[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8624-8625]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0722 Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-17]

Revision of Class E Airspace; Barrow, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at Wiley Post/Will Rogers
Memorial Airport in Barrow, AK, in order to accommodate the amendment
of five Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs), and one
Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) and to enhance safety and management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 5, 2011. 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 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Dunn, AAL-538G, Federal
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Monday, November 22, 2010, the FAA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to revise Class E airspace
at Barrow, Alaska (75 FR 71046).
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
process

by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    There was an error in the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding
the E5 airspace coordinates for Wiley Post/Will Rogers Memorial Airport
at Barrow, Alaska. This error has been corrected in the final rule.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 18, 2010 and effective
September 15, 2010, 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.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Wiley Post/Will Rogers Memorial
Airport at Barrow, AK, to accommodate five amended RNAV SIAPs, and one
ODP. This Class E airspace will provide adequate controlled airspace
upward from 700 and 1,200 feet above the surface for safety and
management of IFR operations at Wiley Post/Will Rogers Memorial
Airport, Barrow, Alaska. With the exception of editorial changes, and
the changes described above, this rule is the same as that proposed in
the NPRM.
    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.
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. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, 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 1, section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the Wiley Post/Will Rogers Memorial
Airport at Barrow, Alaska and represents the FAA's continuing effort to
safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List 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, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E2 Barrow, AK [Revised]

Wiley Post/Will Rogers Memorial Airport, AK
    (Lat. 71[deg]17'06''; long. 156[deg]46'07''.)

    Within a 4.1 mile radius of the Wiley Post/Will Rogers Memorial
Airport, AK.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Barrow, AK [Revised]

Wiley Post/Will Rogers Memorial Airport, AK
    (Lat. 71[deg]17'06''; long. 156[deg]46' 07''.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of the Wiley Post/Will Rogers Memorial
Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface within a 73-mile radius of the Wiley Post/Will
Rogers Memorial Airport, AK.

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on February 4, 2011.
James M. Miller,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-3252 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64289-64293]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27156]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0538; FRL-9987-68-Region 10]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identifying and Listing
Hazardous Waste Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (also, ``the
Agency'' in this preamble) is granting a petition submitted by Sandvik
Special Metals (Sandvik), in Kennewick, Washington to exclude (or
``delist'') up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater treatment sludge
per year from the list of Federal hazardous wastes. The EPA has decided
to grant the petition based on an evaluation of waste-specific
information provided by Sandvik and a consideration of public comments
received. This action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from
the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill permitted, licensed, or registered by a State. The rule also
imposes testing conditions for waste generated in the future to ensure
that this waste continues to qualify for delisting. Subject to state-
only requirements within the State of Washington, or federally-
authorized or state-only requirements in other states where the subject
wastes may be disposed of, Sandvik's petitioned waste may be disposed
of in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered
by a State to manage municipal solid waste, or non-municipal non-
hazardous waste.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. [EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0538]. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Records Center, 16th floor, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington 98101. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The EPA recommends you telephone Dr. David Bartus at (206)
553-2804 before visiting the Region 10 office. The public may copy
material from the regulatory docket at 15 cents per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington 98070; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    As discussed in Section V below, the Washington State Department of
Ecology is evaluating Sandvik's petition under state authority.
Information on Ecology's action may be found at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1804023.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:

I. Background
    A. What is a delisting petition?
    B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
II. Sandvik's Petition
    A. What waste did Sandvik petition EPA to delist?
    B. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation and Public Comments
    A. What decision is EPA finalizing and why?
    B. Public Comments Received and EPA's Response
IV. Final Rule
    A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
    B. When is the Delisting Effective?
    C. How does this action affect the states?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

    A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste
from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a
delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a
particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA
listed the waste as set forth in 40 CFR 261.11 and the background
document for the waste. In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that
the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must
present sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other
than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 260.22, Section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f) and the background documents for a listed waste.
    A generator of a waste excluded from the hazardous waste lists of
40 CFR part 261 subpart D remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that
its waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics in order to continue to manage the waste as non-
hazardous. See 40 CFR 260.22(c)(4).

B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?

    Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may
petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste storage
and treatment requirements by excluding them from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,
40 CFR 260.20 allows any

person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision
of 40 CFR parts 260 through 266, 268, and 27340 CFR 260.22 provides a
generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste from the lists of hazardous wastes on a ``generator specific''
basis.

II. Sandvik's Petition

A. What waste did Sandvik petition EPA to delist?

    On April 27, 2018, Sandvik petitioned the EPA to exclude an annual
volume of up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater treatment sludges
generated at its facility located in Kennewick, Washington from the
list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F006 is defined in
40 CFR 261.31 as ``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations . . .'' Sandvik claims that the petitioned waste does not
meet the criteria for which F006 was listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide) and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.

B. What information was submitted in support of this petition?

    Sandvik conducted a detailed chemical analysis of their WWTF sludge
according to a written sampling and analysis plan (SAP), provided as
Attachment 2 to the delisting petition. Sandvik also asserted in its
analysis that its waste does not meet the criteria for which F006 waste
was listed and there are no other factors that might cause the waste to
be a hazardous waste.
    To support its assertion that the waste should be excluded, Sandvik
collected numerous samples of the waste for analysis as documented in
the preamble to the EPA's proposed delisting rulemaking. The EPA
assessed Sandvik's data presented in the petition with respect to its
intended use, and found the data were of sufficient quality and
quantity to satisfy delisting decision criteria.

III. EPA's Evaluation and Public Comments

A. What decision is EPA finalizing and why?

    Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion for up to 1,500 cubic
yards of wastewater treatment sludge generated annually at the Sandvik
facility in Kennewick, Washington. Sandvik petitioned EPA to exclude,
or delist, the wastewater treatment sludge because Sandvik believed
that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which it was
listed and that there are no additional constituents or factors which
could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste. Review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA). See 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) through
(4).
    The EPA proposed on September 12, 2018 (83 FR 46126) to exclude or
delist the wastewater treatment sludge generated at Sandvik's facility
from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted public
comment on the proposed rulemaking. The EPA considered all comments
received, and for reasons stated in both the proposal and this
document, has determined that the wastewater treatment sludge from
Sandvik's facility should be excluded from hazardous waste control.

B. Public Comments Received and EPA's Response

    The EPA received six public comments on the proposed rulemaking.
Three of these comments supported the EPA's proposed exclusion
(comments 0020, 0021 and 0023). Comment 0020 did raise a concern
regarding the effect of the proposed delisting on residents of
Kennewick. The EPA appreciates this concern, noting that the analysis
supporting the proposed exclusion clearly documents that management of
Sandvik's waste under the exclusion will be fully protective of
residents both Kennewick, Washington and any solid waste landfill that
may receive Sandvik's delisted waste. Comment 21 suggested that annual
verification sampling and analysis could be done more frequently. Based
on documentation provided by Sandvik regarding the highly-regulated
nature of Sandvik's production process that is expected to result in
the petitioned waste to remain largely consistent over time, the EPA
does not believe that a requirement to perform verification sampling
and analysis more frequently than annually is warranted.
    One commenter (comment 0022) raised questions concerning glass
recycling not relevant to the proposed exclusion.
    Two comments recommended that the EPA perform additional analysis
before finalizing the proposed exclusion. Comment 0019 stated that more
research is needed regarding the effects of arsenic groundwater
contamination, and on the direction of groundwater from the receiving
landfill. This commenter also requested that the sludge be tested for
the characteristics of ignitability, reactivity and corrosivity.
Sandvik used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) model to
develop and document compliance with delisting criteria on a
constituent-specific basis, including arsenic. The DRAS model reflects
established science and policy regarding multipath analysis including
groundwater. The results of this modeling indicate to the EPA that no
additional research is needed prior to finalization of the requested
exclusion. Regarding the commenter's question regarding the direction
of groundwater flow from the receiving landfill, EPA does not exercise
direct control over a receiving landfill through the delisting process.
Rather, the EPA specifies as a condition of this delisting that the
receiving landfill be licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a
state as a municipal solid waste landfill subject to 40 CFR part 258,
or non-municipal, non-hazardous industrial waste landfill subject to 40
CFR 257.5 through 257.30. The EPA has added clarifying language to this
effect in Condition 2 of this exclusion. This ensures that questions
such as the direction of groundwater flow and appropriate groundwater
monitoring of the receiving landfill are appropriately considered
through state approval of the receiving landfill. The EPA has
determined that this approach is fully protective of human health and
the environment with respect to the receiving landfill's acceptance of
wastes excluded under today's action. Finally, Federal delisting
regulations clearly state that candidate wastes cannot exhibit a
hazardous characteristic. Sandvik's petition documents compliance with
this requirement based on data characterizing the waste as of the date
of Sandvik's petition, and conditions of the final exclusion ensure
future compliance with this requirement.
    Comment 24 stated that the proposed rule should not go into effect
without an independent evaluation of the waste water sought to be
excluded, and that it is inappropriate to rely on the evaluation of the
petitioner alone. The EPA has performed an extensive and detailed
review of Sandvik's petition, providing exactly the independent
analysis requested by the commenter. The EPA does not believe further
independent analysis of Sandvik's petition is necessary or warranted.
    The EPA also received comments from the Washington State Department
of Ecology. In addition to editorial and clarification suggestions,
Ecology requested more specific language regarding the scope of solid
waste landfills eligible to receive wastes managed under this
exclusion, and requested a condition be added requiring Sandvik to
provide Ecology

with a copy of verification data generated pursuant to this exclusion.
The EPA has included revised language that better defines those solid
waste landfills eligible to receive wastes managed under this
exclusion, and that requires Sandvik to provide Ecology with a copy of
verification data.

IV. Final Rule

A. What are the terms of this exclusion?

    Sandvik must dispose of this waste in a subtitle D landfill
licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized by a state, and will remain
obligated to verify that the waste meets the allowable concentrations
set forth here. Sandvik must also continue to determine that the waste
does not exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste in 40
CFR part 261 subpart C. This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual
volume of 1,500 cubic yards per calendar year and is effective only if
all conditions contained in this rule are satisfied. Should Sandvik
generate candidate wastes in excess of this quantity, they must be
managed as hazardous waste. Sandvik may not apply such excess amount to
the 1500 cubic yard limit of the following year.

B. When is the delisting effective?

    This rule is effective December 14, 2018. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6930(b)(1), to allow rules to become effective in less than six months
when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come
into compliance. This rule reduces rather than increases the existing
requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication
under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

C. How does this action affect the States?

    Today's exclusion is being issued under the Federal RCRA delisting
program. Therefore, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective in states
that have received authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
Also, the exclusion may not be effective in states having a dual system
that includes Federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements. The
EPA allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are
more stringent than EPA's, under Section 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a
federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. As noted in
the proposed rule preamble, the Washington State Department of Ecology
is expected to make a parallel decision under their separate state
authority. The EPA also notes that if Sandvik transports the petitioned
waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization
or their own state-only delisting requirements, it must obtain a
delisting from that state before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in that state. The EPA urges the petitioner to contact the
state regulatory authority in each state to or through which it may
wish to ship its waste to establish the status of its wastes under the
state's laws.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general
applicability. The action approves a delisting petition under RCRA for
the petitioned waste at a particular facility.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction by
allowing the petitioner to manage an estimated annual quantity of 1,500
cubic yards of residual solids a year under RCRA Subtitle D management
standards rather than the more stringent RCRA Subtitle C standards.
This action will significantly reduce the costs associated with the on-
site management, transportation and disposal of this waste stream by
shifting its management from RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management
to RCRA Subtitle D nonhazardous waste management.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) because it only applies to a particular facility.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action applies only to a particular
facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The health and safety risks of the petitioned waste were
evaluated using the EPA's Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS),
which considers health and safety risks to children. Use of the DRAS is
described in section III.E of the proposed delisting. The technical
support document and the user's guide for DRAS are available at https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.

J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards as described by
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note).

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA's risk
assessment, as described in section III.E in the proposed delisting,
did not identify unacceptable risks from management of this material in
an authorized or permitted RCRA Subtitle D solid waste landfill (e.g.
municipal solid waste landfill or commercial/industrial solid waste
landfill). Therefore, the EPA believes that any populations in
proximity of the landfills used by this facility should not be
adversely affected by common waste management practices for this
delisted waste.

M. Congressional Review Act

    This action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801 et seq.) because it is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection; Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 6, 2018.
Lisa McArthur,
Acting Director, Office of Air and Waste.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Table 1 of appendix IX to part 261 by adding the waste stream
entry ``Sandvik Special Metals'' in alphabetical order by facility to
read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and
260.22

                               Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                        Address                          Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandvik Special Metals...............  Kennewick, Washington..  Wastewater treatment sludges, F006, generated at
                                                                 Sandvik Special Metals (Sandvik) facility in
                                                                 Kennewick, Washington at a maximum annual rate
                                                                 of 1,500 cubic yards per calendar year. The
                                                                 sludge must be disposed of in a landfill which
                                                                 is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized
                                                                 by a state to manage municipal solid waste
                                                                 subject to 40 CFR part 258, or non-municipal,
                                                                 non-hazardous industrial waste subject to 40
                                                                 CFR 257.5 through 257.30. The exclusion becomes
                                                                 effective as of December 14, 2018.
                                                                1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent
                                                                 concentrations in a representative sample of
                                                                 the waste must not exceed the following levels:
                                                                 Total concentrations (mg/kg): Arsenic-9,840;
                                                                 Cadmium-37,100; Chromium-77,500; Cobalt-
                                                                 103,000. TCLP Concentrations (mg/l in the waste
                                                                 extract): Arsenic-0.042; Barium-100; Cadmium-
                                                                 0.451; Chromium-5.00; Cobalt-1.06; Copper-120;
                                                                 Fluoride-194; Lead-2.95; Nickel-66.4; Silver-
                                                                 5.00; Vanadium-16.9; Zinc-992. (B) Sandvik must
                                                                 also demonstrate that the waste does not
                                                                 exhibit any hazardous waste characteristic in
                                                                 40 CFR 261, Subpart C based on a representative
                                                                 sample of the waste.
                                                                2. Annual Verification Testing and Disposal: To
                                                                 verify that the waste does not exceed the
                                                                 delisting concentrations specified in Sections
                                                                 1.A and I.B, Sandvik must collect and analyze
                                                                 one representative waste sample with coolant on
                                                                 an annual basis no later than each anniversary
                                                                 of the effective date of this delisting using
                                                                 methods with appropriate detection
                                                                 concentrations and elements of quality control.
                                                                 If both titanium and zirconium products have
                                                                 been in production and contributed to candidate
                                                                 wastes within the three-month period prior to
                                                                 each anniversary of the effective date of this
                                                                 delisting, samples of waste from both
                                                                 manufacturing processes must be collected for
                                                                 that verification period. Otherwise, sampling
                                                                 only of that material in production within the
                                                                 specified three-month period is required.
                                                                 Sampling and analytical data must be provided
                                                                 to the EPA, with a copy to the Washington State
                                                                 Department of Ecology, no later 60 days
                                                                 following each anniversary of the effective
                                                                 date of this delisting, or such later date as
                                                                 the EPA may agree to in writing. Sandvik must
                                                                 conduct all verification sampling and analysis
                                                                 according to a written sampling and analysis
                                                                 plan and associated quality assurance project
                                                                 plan that ensures analytical data are suitable
                                                                 for their intended use, which must be made
                                                                 available to the EPA upon request. Sandvik's
                                                                 annual submission must also include a
                                                                 certification that all wastes satisfying the
                                                                 delisting concentrations in Conditions 1.A and
                                                                 1.B have been disposed of in a landfill which
                                                                 is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized
                                                                 by a state to manage municipal solid waste
                                                                 subject to 40 CFR part 258, or non-municipal,
                                                                 non-hazardous industrial waste subject to 40
                                                                 CFR 257.5 through 257.30.
                                                                3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Sandvik must
                                                                 notify the EPA in writing if it significantly
                                                                 changes the manufacturing process, the
                                                                 chemicals used in the manufacturing process,
                                                                 the treatment process, or the chemicals used in
                                                                 the treatment process. Sandvik must handle
                                                                 wastes generated after the process change as
                                                                 hazardous waste until it has demonstrated that
                                                                 the wastes continue to meet the delisting
                                                                 concentrations in sections 1.A and B,
                                                                 demonstrated that no new hazardous constituents
                                                                 listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VIII have
                                                                 been introduced into the manufacturing process
                                                                 or waste treatment process, and it has received
                                                                 written approval from the EPA that it may
                                                                 continue to manage the waste as non-hazardous
                                                                 waste.

                                                                4. Data Submittals: Sandvik must submit the data
                                                                 obtained through verification testing or as
                                                                 required by other conditions of this rule to
                                                                 the Director, Office of Air and Waste, U.S. EPA
                                                                 Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue Suite 155, OAW-150,
                                                                 Seattle, Washington, 98070 or his or her
                                                                 equivalent. The annual verification data and
                                                                 certification of proper disposal must be
                                                                 submitted within 60 days after each anniversary
                                                                 of the effective date of this delisting
                                                                 exclusion, or such later date as the EPA may
                                                                 agree to in writing. Sandvik must compile,
                                                                 summarize, and maintain on-site for a minimum
                                                                 of five years, records of analytical data
                                                                 required by this rule, and operating conditions
                                                                 relevant to those data. Sandvik must make these
                                                                 records available for inspection. All data must
                                                                 be accompanied by a signed copy of the
                                                                 certification statement in 40 CFR
                                                                 260.22(i)(12). If Sandvik fails to submit the
                                                                 required data within the specified time or
                                                                 maintain the required records on-site for the
                                                                 specified time, the EPA may, at its discretion,
                                                                 consider such failure a sufficient basis to
                                                                 reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph
                                                                 5.
                                                                5. Reopener Language--(A) If, any time after
                                                                 disposal of the delisted waste, Sandvik
                                                                 possesses or is otherwise made aware of any
                                                                 data relevant to the delisted waste indicating
                                                                 that any constituent is at a higher
                                                                 concentration than the specified delisting
                                                                 concentration or exhibits any of the
                                                                 characteristics of hazardous waste in 40 CFR
                                                                 part 261 Subpart C, then Sandvik must report
                                                                 such data, in writing, to the Director, Office
                                                                 of Air and Waste, EPA, Region 10, or his or her
                                                                 equivalent, within 10 days of first possessing
                                                                 or being made aware of that data, whichever is
                                                                 earlier.
                                                                (B) Based on the information described in
                                                                 paragraph (A) and any other information
                                                                 received from any source, the EPA will make a
                                                                 preliminary determination as to whether the
                                                                 reported information requires Agency action to
                                                                 protect human health or the environment.
                                                                 Further action may include suspending, or
                                                                 revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate
                                                                 response necessary to protect human health and
                                                                 the environment.
                                                                (C) If the EPA determines that the reported
                                                                 information requires it to act, the EPA will
                                                                 notify Sandvik in writing of the actions it
                                                                 believes are necessary to protect human health
                                                                 and the environment. The notice shall include a
                                                                 statement of the proposed action and a
                                                                 statement providing Sandvik with an opportunity
                                                                 to present information as to why the proposed
                                                                 EPA action is not necessary or to suggest an
                                                                 alternative action. Sandvik shall have 30 days
                                                                 from the date of the EPA's notice to present
                                                                 the information.
                                                                (D) If after 30 days Sandvik presents no further
                                                                 information or after a review of any submitted
                                                                 information, the EPA will issue a final written
                                                                 determination describing the EPA actions that
                                                                 are necessary to protect human health or the
                                                                 environment. Any required action described in
                                                                 the EPA's determination shall become effective
                                                                 immediately unless the EPA provides otherwise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-27156 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28796-28798]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0400]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Delaware River; Pipe-Removal

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish temporary safety
zones in portions of Billingsport Range, on the Delaware River, to
facilitate the removal of existing pipelines along the river bed of the
Federal Navigation Channel. The safety zones would be established for
the waters of Billingsport Range, on the Delaware River, in the
vicinity of working vessels and associated equipment. At times the
working vessels and equipment may be in close proximity or impede the
navigation channel. This regulation is necessary to provide for the
safety of life on navigable waters of the Delaware River, in the
vicinity of pipeline-removal operations, and is intended to protect
mariners from the associated hazards.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0400 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or if email Petty Officer Amanda Boone, U.S.
Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company and Buckeye Partners, L.P.
notified the Coast Guard that removal of portions of old natural gas
pipelines will need to be conducted in compliance with the Army Corps
of Engineers request for removal due to the upcoming widening and
deepening of the Delaware River, main navigational channel, in which
the depth of the channel will be taken to 45 feet. The Captain of the
Port Delaware Bay has determined that potential hazards associated with
the pipe-removal operational would be a safety concern for anyone
within a 150-yard radius of the working vessels.
    The Coast Guard is proposing to issue this rule under authority in
33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay,
has determined that potential hazards associated with pipe-removal
operations, beginning on or about July 29, 2017, will be a safety
concern for vessels attempting to transit the Delaware River, along
Billingsport Range. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment on the navigable waters within the safety
zone while removal of the pipeline is being conducted.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard Captain of the Port is proposing to establish
temporary safety zones on portions of the Delaware River on or about
July 29, 2017, until October 31, 2017, unless cancelled earlier by the
Captain of the Port, to facilitate the removal of existing pipeline on
the river bed of the Delaware River, along the Billingsport Range.
    With plans to widen the commercial shipping channel in the Delaware
River, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) has requested both
Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (PBF) and Buckeye Partners,
L.P. (BPL) modify their existing pipelines across the river that could
cause hazards to mariners in the expanded shipping channel. This
specifically pertains to PBF's 8'' natural gas pipeline and BPL's 10''
and 12'' pipelines that run adjacent

to Philadelphia International Airport to the Paulsboro Refinery. Due to
the hazards related to underwater pipe-removal operations, safety zones
will be established on the Delaware River waters within 150 yards of
the working vessel(s) and related equipment.
    The proposed safety zones will be established for the duration of
the pipe-removal operation. Vessels that desire to enter or transit
through the safety zones will be required to contact working vessels on
VHF-FM marine band channel 13 or 16, at least 1 hour prior to arrival.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is
prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the Captain of the
Port or make satisfactory passing arrangements with the working vessels
on scene per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E).
    The Captain of the Port will implement and terminate the safety
zone once all pipelines have been recovered and removal operations are
completed. Notice of the implementation and the termination of the
safety zone will be made in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zones. Although this regulation
will restrict access to regulated areas, the effect of this rule will
not be significant because vessels may be permitted to transit through
the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or make
satisfactory passing arrangements with the working vessels on scene in
accordance with this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter
E). Extensive notification of the safety zone to the maritime public
will be made via maritime advisories to allow mariners to alter their
plans accordingly.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone which is limited in size and duration. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant

environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact the person named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, above.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0400, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0400  Safety Zone, Delaware River; Pipe-laying

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: Includes all
waters in Billingsport Range, on the Delaware River, within 150 yards
of the working vessels and related equipment conducting pipe-removal
operations.
    (b) Definitions. (1) The Captain of the Port means the Commander
Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on
his behalf.
    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Delaware Bay, to assist with the enforcement of a safety zone
described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations: The general safety zone regulations found in
subpart C of this part apply to the safety zones created by this
section. (1) The Captain of the Port will implement and terminate the
safety zones once all pipelines have been removed and operations are
completed. Notice of the implementation and the termination of the
safety zone will be made in accordance with Sec.  165.7.
    (2) Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is
prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the Captain of the
Port (COTP) or make satisfactory passing arrangements, via VHF-FM
marine band channel 13 or 16, with the working vessel on scene per this
rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E).
    (3) To request permission to enter a safety zone, the Captain of
the Port's representative can be contact via VHF-FM channel 16. Vessels
granted permission to enter and transit through a safety zone must do
so in accordance with the directions provided by the Captain of the
Port or designated representative. No person or vessel may enter or
remain in a safety zone without permission from the Captain of the
Port. All persons and vessels within a safety zone shall obey the
directions or orders of the Captain of the Port or their designated
representative.
    (4) At least one side of the main navigational channel will be kept
clear for safe passage of vessels in the vicinity of the safety zone.
At no time will the main navigational channel be closed to vessel
traffic. Vessels that desire to enter or transit through a safety zone
shall contact the working vessels on scene on VHF-FM marine band
channel 13 or 16, at least 1 hour prior to arrival.
    (5) This section applies to all vessels that intend to transit
through a safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following
operations: Enforcement of laws; service of aids to navigation, and
emergency response.
    (d) Enforcement. These safety zones will be enforced with actual
notice by the U.S. Coast Guard representatives on scene, as well as
other methods listed in 33 CFR 165.7.

    Dated: June 20, 2017.
Benjamin A. Cooper,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2017-13247 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 8147]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventy Second RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary Meeting

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

ACTION: Seventy Second RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Seventy Second RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary
Meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 26, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rebecca Morrison at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th
Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202)
833-9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or website 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 a meeting of the Seventy Second RTCA SC-135
Environmental Testing Plenary Meeting. The agenda will include the
following:

Thursday April 26, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions.
2. Approval of Summary From the Seventy-First Meeting--(RTCA Paper No.
310-17/SC135-717).
3. Review Working Group Summaries.
4. Review Schedule.
5. New/Unfinished Business.
6. Establish Date for Next SC-135 Meeting.
7. Review Workspace Process
8. Closing.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. 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 February 20, 2018.
Michelle Swearingen,
Management & Program Analyst, Systems and Equipment Standards Branch,
AIR-6B0, Policy and Innovation Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-03731 Filed 2-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12357-12360]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04187]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88279; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Codify
the Cancel Back Order Type and To Add That the Post Only Order
Designated as Cancel Back May Remove Liquidity Pursuant to Exchange
Rule 21.1

February 25, 2020.
    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 February 12, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') proposes to
codify the Cancel Back order type and amend the Post Only order
instructions that may remove liquidity pursuant to Rule 21.1. The text
of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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
aspects 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 codify the Cancel Back order type, which
is a System \5\ functionality already in place and currently available
to Users today. In addition, the Exchange proposes to add that a Post
Only order designated as Cancel Back may, in addition to Post Only
orders designated as a display-price sliding order,\6\ remove
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ``System'' is the automated trading system used by BZX
Options for the trading of options contracts. See Rule 21.1(a).
    \6\ See Rule 21.1(h), which states that, unless a User enters
instructions for an order (including a bulk message) to not be
subject to the display-price sliding process in this paragraph (h),
an order (including a bulk message) that, at the time of entry,
would lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another options
exchange will be ranked at the locking price in the BZX Options Book
and displayed by the System at one minimum price variation below the
current NBO (for bids) or to one minimum price variation above the
current NBB (for offers) (``display-price sliding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the System currently offers ``Cancel Back'' functionality
for Users' orders, which is not currently defined in the Rules.
Specifically, the functionality operates so that when a User designates
an order not to be subject to the display-price sliding process or
Price Adjust process,\7\ then the order is subject to the Cancel Back
instruction (note that an order will always include a Price Adjust,
display-price sliding, or Cancel Back instruction). A Cancel Back order
is immediately cancelled instead of re-priced when displaying the order
at its limit price would create a violation of the linkage rules.\8\
The Exchange also notes that Rule 21.6(f) provides affirmative
instruction consistent with Cancel Back functionality as it
specifically provides that an order entered with a price that would
lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another options exchange that is
not eligible for either routing, the display-price sliding process, or
the Price Adjust process will be cancelled. The Exchange now proposes
to codify the existing Cancel Back instruction in proposed Rule
21.1(m). The proposed definition is consistent (save for the provision
in connection with Post Only--Cancel Back instructions, as described in
greater detail below) with the corresponding definitions of a Cancel
Back order under the rules of the Exchange's affiliated exchanges, Cboe
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'') and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.
(``C2'').\9\ As proposed, a Cancel Back order is an order (including
bulk messages) \10\ a User designates to not be subject to the display-
price sliding process or the Price Adjust process that the System
cancels or rejects (immediately at the time the System receives the
order or upon return to the System after being routed away) if
displaying the order on the Book would create a violation of Rule 27.3
(Locked and Crossed Markets), or if the order cannot otherwise be
executed or displayed in the BZX Options Book at its limit price. The
System executes a Book Only--Cancel Back order against resting orders.
The Exchange notes that pursuant to the Book Only instruction, an order
or bulk message may not route away to another Exchange. Therefore, if
an incoming Book Only order designated as Cancel Back locked or crossed
an away market (i.e., the ABBO), the System would execute it to the
extent it could against contra-side interest on the Exchange at prices
the same as or better than the ABBO in accordance with the linkage
rules. The System would then cancel it (or the remaining portion) to
prevent a violation of Rule 27.3 of the intermarket linkage rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 21.1(i), which states that an order that, at the
time of entry, would lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another
options exchange or the Exchange will be ranked and displayed by the
System at one minimum price variation below the current NBO (for
bids) or to one minimum price variation above the current NBB (for
offers) (``Price Adjust'').
    \8\ See Chapter XXVII of the Rules. See also Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (the ``Linkage Plan'').
    \9\ See EDGX Options Rule 21.1(l) and C2 Rule 6.10(c).
    \10\ Bulk messages allow Users to enter, modify or cancel up to
an Exchange-specified number of bids and offers in a single message.
Therefore, a Cancel Back designation for a bulk message applies to
all bulk message bids and offers within a single message. The System
handles bulk message bids and offers in the same manner as it
handles an order, or quote if submitted by a Market Maker, unless
the Rules specify otherwise. See Rule 21.1(l)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Cancel Back order definition also provides that the
System executes a Post Only--Cancel Back order as set forth in Rule
21.1(d)(8) (as proposed). In particular, Rule 21.1(d)(8) currently
defines a Post Only order as an order to be ranked and executed on the
Exchange or cancelled, as appropriate, without routing away to another
options exchange and will not remove liquidity from the BZX Options
Book unless it is subject to the display-price sliding process and
executing against on order on the Book would be economically beneficial
to the User entering the order (i.e., if the value of price improvement
associated with such execution equals or exceeds the sum of fees
charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be
provided if the order posted to the BZX Options Book and subsequently
provided liquidity).\11\ Thus, an executable order entered with a Post
Only instruction is eligible to remove liquidity instead of having its
display-price adjusted pursuant to those order handling instructions.
The Exchange notes that the purpose of the display-price sliding
instruction is to ensure compliance with the linkage rules like that of
a Cancel Back instruction. The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule
21.1(d)(8) to make it explicit that a Post Only order with a Cancel
Back instruction may also be eligible to remove liquidity instead of
being cancelled or rejected back to the User in certain circumstances.
The Exchange believes that removal of liquidity in these circumstances
would be economically beneficial to Users that submit Post Only--Cancel
Back orders, in that, instead of being cancelled or rejected back to
the User upon locking or crossing the market, a Post Only--Cancel Back
order would have the opportunity to execute at an improved price while
contributing to liquidity and the price discovery process on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that this is consistent with the price
improvement opportunities currently provided for a locking or crossing
Post Only order subject to the display-price sliding process, instead
of having its display-price adjusted. Users who wish for their Post
Only orders to post to the Book and forego the opportunity to remove
liquidity upon entry under Rule 21.1(d)(8) may continue to do so by
electing that the Post Only order be subject to the Price Adjust
process. As indicated above, this proposed description of a Post Only--
Cancel Back order in proposed Rule 21.1(m) is unlike the description of
a Post Only--Cancel Back order on the Exchange's affiliated options
exchanges, C2 and EDGX Options, which cancel or reject a Post Only--
Cancel Back order that locks or crosses the respective exchange's best
bid or offer, as their rules do not currently offer the same price
improvement opportunity (opportunities, as proposed) for their Post
Only orders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 21.1(h)(4). Any Post Only Order subject to the
display-price sliding process that locks or crosses a Protected
Quotation displayed by the Exchange upon entry will be executed as
set forth in Rule 21.1(d)(8) or cancelled.
    \12\ See EDGX Options Rule 21.1(d)(8) and C2 Rule 6.10(c).

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

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.1(h)(4), which
describes the display-price sliding process as it applies to Post Only
orders, to provide additional clarity within the Rule. Currently, Rule
21.1(h)(4) provides that any Post Only Order subject to the display-
price sliding process described in this paragraph (h) that locks or
crosses a Protected Quotation displayed by the Exchange upon entry will
be executed as set forth in Rule 21.1(d)(8) or cancelled. A Post Only
bulk message that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation displayed by
the Exchange upon entry will be cancelled. Any Post Only Order that
locks or crosses a Protected Quotation displayed by an external market
upon entry will be subject to the display-price sliding process
described in this paragraph (h). The Exchange now proposes to
restructure the paragraph language so that it reads in a more uniform
and explanatory manner that is easier to follow. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the rule to first provide for the manner in
which a Post Only order that is subject to the display-price sliding
process will be handled if it either locks or crosses a Protected
Quotation displayed by the Exchange or by an away market. The
description of how a Post Only order subject to the display price-
sliding message will be handled if it locks or crosses an away market
is already in this provision, the Exchange is merely proposing to move
this clause into the same sentence that describes how such an order is
handled upon locking or crossing the Book. As indicated above, this
provision then goes on to describe the manner in which a Post Only bulk
message that is subject to the display-price sliding process will be
handled if it locks or crosses a Protected Quotation displayed by the
Exchange. The Exchange proposes to also add to this clause the
description of how a Post Only bulk message subject to the display-
price sliding process will be handled if it locks or crosses a
Protected Quotation displayed by an external market--to which,
according to Rule 21.1(h)(1), the System would apply the display-price
sliding process. The Exchange notes that it does not make any
substantive changes to Rule 21.1(h)(4), but merely amends the rule to
provide additional clarity and enhanced explanation within the Rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\13\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed definition of
Cancel Back orders will provide additional transparency within the
Rules and facilitate better understanding for market participants
regarding their flexibility to designate orders as Cancel Back, as an
alternative manner to comply with the linkage rules. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change serves to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because this change provides Users with Rules that
clearly delineate an additional User flexibility regarding how they may
instruct the System to handle their orders (i.e., designating their
orders as Cancel Back by specifying that their orders are not subject
to Price Adjust or display-price sliding). The Exchange also notes that
permitting Users to elect that their orders to be treated as Cancel
Back is an additional way to ensure compliance with the linkage rules,
thereby protecting investors and the public interest. The Exchange also
believes that this change is generally consistent with the Cancel Back
definitions under the rules of the Exchange's affiliated exchanges,
EDGX Options and C2.\16\ The Exchange believes that generally mirroring
the corresponding rule language of its affiliates will provide better
understanding for Users that participate across the affiliated
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with just and
equitable principles of trade to permit an order entered with a Post
Only--Cancel Back instruction to remove liquidity when executing as the
taker of liquidity would be economically beneficial to a User. This
handling is designed to ensure that orders entered with a Post Only
instruction are eligible to trade in certain circumstances where the
User may have an interest in securing an execution on entry (i.e., as
the taker of liquidity) notwithstanding a Post Only instruction. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed change would raise any new
or novel issues for market participants, as the System currently allows
for Post Only orders subject to the display-price sliding process, an
instruction similarly designed to ensure compliance with the linkage
rules, to remove liquidity when economically beneficial to the User.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will present
Users with increased trading opportunities at multiple price points,
which will potentially encourage the provision of more liquidity to the
market to interact with such orders. As a result, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is reasonably designed to facilitate the
mechanism of price discovery and enhance competition and overall market
quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all investors.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to the
provision regarding Post Only orders subject to the display-price
sliding process will provide market participants with additional
clarity within the rules thereby facilitating increased understanding
of the Exchange Rules. By making this provision easier to follow and
understand the proposed rule change serves to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system and benefit market participants. As noted, the proposed rule
change is not of a substantive nature, as it merely reorganizes the
provision and adds an order handling explanation that already applies
and is provided within the general display-price sliding rule.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because all Users would be able to designate their

orders as Cancel Back orders, including Post Only orders. Cancel Back
orders of all Users will be handled in the same manner. Additionally,
all Post Only--Cancel Back orders that would remove liquidity will be
handled in the same manner pursuant to the proposed rule change.
Further, the use of the Cancel Back instruction and/or the Post Only--
Cancel Back designation is voluntary and all Users may, instead, elect
for their orders to be subject to the display-price sliding process or
the Price Adjust process (specifically, if they wish for their Post
Only orders not to remove liquidity).
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. First, the
Cancel Back instruction is functionality currently available and
contemplated by the Rules. The instruction is intended as an additional
order mechanism to ensure compliance with the linkage rules that
provides Users with additional flexibility with respect to handling
their orders. Second, the proposed rule change to allow Post Only--
Cancel Back orders to remove liquidity pursuant to Rule 21.1(d)(8) does
not impact intermarket competition as Post Only orders (with any
additional instruction), by definition, do not route away to other
options exchanges. To the extent that the proposed changes make BZX
Options a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other
exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become BZX Options
market participants. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed
rule change to the rule governing Post Only orders subject to the
display-price sliding process would not impose any burden on
competition as the proposed changes are nonsubstantive and serve only
to add clarity to the rule and make it easier to follow and understand.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments 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. 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 \17\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ thereunder. 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CboeBZX-2020-017 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 Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-017. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-017 and should be submitted
on or before March 23, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04187 Filed 2-28-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency / Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response / Office of Solid Waste 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2050  0145 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1597.06 9. Keywords Environmental protection, Public health, Waste treatment and disposal, Hazardous waste, Radioactive waste, Solid waste disposal 10. Abstract This ICR covers both the Universal Waste requirements found at 40 CFR part 273, and the Mixed Waste conditional exemptions found at 40 CFR part 266. Universal Wastes are batteries, pesticides, thermostats, and lamps. They are RCRA hazardous wastes with streamlined handling requirements, since they are generated by a vast, primarily non industrial community. Mixed Wastes are hazardous wastes mixed with low level radioactive wastes. They are exempted from RCRA treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal requirements, provided they comply with existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. X Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. P Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 119,782 b. Total annual responses 122,115 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 185,967 d. Current OMB inventory 218,168 e. Difference ( 32,201) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment ( 32,201) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 2 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 1 c. Total annualized cost requested 3 d. Current OMB inventory 3 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Tab Tesnau Phone: 703 605 0636 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Bob Hall, Director Permits and State Programs Division Office of Solid Waste Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95