Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 60049 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 4, 

2015. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 21, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(457)(i)(A)(4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(457) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(4) Rule 10.1, ‘‘New Source Review,’’ 

amended on October 6, 2014. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–25141 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0279; FRL–9935–05– 

Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; 

Mammoth Lakes; Redesignation; PM10

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve, as a revision to the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

California’s request to redesignate the 

Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 1987 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for particulate matter of ten microns or 

less (PM10). Also, EPA is taking final 

action to approve the PM10 maintenance 

plan for the Mammoth Lakes area and 

the associated motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for use in transportation 

conformity determinations. Lastly, EPA 

is finalizing our approval of the 2012 

attainment year emissions inventory. 

We are taking these final actions 

because the SIP revision meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA guidance for maintenance plans 

and motor vehicle emissions budgets. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

November 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0279 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

60050 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1See the docket for this action for copies of the 

California’s submittal documents including the 

October 21, 2014 submittal letter from the State. 

2We reviewed 2015 preliminary data received 

from the State and found that the Mammoth Lakes 

area did not show exceedances of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS in the first quarter of 2015. Second quarter 

data was not submitted by the State in time for 

consideration within this notice. 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

format at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports) and some may not be 

publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4111, wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

On July 30, 2015, EPA proposed to 

approve the Mammoth Lakes PM10

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan. We proposed this action because 

California’s SIP revision meets the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) requirements and EPA 

guidance concerning redesignations to 

attainment of a National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) 

and maintenance plans (80 FR 45477). 

For our detailed procedural and 

substantive review of the State’s SIP 

submittal and our discussion of our 

findings and rationale for our proposal 

and this final action, please see our 

proposal and the docket for this action. 

First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), 

EPA proposed to approve the State’s 

request to redesignate the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 nonattainment area to 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. In our 

July 30, 2015 proposal, we concluded 

that the area has met the five criteria for 

redesignation under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E): (1) The area has attained 

the PM10 NAAQS over the period 2009– 

2014; (2) the required portions of the 

SIP are fully approved for the area; (3) 

the improvement in ambient air quality 

in the area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in PM10

emissions; (4) California has met all 

requirements applicable to the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment 

area with respect to section 110 and part 

D of the CAA; and, (5) the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, as 

described below, meets the 

requirements of CAA section 175A. 

Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA, EPA proposed to approve as a 

revision to the SIP, the maintenance 

plan developed by the Great Basin 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(GBUAPCD) entitled ‘‘2014 Update Air 

Quality Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request for the Town of 

Mammoth Lakes’’ (herein and in our 

proposal referred to as the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan), dated 

May 5, 2014, submitted by California, 

through the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB), to EPA on October 21, 

2014.1 EPA proposed to find that the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan meets the requirements in section 

175A of the CAA. The plan’s 

maintenance demonstration shows that 

the Mammoth Lakes area will continue 

to attain the PM10 NAAQS for at least 10 

years beyond redesignation (i.e. through 

2030) by continued implementation of 

the local control measures approved 

into the SIP. The plan’s contingency 

provisions incorporate a process for 

identifying new or more stringent 

control measures in the event of a future 

monitored violation. Finally, EPA 

proposed to approve the plan’s 2012 

emission inventory as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172 and 

175A. 

Third, EPA proposed to approve the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(budgets) in the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan because we find they 

meet the applicable transportation 

conformity requirements under 40 CFR 

93.118(e). With our proposal published 

July 30, 2015, EPA informed the public 

that we are reviewing the plan’s budgets 

for adequacy and that we started the 

public comment period on adequacy of 

the proposed budgets. This comment 

period closed on August 31, 2015. We 

received no public comments 

concerning the adequacy of the 

proposed PM10 motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed rule provided a 30- 

day comment period. During this 

comment period we received no 

comments on our proposal. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

To conclude, based on our review of 

the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan and redesignation request 

submitted by California, air quality 

monitoring data, and other relevant 

materials contained within our docket, 

EPA finds that the State has addressed 

all the necessary requirements for 

redesignation of the Mammoth Lakes 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

PM10 NAAQS, pursuant to CAA sections 

107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. 

First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), 

we are approving the State’s request, 

which accompanied the submittal of the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan, to redesignate the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Our 

redesignation of the Mammoth Lakes 

area is based on our determination that 

the area has met the five criteria for 

redesignation under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E): (1) The area has attained 

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS as 

demonstrated by 2009–2014 data; 2 (2) 

the relevant portions of the SIP are fully 

approved; (3) the improvement in air 

quality in the Mammoth Lakes area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in PM10 emissions; (4) 

California has met all requirements 

applicable to the Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area with respect to 

section 110 and part D of the CAA; and, 

(5) our approval of the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan, as part of this 

action. 

Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA, EPA is approving the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan and finds 

that it meets the requirements of Section 

175A. We find that the maintenance 

demonstration shows that the area will 

continue to attain the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond 

redesignation (i.e., through 2030). We 

find that the Maintenance Plan provides 

a contingency process for identifying 

and adopting new or more stringent 

control measures if a monitored 

violation of the PM10 NAAQS occurs. 

Finally, we are approving the 2012 

emissions inventory as meeting 

applicable requirements for emissions 

inventories in Sections 172 and 175A of 

the CAA. 

Last, we find that the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan’s motor vehicle 

emissions budgets meet applicable CAA 

requirements for maintenance plans and 

transportation conformity requirements 

under 40 CFR 93.118(e). With the 

effective date of this action, these 

approved budgets must be used in any 

future regional PM10 regional emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 60051 

analysis conducted by the State and the 

Federal Highway Administration. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and, 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the State plan that EPA is 

approving today does not apply on any 

Indian reservation land or in any other 

area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, this rule, as it relates to the 

maintenance plan, does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 4, 

2015. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: September 18, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding and reserving paragraph (c)(461) 

and adding paragraph (c)(462) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(461) [Reserved] 

(462) The following plan was 

submitted on October 21, 2014, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Materials. 

(A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (GBUAPCD). 

(1) ‘‘2014 Air Quality Maintenance 

Plan and Redesignation Request for the 

Town of Mammoth Lakes’’ (Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan), adopted 

on May 5, 2014. 

(2) GBUAPCD Board Order #140505– 

03 adopting the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan, dated May 5, 2014. 

(B) State of California Air Resources 

Board (CARB). 

(1) CARB Resolution 14–27 adopting 

the redesignation request and Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, dated 

September 18, 2014. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 81.305 is amended in the 

table entitled ‘‘California–PM–10’’ by 

revising the entry under Mono County 

for the ‘‘Mammoth Lake planning area’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

60052 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

CALIFORNIA—PM–10 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

*******

Mono County 

Mammoth Lakes planning area ............................. November 4, 2015 ............ Attainment ........................ ........................

Includes the following sections: 

a. Sections 1–12, 17, and 18 of Township 

T4S, R28E; 

b. Sections 25–36 of Township T3S, R28E; 

c. Sections 25–36 of Township T3S, R27E; 

d. Sections 1–18 of Township T4S, R27E; 

and, 

e. Sections 25 and 36 of Township T3S, 

R26E. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–25165 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452; FRL–9934– 

78–Region 7] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Direct Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to revise delisting levels for the 

hazardous waste exclusion granted to 

John Deere Des Moines Works (John 

Deere) of Deere & Company, in Ankeny, 

Iowa to exclude or ‘‘delist’’ up to 600 

tons per calendar year of F006/F019 

wastewater treatment sludge. The 

wastewater treatment sludge is a filter 

cake generated by John Deere’s Ankeny, 

Iowa, facility wastewater treatment 

system was conditionally excluded from 

the list of hazardous wastes on 

November 25, 2014. This direct final 

rule responds to a request submitted by 

John Deere to increase certain delisting 

levels and eliminate certain delisting 

levels for the excluded waste. After 

careful analysis and use of the Delisting 

Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), EPA 

has concluded the request may be 

granted. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

on December 4, 2015, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 4, 2015. If EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in by contacting 

the further information contact below. 

The public may copy material from any 

regulatory docket at no cost for the first 

100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page 

for additional copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Herstowski, Waste 

Remediation and Permits Branch, Air 

and Waste Management Division, EPA 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number 

(913) 551–7631; email address: 

herstowski.ken@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

III. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

B. How did EPA act on John Deere’s 

delisting petition? 

C. What are the changes John Deere is 

requesting? 

D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere’s 

request? 

E. How does this final rule affect states? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? 

The EPA is publishing this rule 

without a prior proposed rule because 

we view this as a non-controversial 

amendment and anticipate no adverse 

comment. This action narrowly changes 

the delisting levels for the F006/F019 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

at the John Deere Des Moines facility in 

Ankeny, Iowa. If the EPA receives 

adverse comment, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. In 

that case, we may issue a proposed rule 

to propose the changes and would 

address public comments in any 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

This action only applies to the F006/ 

F019 wastewater treatment sludge 

generated at the John Deere Des Moines 

facility in Ankeny, Iowa. 

III. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA or to an authorized 

state to exclude or delist, from the 

RCRA list of hazardous wastes, waste 

the generator believes should not be 

considered hazardous under RCRA. 

B. How did EPA act on John Deere’s 

delisting petition? 

After evaluating the delisting petition 

submitted by John Deere, EPA proposed, 

on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49252), to 

exclude the waste from the lists of 

hazardous waste under § 261.31. EPA 

issued a final rule on November 25, 

2014 (79 FR 70108) granting John 

Deere’s delisting petition to have up to 

600 tons per year of the F006/F019 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES