[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16202-16205]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07702]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0771; Product Identifier 2018-CE-029-AD; Amendment
39-19619; AD 2019-07-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GA 8
Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8 and Model GA8-TC320 airplanes. This AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as certain wing strut fittings manufactured with
incorrect grain orientation, which has an unknown effect on fatigue
related concerns. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 23, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0771; or in person at Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact GA 8 Airvan
(Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box
881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: + 61 03 5172 1200;
fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email: [email protected].
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2018-0771.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model
GA8 and Model GA8-TC320 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on September 17, 2018 (83 FR 46900). The NPRM proposed
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based
on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by
the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is the aviation
authority of the Commonwealth of Australia. The MCAI states:

    Amendment 1 of this [CASA] AD is issued to amend the replacement
times as Service Bulletin GA8-2017-174 Issue 2 changed the mandatory
replacement times for part number GA8-570026-035 strut from 6000
hours time in service or 3 calendar years to 9000 hours time in
service or 5 calendar years, whichever occurs first.
    A manufacturing quality escape has resulted in wing strut
fittings in the effective serial number range to be manufactured
with incorrect grain orientation. The fatigue implications of the
incorrect grain are not well understood. Therefore, CASA has
mandated a conservative factored fatigue life limit based on the
known fleet data of the affected aircraft. CASA will continue to
gather data for the purposes of managing the fleet removal of these
fittings from service.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2018-0771-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or

on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2,
dated May 23, 2018. The service information describes procedures for
wing strut and strut fitting inspection and replacement. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect 50 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    We estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours and $200 for
parts to do the initial inspections of this AD, for a cost of $880 per
airplane and $44,000 for the U.S. operator fleet. We estimate that it
would take about 5 work-hours and $200 for parts to do the repetitive
inspections, for a cost of $625 per airplane and $31,250 for the U.S.
operator fleet per inspection cycle.
    In addition, we estimate that replacing the struts and strut
fittings would take about 10 work-hours and require parts costing
$7,000, for a cost of $7,850 per airplane and $392,500 for the U.S.
operator fleet.
    Reporting the inspection findings would require about 1 work-hour,
for a cost of $85 per airplane and $4,250 for the U.S. operator fleet
per inspection cycle.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of
information. All responses to this collection of information are
mandatory as required by this AD; the nature and extent of
confidentiality to be provided, if any. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0771; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-07-08 GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd: Amendment 39-19619; Docket No.
FAA-2018-0771; Product Identifier 2018-CE-029-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 23, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8 and Model
GA8-TC320 airplanes, certificated in any category, with a strut or
strut fitting installed that has a part number and serial number
listed in table 1 of GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2017-174,
Issue 2, dated May 23, 2018 (GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain wing
strut fittings manufactured with incorrect grain orientation, which
has an unknown effect on fatigue-related concerns. We are issuing
this AD to detect and address fatigue-related damage to the wing
strut fittings, which could lead to failure of the wing with
consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (7) of this AD:
    (1) Within 3 months after May 23, 2019 (the effective date of
this AD) or within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after May 23,
2019 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, with
the wing struts removed, visually inspect each forward and aft wing
strut fitting and fuselage attachment point for cracks, corrosion,
and damage. If there is a crack, any corrosion, or any damage,
before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions
(including checking torque, restoring surface protection, reworking
areas with fouling, and replacing any part with a crack, corrosion,
or damage). Follow the procedures in Parts C1, C2, and D or E, as
applicable, in the Accomplishment Instructions in GippsAero SB-GA8-
2017-174, Issue 2.
    (2) Within 3 months after May 23, 2019 (the effective date of
this AD) or within 100 hours TIS after May 23, 2019 (the effective
date of this AD), whichever occurs first, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, visually inspect each strut
and strut fitting for cracks, corrosion, and damage. If there is a
crack, any corrosion, or any damage, before further flight, do the
applicable corrective actions (including checking torque, restoring
surface protection, and replacing any part with a crack, corrosion,
or damage). Follow the procedures in Parts B and D or E, as
applicable, in the Accomplishment Instructions of GippsAero SB-GA8-
2017-174, Issue 2.
    (3) Within 1,000 hours TIS after doing the inspections required
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 1,000 hours TIS, with the wing struts installed, visually
inspect each forward and aft wing strut, strut fitting, and strut
fitting lug hole for cracks, corrosion, and damage. If there is a
crack, any corrosion, or any damage, before further flight, do the
applicable corrective actions (including additional inspections,
replacing hardware, and replacing any part with a crack, corrosion,
or damage). Follow the procedures in Parts C3 and D or E, as
applicable, in the Accomplishment Instructions of GippsAero SB-GA8-
2017-174, Issue 2.
    (4) To use an eddy current or fluorescent liquid penetrant
inspection method instead of a visual inspection for the
requirements in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, the Manager, Small
Airplane Standards Branch, FAA must approve your inspection method,
and the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this
AD. Send your approval request to the contact information found in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (5) As of May 23, 2019 (the effective date of this AD), remove
from service each part on or before exceeding its replacement time
listed in Parts D and E of table 3 of GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174,
Issue 2, and replace with an airworthy part by following the
procedures in Part D or Part E, as applicable, in the Accomplishment
Instructions of GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2.
    (6) For each part that has, on May 23, 2019 (the effective date
of this AD), exceeded its replacement time listed in Parts D and E
of table 3 of GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2, you may comply
with the requirements in paragraph (f)(5) of this AD within 100
hours TIS after May 23, 2019 (the effective date of this AD) or
within 12 months after May 23, 2019 (the effective date of this AD),
whichever occurs first.
    (7) Within 24 hours after each inspection required in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this AD, submit a report of the inspection results
as specified in the Document Compliance Notice of GippsAero SB-GA8-
2017-174, Issue 2, even if no damage is found, to the Civil Aviation
Safety Authority (CASA) and GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd. Also include in
the report the total hours TIS on the airplane and the type of
operation. You may use the contact information found in paragraph
(i)(3) of this AD to contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd. To contact CASA,
use the online CASA Defect Reporting Service at the following
internet address: https://drs.casa.gov.au/.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must
instead be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA; or CASA.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control
Number for this information collection is 2120-0731. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection
of information. All responses to this collection of information are
voluntary; the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided,
if any. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth,
TX 76177-1524.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI issued by CASA, AD No. AD/GA8/9, Amendment 1,
dated May 29, 2018. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0771.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2, dated
May 23, 2018 (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact GA 8
Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services,
P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: + 61 03
5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email:
[email protected].
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0771.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 5, 2019.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-07702 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 94454-94457]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30942]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79596; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 11.8, Order Types, and Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading
Centers, To Enhance the Exchange's Midpoint Routing Functionality

December 19, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 16, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as
a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.8, Order Types, and
Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, to enhance the Exchange's
midpoint routing functionality.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.8, Order Types, and Rule
11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, to enhance the Exchange's
midpoint routing functionality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 11.11(g)(13) to adopt a new midpoint routing strategy known
as RMPL. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.8(d)(5) to expand
the routing strategies that MidPoint Peg Orders may be coupled with to
include the Destination Specific routing strategy described under Rule
11.11(g)(14) and the proposed RMPL routing strategy described below.
RMPL Routing Strategy
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.11(g)(13) to adopt a new
midpoint routing strategy known as RMPL. Currently, the Exchange offers
the RMPT routing strategy, which is described under Rule 11.11(g)(13).
RMPT is a routing strategy under which a MidPoint Peg Order \5\ checks
the System \6\ for available shares and any remaining shares are then
sent to destinations on the System routing table \7\ that support
midpoint eligible orders. If any shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted on the EDGA Book \8\ as a MidPoint Peg Order,
unless otherwise instructed by the User.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In sum, a MidPoint Peg Order is a non-displayed Market Order
or Limit Order with an instruction to execute at the midpoint of the
NBBO, or, alternatively, pegged to the less aggressive of the
midpoint of the NBBO or one minimum price variation inside the same
side of the NBBO as the order. See Exchange Rule 11.8(d).
    \6\ The term ``System'' is defined as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(cc).
    \7\ The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary
process for determining the specific trading venues to which the
System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. See
Exchange Rule 11.11(g). While the process for determining the
specific trading venues to which orders are routed is proprietary,
the Exchange publicly discloses the trading venues associated with
each routing strategy via its Web site at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/features/bats_exchange_routing-strategies.pdf.
    \8\ The term ``EDGA Book'' is defined as the ``System's
electronic file of orders.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(d). The Exchange
also proposed to capitalize the word ``Book'' within Rule
11.11(g)(13) as the term EDGA Book is a defined term in the
Exchange's Rules.
    \9\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes RMPL as an alternative to the RMPT
routing strategy for those seeking to route MidPoint Peg Orders to
destinations that support midpoint eligible executions that are not
included under the current RMPT routing strategy. Like RMPT, RMPL would
be a routing strategy under which a MidPoint Peg Order checks the
System for available shares and any remaining shares are then sent to
destinations on the System routing table that support midpoint eligible
orders. If any shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted
on the EDGA Book as a MidPoint Peg Order, unless otherwise instructed
by the User. As it does for RMPT, the Exchange would determine via the
System routing table the specific trading venues that support midpoint
eligible orders to which the System would route RMPL orders. While RMPL
will operate in an identical manner as RMPT, the trading venues that
each routing strategy would route to and the order in which it routes
them will differ. As is the case for RMPT, the Exchange may alter the
trading venues included under RMPL and the order in which they are
routed to from time to time in accordance with its System routing
table.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that the trading venues to which other
of its routing strategies route orders to are also determined in
accordance with the System routing table. See e.g., Exchange Rule
11.11(g)(3) (listing a series of routing options whose destinations
are determined by the System routing table, like the proposed
revisions to Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(13)). See also subparagraphs
(1), (2), and (5) of Exchange Rule 11.11(b)(3) (describing routing
strategies that route orders to destinations on the System routing
table).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 11.11(g)(13) to describe both
the RMPT and proposed RMPL routing strategies. As a result of these
revision, the construct of paragraph (g)(13) of Rule 11.11 would be
similar to paragraph (g)(3) of Rule 11.11, which also delineates
routing strategies that include different sets of destinations as
determined by the System routing table.
MidPoint Peg Order Routing
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.8(d)(5) to expand the
routing strategies that MidPoint Peg Orders may be coupled with.
Currently, Exchange Rule 11.8(d)(5) states that MidPoint Peg Orders are
not eligible for routing pursuant to Rule 11.11 unless routed utilizing
the RMPT routing strategy. The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule
11.8(d)(5) to expand the routing strategies that MidPoint Peg Orders
may be coupled with to include the Destination Specific routing
strategy described under Rule 11.11(g)(14) and the proposed RMPL
routing strategy described above.
    Destination Specific is a routing option under which an order
checks the System for available shares and then is sent to an away
trading center or centers specified by the User.\11\ As proposed, a
User entering a MidPoint Peg Order may select the Destination Specific
routing strategy to route such order to a specific trading center or
center that supports midpoint executions after being exposed to the
EDGA Book. This differs from RMPT and the proposed RMPL routing
strategies in that the destinations orders subject to the RMPT and RMPL
routing strategies are selected by the Exchange via the System routing
table and not the User itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 11.11(g)(14).

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \14\ of
the Act in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and
dealers and among exchange markets. The proposed rule change promotes
just and equitable principles of trade because it would enhance the
Exchange's midpoint routing functionality and provide Users with
greater flexibility in routing MidPoint Peg Orders to trading venues
that support midpoint executions. This would save such Users from
developing complicated order routing strategies on their own. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will also accomplish
those ends by providing market participants with an additional
voluntary routing strategies and options that will enable them to
easily access midpoint liquidity available on the Exchange and other
trading venues. The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is
voluntary and those seeking to access midpoint liquidity on other
trading venues may do so directly and without the involvement of the
Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposal removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange provides routing services in a highly competitive market in
which participants may avail themselves of a wide variety of routing
options offered by self-regulatory organizations, alternative trading
systems, other broker-dealers, market participants' own proprietary
routing systems, and service bureaus. System enhancements, such as the
changes proposed in this rule filing, do not burden competition, but
rather encourage competition because they are designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange through enhanced midpoint routing
functionality. Such changes are intended to offer investors higher
quality and better value than services offered by others. Encouraging
competitors to provide higher quality and better value is the essence
of a well-functioning competitive marketplace. Therefore, the Exchange
does not believe the proposed rule change will result in any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\16\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2016-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-34. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2016-34 and should
be submitted on or before January 13, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30942 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29520-29524]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13573]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2018-0267; FRL-9979-60--Region 9]

Hawaii: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Hawaii has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended
(RCRA). These changes correspond to certain federal rules promulgated
between May 26, 1998 and June 30, 2016 (also known as RCRA Checklist
167 and Clusters IX through XXIV) plus several changes initiated by the
State. EPA has reviewed Hawaii's application with regards to federal
requirements and is proposing to authorize the changes. The EPA seeks
public comment prior to taking final action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 25,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-RCRA-2018-0267 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    You may also view Hawaii's application from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday
to Friday, excluding State holidays at Hawaii State Department of
Health OPPPD, 1250 Punchbowl Street, Room 120, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813,
phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, Land Division, 75 Hawthorne Street (LND-1-
1), San Francisco, CA 94105, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to
state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

    On December 13, 2017, Hawaii submitted a final complete program
revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous
waste program corresponding to certain federal rules promulgated
between May 26, 1998 and June 30,

2016 (also known as RCRA Checklist 167 and Clusters IX through XXIV)
plus several changes initiated by the State. EPA concludes that
Hawaii's application to revise its authorized program meets all
statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth
in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271.
Therefore, EPA proposes to grant Hawaii final authorization to operate
as part of its hazardous waste program the changes listed below in
Section F of this document, as further described in the authorization
application.
    Hawaii has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within its borders and for carrying out the aspects
of the RCRA program described in its revised program application,
subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA).

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

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

D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this proposed
action?

    EPA will consider all comments received during the comment period
and address all such comments in a final rule. You may not have another
opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization,
you must do so during the comment period for this proposed rule.

E. For what has Hawaii previously been authorized?

    Hawaii initially received final authorization to implement its base
hazardous waste management program including federal program revisions
through May 25, 1998 (Cluster VIII partial) on November 13, 2001 (66 FR
55115). Since initial authorization Hawaii has not applied for or
received authorization for revisions to its hazardous waste program.

F. What changes is EPA proposing with today's action?

    Hawaii has applied to EPA for authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules
promulgated between May 25, 1998 and July 1, 2016 (also known RCRA
Cluster VIII through XXIV) and for authorization of state-initiated
changes that are equivalent to or more stringent than the federal
program.
    EPA proposes to determine, subject to public review and comment,
that Hawaii's hazardous waste program revisions as described in the
State's authorization revision application dated November 22, 2017 are
equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal
program, and therefore satisfy all the requirements necessary to
qualify for final authorization. Regulatory revisions that are less
stringent than the Federal program requirements and those regulatory
revisions that are broader in scope than the Federal program
requirements are not authorized. Accordingly, EPA proposes to grant
Hawaii final authorization for the program changes described below.
    Hawaii has revised the format of its hazardous waste regulations
from verbatim adoption to incorporation by reference of the Federal
hazardous waste management regulations into their counterpart Hawaii
Administrative Rules (HAR). HAR chapter 11-280 has been repealed
without replacement. The requirements for public availability of
information (RCRA Sec.  3006(f)) previously found in 11-280 are met by
HAR chapters 2-71 and 11-1, HRS chapter 92F and sections 342J-14 and
342J-14.5, and provisions adopted from Federal rules (40 CFR 260.2) in
HAR chapter 11-260.1.
    The repeal of the verbatim adoption of the Federal program in HAR
Title 11 chapters 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, 271,
273, 279, and 280 is replaced by incorporation by reference (``IBR'')
into HAR Title 11 chapters 260.1, 261.1, 262.1, 263.1, 264.1, 265.1,
266.1, 268.1, 270.1, 271.1, 273.1, and 279.1 and are effective July 17,
2017. The applicable Federal rules and analogous State rules are
identified in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Federal hazardous waste requirements      Analogous State authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR parts 260-266, 268, 270, 273,     Hawaii Administrative Rules
 279, effective by July 1, 2016.          (HAR) 11-260.1-266.1, 11-
                                          268.1, 11-270.1, 11-273.1, 11-
                                          279.1, effective July 17,
                                          2017.
40 CFR Part 124 subparts A and B.......  HAR 11-271.1, effective July
                                          17, 2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    Under RCRA Sec.  3009, the EPA may not authorize state rules that
are less stringent than the Federal program. Any state rules that are
less stringent do not supplant the federal regulations. State rules
that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are
allowed but do not become part of the enforceable federal program.
State rules that are equivalent to or more stringent than the federal
program may be authorized, in which case they are enforceable by the
EPA.
    This section does not discuss the program differences previously
published in Hawaii's base program authorization in 2001, at 66 FR
55115 (November 1, 2001). Areas identified in the base program
authorization as more stringent or broader in scope than the federal
program have been carried forward into the new regulations as
amendments or additions to the incorporation by reference of the
federal regulations. This section discusses new State requirements that
are more stringent, or new requirements that are broader in scope and
cannot be authorized.

1. More Stringent

    States may seek authorization for state requirements that are more
stringent than federal requirements. The EPA has the authority to
authorize and enforce those parts of a state's program the EPA finds to
be more stringent than the

federal program. This section does not discuss each more stringent
finding made by the EPA, but rather rules of particular interest that
were not previously described in 2001, available at 66 FR 55115,
November 1, 2001. Persons should consult the docket for this rule,
including Hawaii's revised Program Description, dated May 1, 2018 for a
complete list of rules determined to be more stringent than federal
rules.
    i. More stringent regulation of specific wastes
    a. Solvent-Contaminated Wipes: Hawaii is adopting the conditional
exclusions for solvent-contaminated wipes addressed by Revision
Checklist 229, but is adding one additional condition to the
incorporated version of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) and 261.4(b)(18):
Containers in which solvent-contaminated wipes eligible for the
exclusion are being accumulated must be labeled with the accumulation
start date.
    b. Spent lead-acid batteries: Hawaii regulates persons who
generate, transport, collect, or store spent-lead acid batteries sent
for reclamation (other than through regeneration) as handlers/
transporters of universal waste under chapter 11-273.1. This is more
stringent than the federal program, which exempts these groups from
many regulations under 40 CFR 266.80.
    ii. Notification before cancellation of certain financial assurance
instruments. Hawaii requires hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, and reclamation and intermediate facilities
managing hazardous secondary materials, to notify both the State
Director and the Regional Administrator before cancellation of certain
financial assurance instruments. The federal regulations require only
one authority to be notified, so the requirement to notify the Regional
Administrator in addition to the State Director is more stringent than
the federal regulation. This applies to surety bonds, letters of
credit, corporate guarantees, liability endorsements, certificates of
liability insurance, and standby letters of credit (Incorporated
version of 40 CFR 261.151(b), (c), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), 264.151(b),
(c), (d), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l)).
    iii. Used oil processor facility standards: The State does not
allow for exceptions to the requirement that used oil processors have
emergency equipment listed in 40 CFR 279.52(a)(2). The State also does
not allow for the possibility that aisle space required in 279.52(a)(5)
is not necessary.
    iv. Notification in case of emergency. Hawaii requires notification
of emergencies to the State Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response
(HEER) office designated on-scene coordinator in addition to the
National Response Center (NRC) for: Facilities handling secondary
hazardous materials (HSM), generators of hazardous waste, transporters
of hazardous waste and used oil, treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities and used oil processors.
    v. Recordkeeping requirements. The State requires the following
additional recordkeeping requirements:
    a. Generator container storage area inspection log: Generators must
keep a log of the weekly container storage area inspections.
    b. Universal waste transporters: Universal waste transporters must
maintain the same type of records that Large Quantity Handlers of
Universal Waste and Destination Facilities must maintain. Records must
be maintained for three years.
    c. Used oil generators: Used oil generators must keep records of
shipments, similar to the records required for used oil transporters
under the federal program. These records must be maintained for three
years.
    d. Used oil processors: Used oil processors must keep records of
the equipment testing and maintenance required by 40 CFR 279.52(a)(3)
(in the incorporated version of 279.57(a)(2)).
    vi. Permits: The State limits the duration of Remedial Action Plans
to five years instead of ten (40 CFR 270.195).
    vii. No standard permit option: The State has not adopted federal
regulations allowing standardized permits.
    viii. Used oil management.
    a. Used oil testing: The State requires that used oil transporters
and processors make a hazardous waste determination for used oil sent
for disposal. The State regulations allow used oil burners and
marketers to either test used oil for halogens or obtain results of
tests performed by the processor.
    b. Annual reporting for used oil processors: The State requires
used oil processors to submit an annual report of used oil activities
by July 31. The content of the report is similar to the biennial report
required in the federal program and replaces the used oil biennial
reporting requirement (40 CFR 279.57(b)).
    ix. Alternative groundwater monitoring plans. The State has added a
requirement that any interim status facility opting for an alternative
groundwater monitoring plan under the incorporated version of 40 CFR
265.90(d) submit a copy of the plan to the department, in addition to
maintaining the plan on-site at the facility.
    x. Notification of newly regulated hazardous waste activity. State
regulations (HRS 342J-6.5) require generators, transporters, and owners
or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities newly
regulated due to a change in the definition of hazardous waste (HAR
chapter 11-261.1) to submit a notification within 45 days of the
regulatory revision (rather than the federal requirement of 90 days)
(40 CFR 270.1(b)).
    xi. Academic laboratory generator standards: The State is not
adopting the alternative requirements for hazardous waste determination
and accumulation of unwanted materials at academic laboratories, (73 FR
72912, December 1, 2008 and 75 FR 79304, December 20, 2010).
    xii. Used oil storage requirements: The State has added language to
the incorporated version of 40 CFR 279.22, 279.45, 279.54, 279.64, to
clarify that containers and aboveground tanks storing used oil must be
kept closed.

2. Areas Where the State Program Is Broader in Scope

    i. Coal combustion residuals: The State is not adopting the Federal
final rule that added a list of coal combustion residuals to 40 CFR
261.4(b)(4)(ii) to the ash and other waste types from coal combustion
that were already included in an exemption from the definition of
hazardous waste, if these residuals are co-disposed with the waste
types originally listed (80 FR 21302-21501, October 19, 2015). Hawaii
does not exclude these waste types from the definition of solid waste.
    ii. Cathode Ray Tubes and Carbon Dioxide Streams in Geological
Sequestration Activities: Hawaii is not adopting the Federal final
rules that introduced and/or revised conditional exclusions for (1)
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) from the definition of solid waste (40 CFR
261.4(a)(22)) and (2) carbon dioxide (CO2) streams in
geological sequestration activities from the definition of hazardous
waste (at 40 CFR 261.4(h)). Hawaii program is broader in scope so long
as all the conditions of the Federal exclusion are met.

3. Universal Waste: Electronic Item Added

    The State has added a category of universal waste to HAR chapter
11-273.1 called ``electronic items'' and defined waste management and
labeling/marking requirements for this type of universal waste. The
State determined, based on extensive

research, that most waste electronic items are toxicity characteristic
hazardous wastes due to the presence and concentration of one or more
metals (e.g. lead, cadmium) and may also contain other dangerous
constituents, such as a brominated (flame retardant) plastics. The
State also determined that electronic items (as defined in HAR chapters
11-260.1 and 11-273.1) as a category meet the criteria of 40 CFR
273.81. EPA allows authorized States to create regulations for State-
only universal wastes provided that these criteria are met for the
waste or waste category, including the key requirements that universal
waste management is sufficiently protective of human health and the
environment and that regulation as universal waste increases the
likelihood of similar unregulated wastes (such as CESQG or household
wastes) being diverted from non-hazardous to hazardous waste management
systems.

4. Procedural Rules

    i. Contested case hearings and declaratory orders: The State's
previous regulations governing contested case hearings (HAR chapter 11-
271 subchapter B, based on 40 CFR part 22) and declaratory rulings (HAR
chapter 11-271 subchapter C) for the hazardous waste program have been
repealed. The State Department of Health has similar department-wide
procedures for case hearings and declaratory orders that now apply (HAR
chapter 11-1). The State is not adopting an equivalent to 40 CFR 124.19
and instead adds procedures for requesting a contested case hearing in
the incorporated version of 40 CFR 124.15 in HAR chapter 11-271.1.
    ii. Public availability of information: The State's previous
regulations regarding public availability of information and treatment
of confidential business information (HAR chapter 11-280) have been
repealed. Requests for public information will be handled under HRS
342J-14 and 342J-14.5 and applicable provisions of HRS chapter 92F and
HAR chapter 2-71, which are referenced in the incorporated version of
40 CFR 260.2. EPA determines that Hawaii's requirements for public
availability of information and treatment of confidential business
information are substantially similar to EPA's federal regulations.
    Other than the differences discussed above, Hawaii incorporates by
reference the remaining federal rules listed in Section F; therefore,
there are no significant differences between the remaining federal
rules and the revised state rules being authorized today.

H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Hawaii will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for
which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues.
Section 3006(g)(1) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g)(1), gives EPA the
authority to issue or deny permits or parts of permits for requirements
for which the State is not authorized. Therefore, whenever EPA adopts
standards under HSWA for activities or wastes not currently covered by
the authorized program, EPA may process RCRA permits in Hawaii for the
new or revised HSWA standards until Hawaii has received final
authorization for such new or revised HSWA standards.

I. What is codification and is EPA codifying Hawaii's hazardous waste
program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the state's statutes and
regulations that comprise the state's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by
referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not
codifying the authorization of Hawaii's changes at this time. However,
EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart M for this
authorization of Hawaii's program changes until a later date.

J. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
(RCRA State authorization) from the requirements of Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). This action authorizes state requirements for the purpose of
RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed
by state law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as this proposed
authorization of Hawaii's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA
are exempted under Executive Order 12866. This action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under state law and
does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this
action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely authorizes state requirements as part of the state RCRA
hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This
action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not
make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for
authorization, as long as the State meets the criteria required by
RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA,
when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use
of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive
Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing state rules
which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing
federal requirements, and impose no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law, and there are no anticipated significant
adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject
to Executive Order 12898. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 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. The EPA will submit a report containing
this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the
U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). This action nevertheless will be effective 60 days after
the final approval is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Indian--lands, Hazardous
waste transportation, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2018-13573 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P