The used oil fuel specification sets maximum allowable limits for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and total halogens, as well as a minimum flash point. Although the PCB regulations promulgated pursuant to TSCA are referenced in a note to Table 1 in § 279.11, the presence of PCBs in used oil is not one of the criteria for determining whether used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery meets the fuel specification for purposes of RCRA regulation. Used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery and that meets the RCRA fuel specifications of § 279.11 (`` on specification'' used oil) is not regulated under the authority of Part 279 provided that: ( 1) Certain conditions for used oil fuel marketers are met, and ( 2) the used oil is not mixed or contaminated with hazardous waste. ( Applicable on specification used oil fuel marketer requirements can be found at § § 279.72, 279.73, and 279.74( b).) This is the case, notwithstanding that a used oil fuel may contain PCBs. Although the RCRA regulations do not identify the presence of PCBs in used oil as relevant to the determination of whether the used oil is on or off specification, the presence of PCBs in used oil is relevant for determining the applicability of the TSCA regulations for the burning of used oil.

TSCA Requirements The TSCA rules ( specifically, 40 CFR 761.20( e)( 2)) establish a presumption that detectable quantities of PCBs are present in used oils to be burned for energy recovery. The presumption can be overcome if a marketer determines through testing or other specified procedures that the used oil fuel does not contain quantifiable levels ( 2 ppm) of PCBs. TSCA rules found at 40 CFR 761.20( a) also prohibit burning for energy recovery of used oil that contains ( or contained prior to dilution) PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm and greater. In addition, § § 761.1( b)( 5) prohibits dilution to attain PCB concentrations either below 50 ppm or below 2 ppm. ( However, see decontamination provisions at 40 CFR 761.79( a)( 3) and 761.79( b).) The TSCA regulations establish requirements for the marketing and burning for energy recovery of used oils containing detectable quantities of PCBs at concentrations of 2 ppm or greater, but less than 50 ppm ( 40 CFR 761.20( e)). Some of these requirements are incorporations by reference of Part 279 requirements for the marketing and burning for energy recovery of offspecification used oil. Therefore, by operation of the TSCA rules, used oil that is on specification under the RCRA rules may nevertheless be subject to certain requirements specified in the RCRA rules for off specification used oil. Specifically, for used oil burners, the TSCA rules reference some of the RCRA off specification burner requirements of Part 279 Subpart G, including restrictions on burning, notification requirements, tracking requirements, certification requirements and record keeping requirements. ( See 40 CFR 761.20( e)( 3)   ( 4)). For used oil marketers, the TSCA rules, with limited exceptions, restrict marketing to qualified incinerators, to marketers who market off specification used oils, and to off specification burners as defined in the RCRA Part 279 regulations ( See 40 CFR 761.20( e)( 1)). The TSCA rules also reference the RCRA regulatory provisions for marketers in Part 279 Subpart H, including record retention, notification, tracking, and certification. The fact that the TSCA rules incorporate by reference these RCRA standards does not by itself mean that PCB containing used oil is regulated under RCRA authority or that such used oil is offspecification as defined by Part 279.

B. Mixtures of CESQG Waste and Used Oil Today's rule harmonizes the applicability of 40 CFR Part 261 and Part 279 to mixtures of conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG) waste and used oil that are to be recycled. Specifically, the rule makes clear that mixtures of CESQG waste and used oil that are to be recycled are regulated as used oil under the used oil management standards. Notwithstanding EPA's regulatory intent, the CESQG provision, 40 CFR 261.5( j), that references the applicability of the used oil management standards to mixtures of CESQG waste and used oil that are to be recycled, appears to limit the applicability of the used oil management standards to mixtures that are to be recycled by burning for energy recovery. Section 261.5( j), therefore, incorrectly suggests that mixtures of CESQG wastes and used oil that are to be recycled in a manner other than by burning for energy recovery, such as by re refining, would not be subject to the used oil management standards. Indeed, because CESQG wastes are not regulated as hazardous wastes, § 261.5( j) would suggest that such mixtures that are rerefined would not be subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C or the used oil management standards. The used oil management standards, however, apply to used oil to be recycled irrespective of what form of recycling is to be employed. By its terms, the presumption in 40 CFR 279.10( a) that used oil is to be recycled ( such that used oil is presumptively subject to the used oil management standards, unless it is disposed or sent for disposal), encompasses any type of recycling. The recycling presumption does not, for instance, condition the applicability of the used oil management standards on whether used oil is recycled by burning for energy recovery or by re refining. Since Part 279 applies to used oil that is to be recycled without regard to how the used oil is to be recycled, Part 279 also applies to mixtures of used oil and CESQG wastes that are to be recycledirrespective of how that mixture is to be recycled. The apparent limitation contained in § 261.5( j), which would limit the applicability of the used oil management standards to mixtures to be burned for energy recovery, is an artifact of the pre 1992 used oil regulations at 40 CFR Part 266, which only regulated the burning of used oil. When the expanded used oil management standards were promulgated on September 10, 1992, the Agency inadvertently failed to amend § 261.5( j) to reflect the broader scope of the new Part 279. Indeed, the corresponding provision in Part 279 that addresses mixtures of CESQG wastes and used oil to be recycled, § 279.10( b)( 3), does not contain the apparent limitation found in § 261.5( j) that would limit the VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 52 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYR1. SGM 30JYR1 44662 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Rules and Regulations applicability of the used oil management standards to mixtures to be burned for energy recovery. Therefore, today's rule amends § 261.5( j) as it should have been amended in 1992 to reflect the greater scope of Part 279 and to eliminate any potential ambiguity over the applicability of the used oil management standards to mixtures of CESQG wastes and used oil to be recycled. This amendment does not impose additional regulatory requirements on this category of CESQG waste. These wastes have been and continue to be regulated under 40 CFR 279.10( b)( 3). The Agency received one comment opposing this amendment from a state in response to the May 6, 1998 proposal. The comment stated that mixtures of conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG) waste and used oil should only be regulated as used oil if it is to be recycled by burning for energy recovery. This comment opens up the merits of the original rule ( § 279.10( b)( 3)) and that is not the intent of today's final rule. Today's final rule intends only to make certain conforming changes to § 261.5( j) to correctly reflect EPA's original intent in the September 10, 1992 Part 279 used oil management standards rule. EPA addressed the merits of the original rule in that previous rulemaking and EPA is not reopening that issue in this final rule. Even if EPA were to reopen this issue in today's rulemaking and to address the merits of this issue, EPA would come to the same conclusion as it did in the previous rulemaking. EPA is not aware of any reason for distinguishing used oil being burned for energy recovery from used oil being recycled in other ways, and the commenter did not provide any. Notwithstanding this clarification of the federal regulations, the state may regulate mixtures of CESQG waste and used oil more stringently than the federal used oil management program.

C. Clarification of the Recordkeeping Requirements for Marketers of On Specification Used Oil Today's rule amends 40 CFR 279.74( b) to clarify that the marketer who first claims that used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery meets the fuel specification ( on specification used oil) must only keep a record of a shipment of used oil to the facility to which the initial marketer delivers the used oil. The preamble to the November 29, 1985 rule ( 50 FR 49164 at 49189) clearly describes the agency's intent to only track on specification used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery one step beyond the initial marketer. When these recordkeeping requirements were recodified at 40 CFR 279.74( b) ( 57 FR 41566, September 10, 1992), the regulations required that a marketer must keep a record of each shipment of used oil to an on specification used oil burner. However, the marketer who first claims that used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery meets the fuel specification might choose not to market the used oil directly to an onspecification used oil burner ( i. e. a nonindustrial oil burner). Instead, the onspecification used oil might be marketed to a fuel oil distributor for subsequent sale as fuel oil. In this situation, § 279.74( b) could be interpreted to require the initial marketer of the onspecification used oil to keep a record of all subsequent shipments of that used oil until the on specification used oil reaches a used oil burner. Today's rule clarifies that the initial marketer of onspecification used oil must only keep a record of a shipment of used oil to the facility to which the initial marketer delivers the used oil. The initial marketer need not keep a record of any subsequent transfers of this used oil. For example, the initial marketer would need to keep a record of a shipment of on specification used oil to a fuel oil distributor, but the initial marketer would not need to keep records of shipments of this used oil from the fuel oil distributor to fuel oil burners or other fuel oil distributors. The Agency received one comment opposing this amendment from a state in response to the May 6, 1998 proposal. The commenter was concerned that the proposed amendment does not require tracking of used oil that meets the used oil fuel specification to the point to which it is burned for energy recovery, and thus does not provide adequate protection. The Agency disagrees with this comment. This comment opens up the merits of the original November 29, 1985 rule and that is not the intent of today's rule. As with the issue above discussing mixtures of CESQG waste and used oil, the Agency is not reopening the merits of this issue, because the Agency addressed the merits of this issue in the preamble to the November 29, 1985 rule ( 50 FR 49164 at 49189). Today's amendment does not represent a change in the requirements, but only clarifies the Agency's intent that only the initial marketer of on specification used oil must keep a record of each shipment of used oil to the facility to which it delivers the used oil. In the September 23, 1991 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking ( 56 FR 48000), EPA did not propose to change the tracking requirements or the management requirements, originally promulgated in 1985 for used oil that meets the used oil fuel specification. In drafting the 1992 rule, EPA only intended to recodify the tracking requirements from the now superseded Part 266. It has always been the Agency's position that used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery that meets the used oil fuel specification is a commodity that will be properly handled like any other fuel. The Agency has always intended that used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery only be regulated under the Used Oil Management Standards until it has been determined to meet the used oil fuel specification. Once it has been determined to meet the fuel specification and the marketer complies with 40 CFR 279.72, 279.73, and 279.74( b), the used oil is no longer regulated by the Used Oil Management Standards. If the used oil is not burned for energy recovery and is recycled by other means or disposed, it is regulated as used oil under the Used Oil Management Standards. Even if the Agency were to address the merits of this issue, we would continue to take the position as we are taking in today's amendment, because, for the reasons discussed above, the Agency believes that the tracking requirements would provide adequate protection. The commenter has provided no new information or arguments that would lead us to change this long standing position. Notwithstanding this clarification of the federal regulations, a state may regulate used oil more stringently than the federal used oil management program.

III. State Authority Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified State to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the State in lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the State. Following authorization, the state requirements authorized by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and become Federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized states also have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law. A state may receive authorization by following the approval process described in 40 CFR part 271. Part 271 of 40 CFR also describes the overall standards and requirements for authorization. After a state receives initial authorization, new Federal VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 52 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYR1. SGM 30JYR1 44663 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Rules and Regulations regulatory requirements promulgated under the authority in the RCRA statute which existed prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent state requirements. The state must adopt such requirements to maintain authorization. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006( g), ( 42 U. S. C. 6926( g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Although authorized states still are required to update their hazardous waste programs to remain equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so. Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program. See also 40 CFR 271.1( i). Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt Federal regulations, either HSWA or non HSWA, that are considered less stringent. Today's rule corrects and clarifies the scope of certain regulatory requirements and is, therefore, considered to be no more stringent than the existing federal standards. Authorized States are only required to modify their programs when EPA promulgates federal regulations that are more stringent or broader in scope than the existing federal regulations. Therefore, States that are authorized for the used oil management standards are not required to modify their programs to adopt today's rule. However, EPA strongly urges States to do so.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more, or adversely and materially affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden since it does not represent any change in requirements, but only clarifies the Agency's intent with respect to certain provisions in the Used Oil Management Standards. However, the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations ( 40 CFR Part 279) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2050   0124 ( EPA ICR No. 1286.06). Copies of the ICR document( s) may be obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, by email at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 260   4901. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. Include the ICR and/ or OMB number in any correspondence. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that today's rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's rule will not impact any small entity because it does not impose regulatory requirements or otherwise substantively change existing requirements. The rule eliminates drafting errors and ambiguities in the used oil management standards so as to clarify the Agency's intended result. Even if the rule were viewed as a change, the rule would result in lesser regulatory impact than under existing requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 52 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYR1. SGM 30JYR1 44664 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Rules and Regulations sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates ( under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector because it does not impose regulatory requirements or otherwise substantively change existing requirements. Today's rule eliminates drafting errors and ambiguities in the used oil management standards so as to clarify the Agency's intended result. Even if the rule were viewed as a change, the rule would result in lesser regulatory impact than under existing requirements. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Similarly, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement ( FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner. This final rule 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, because it does not impose regulatory requirements or otherwise substantively change existing requirements. Today's rule eliminates drafting errors and ambiguities in the used oil management standards so as to clarify the Agency's intended result. Even if today's rule were viewed as a change, it would result in lesser regulatory impact than under existing requirements. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' Today's rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Specifically, today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments because it does not impose regulatory requirements or otherwise substantively change existing requirements. Today's rule eliminates drafting errors and ambiguities in the used oil management standards so as to clarify the Agency's intended result. Even if today's rule were viewed as a change, it would result in lesser regulatory impact than current requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects 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.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 52 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYR1. SGM 30JYR1 44665 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Rules and Regulations I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). This rule will be effective September 29, 2003.

V. Effective Date Because the regulated community does not need 6 months to come into compliance with this rule, EPA finds, pursuant to RCRA section 3010( b)( 1), that this rule can be made effective in less than six months.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 261 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 279 Conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG), Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs), Solid waste, Recycling, Response to releases, Used oil, Used oil specification.

Dated: July 23, 2003. Marianne L. Horinko, Acting Administrator.

 For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 261   IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE  1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, 6922, 6924( y) and 6938.

§ 261.5 [ Amended]

 2. Section 261.5( j) is amended by removing both phrases, `` if it is destined to be burned for energy recovery.''

PART 279   STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF USED OIL  1. The authority citation for part 279 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 1006, 2002( a), 3001 through 3007, 3010, 3014, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921 through 6927, 6930, 6934, and 6974); and Sections 101( 37) and 114( c) of CERCLA ( 42 U. S. C. 9601( 37) and 9614( c)).

 2. Section 279.10 is amended by revising paragraph ( i) to read as follows:

§ 279.10 Applicability.

* * * * * ( i) Used oil containing PCBs. Used oil containing PCBs ( as defined at 40 CFR 761.3) at any concentration less than 50 ppm is subject to the requirements of this Part unless, because of dilution, it is regulated under 40 CFR Part 761 as a used oil containing PCBs at 50 ppm or greater. PCB containing used oil subject to the requirements of this Part may also be subject to the prohibitions and requirements found at 40 CFR Part 761, including § 761.20( d) and ( e). Used oil containing PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater is not subject to the requirements of this Part, but is subject to regulation under 40 CFR Part 761. No person may avoid these provisions by diluting used oil containing PCBs, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this Part or Part 761 of this chapter.

 3. Section 279.74 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows:

§ 279.74 Tracking.

* * * * * ( b) On specification used oil delivery. A generator, transporter, processor/ rerefiner or burner who first claims that used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery meets the fuel specifications under § 279.11 must keep a record of each shipment of used oil to the facility to which it delivers the used oil. Records for each shipment must include the following information: ( 1) The name and address of the facility receiving the shipment; ( 2) The quantity of used oil fuel delivered; ( 3) The date of shipment or delivery; and ( 4) A cross reference to the record of used oil analysis or other information used to make the determination that the oil meets the specification as required under § 279.72( a). * * * * * [ FR Doc. 03   19275 Filed 7   29   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [ Docket No. 021122286   3036   02; I. D. 072303B]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sablefish by Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska ( GOA). NMFS is requiring that catch of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear in this area be treated in the same manner as prohibited species and discarded at sea with a minimum of injury. This action is necessary because the allocation of the sablefish 2003 total allowable catch ( TAC) assigned to trawl gear in this area has been reached. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time ( A. l. t.), July 26, 2003, until 2400 hrs, A. l. t., December 31, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Keaton, 907   586   7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska ( FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 52 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYR1. SGM 30JYR1


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 81860]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27715]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixteenth Meeting of the RTCA Tactical Operations Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Sixteenth Meeting of the RTCA Tactical Operations Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Sixteenth Meeting of the RTCA Tactical Operations Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 13, 2016, 01:00 p.m.-03:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trin Mitra at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 202-
330-0655, the RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910,
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at (202)
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for the Fifteenth Meeting of the RTCA Tactical Operations
Committee. The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, December 13, 2016--1 p.m.-2:30 p.m.

1. Opening of Meeting/Introduction of TOC Members--Co-Chairs Dale
Wright and Bryan Quigley
2. Official Statement of Designated Federal Official--Elizabeth Ray
3. Approval of October 27, 2016 Meeting Summary
4. Graphical TFR Task Group--Recommendation
5. GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Task Group--Ligado Proposal Review
Recommendation
6. Updates on Future TOC Tasks
7. Other Business
8. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. Given limited space on-site, members of the public that
wish to participate virtually can request dial-in and online meeting
information by contacting Trin Mitra, TOC Secretary, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>With the approval of the chairman, members of the
public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to
present statements or obtain information should contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the
public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 14, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-27715 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P