21650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

5 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

6 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

7 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a). 

8 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w, and 78ll. 

9 15 U.S.C. 77sss. 

10 15 U.S.C. 80a–8, 80a–29, 80a–30, and 80a–37. 

Procedure Act (APA).4 It follows that 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 5 do not apply. 

The effective date for the updated 

Filer Manual and the rule amendments 

is April 20, 2015. In accordance with 

the APA,6 we find that there is good 

cause to establish an effective date less 

than 30 days after publication of these 

rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to 

Release 15.1 is scheduled to become 

available on April 13, 2015. The 

Commission believes that establishing 

an effective date less than 30 days after 

publication of these rules is necessary to 

coordinate the effectiveness of the 

updated Filer Manual with the system 

upgrade. 

Statutory Basis 

We are adopting the amendments to 

Regulation S–T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 

10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 

1933,7 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 

35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934,8 Section 319 of the Trust 

Indenture Act of 1939,9 and Sections 8, 

30, 31, and 38 of the Investment 

Company Act of 1940.10

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Securities. 

Text of the Amendment 

In accordance with the foregoing, 

Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 232—REGULATION S–T— 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 232 

continues to read in part as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 

77s(a), 77z–3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 

78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a–6(c), 80a–8, 80a–29, 

80a–30, 80a–37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 

U.S.C. 1350. 

* * * * * 

■ 2. Section 232.301 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 232.301 EDGAR Filer Manual. 

Filers must prepare electronic filings 

in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR 

Filer Manual, promulgated by the 

Commission, which sets out the 

technical formatting requirements for 

electronic submissions. The 

requirements for becoming an EDGAR 

Filer and updating company data are set 

forth in the updated EDGAR Filer 

Manual, Volume I: ‘‘General 

Information,’’ Version 20 (April 2015). 

The requirements for filing on EDGAR 

are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer 

Manual, Volume II: ‘‘EDGAR Filing,’’ 

Version 30 (April 2015). Additional 

provisions applicable to Form N–SAR 

filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer 

Manual, Volume III: ‘‘N–SAR 

Supplement,’’ Version 4 (October 2014). 

All of these provisions have been 

incorporated by reference into the Code 

of Federal Regulations, which action 

was approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You 

must comply with these requirements in 

order for documents to be timely 

received and accepted. The EDGAR 

Filer Manual is available for Web site 

viewing and printing; the address for 

the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/ 

info/edgar.shtml. You can obtain paper 

copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from 

the following address: Public Reference 

Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. You can also 

inspect the document at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.

archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_

federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

By the Commission. 

April 13, 2015. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08982 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

CFR Correction 

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 96 to 99, revised as of 

July 1, 2014, on page 859, in § 98.244, 

reinstate paragraph (b)(4)(ix) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.244 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ix) Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–6. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–09121 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R01–RCRA–2015–0195; FRL–9926– 

54–Region 1] 

Vermont: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The State of Vermont has 

applied to EPA for Final authorization 

of changes to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA has determined that these changes 

satisfy all requirements needed to 

qualify for Final authorization, and is 

authorizing the State’s changes through 

this direct final action. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 19, 

2015 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

May 20, 2015. If EPA receives adverse 

comment, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect, unless and until the 

public comment is considered and 

another final rulemaking document is 

issued. 

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

RCRA–2015–0195, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: leitch.sharon@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (617) 918–0647, to the 

attention of Sharon Leitch. 

• Mail: Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste 

Management and UST Section, Office of 

Site Remediation and Restoration 

(OSRR07–1), US EPA Region 1, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. 

• Hand Delivery: Sharon Leitch, 

RCRA Waste Management and UST 

Section, Office of Site Remediation and 

Restoration (OSRR07–1), US EPA 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, 7th floor, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 21651 

deliveries of boxed information. Please 

contact Sharon Leitch at (617) 918– 

1647. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–RCRA–2015– 

0195. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information might not be publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, might be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office 

Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912; by appointment only; tel: (617) 

918–1990. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste 

Management and UST Section, Office of 

Site Remediation and Restoration, (Mail 

Code: OSRR07–1), EPA Region 1, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912; telephone number: (617) 

918–1647; fax number (617) 918–0647; 

email address: leitch.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

changes. Changes to State programs may 

be necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations in Title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 

273, and 279. When states make other 

changes to their regulations, it also often 

is appropriate for the states to seek 

authorization of the changes. 

B. What decisions have we made in this 

rule? 

We have concluded that Vermont’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Vermont 

Final authorization to operate its 

hazardous waste program with the 

changes described in the authorization 

application. Vermont has responsibility 

for permitting treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its 

borders and for carrying out the aspects 

of the RCRA program covered by its 

revised program application, subject to 

the limitations of the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA). New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA take effect in 

authorized States before they are 

authorized for the requirements. Thus, 

EPA will implement any such 

requirements and prohibitions in 

Vermont, including issuing permits, 

until the State is granted authorization 

to do so. 

C. What is the effect of today’s 

authorization decision? 

The effect of this decision is that a 

facility in Vermont subject to RCRA will 

now have to comply with the authorized 

State requirements instead of the 

Federal requirements governing the 

operation of the wastewater evaporation 

units subject to the state regulations, in 

order to comply with RCRA. Vermont 

has enforcement responsibilities under 

its State hazardous waste program for 

violations of such program, but EPA 

also retains its full authority under 

RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 

7003, which includes, among others, 

authority to: 

• Perform inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports 

• Enforce RCRA requirements and 

suspend or revoke permits 

• Take enforcement actions 

This action does not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the 

regulations for which Vermont is being 

authorized by this action are already 

effective under state law, and are not 

changed by this action. 

D. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? 

EPA is publishing this rule without a 

prior proposed rule because we view 

this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposed rule to 

authorize the State program changes if 

adverse comments are received on this 

direct final rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

If 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. We would address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. 

E. What has Vermont previously been 

authorized for? 

The State of Vermont initially 

received Final authorization on January 

7, 1985, with an effective date of 

January 21, 1985 (50 FR 775) to 

implement the RCRA hazardous waste 

management program. The Region 

published an immediate final rule for 

certain revisions to Vermont’s program 

on May 3, 1993 (58 FR 26242) and 

reopened the comment period for these 

revisions on June 7, 1993 (58 FR 31911). 

This authorization became effective 

August 6, 1993 (see 58 FR 31911). The 

Region granted authorization for further 

revisions to Vermont’s program on 

September 24, 1999 (64 FR 51702), 

effective November 23, 1999. On 

October 18, 1999 (64 FR 46174) the 

Region published a correction to the 

immediate final rule that was published 

on September 24, 1999. The Region 

granted authorization for further 

revisions to Vermont’s program on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

21652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

October 26, 2000, effective December 

26, 2000 (65 FR 64164). That Federal 

Register also made a technical 

correction. On June 23, 2005 (70 FR 

36350) the Region published an 

immediate final rule for additional 

revisions to Vermont’s program. This 

authorization became effective on 

August 22, 2005. The Region granted 

authorization for further revisions to 

Vermont’s program on March 16, 2007 

(72 FR 12568), which became effective 

on May 15, 2007. The Region granted 

authorization for further revisions to 

Vermont’s program on December 31, 

2013 (78 FR 79615), which became 

effective on March 3, 2014. 

F. What changes are we authorizing 

with today’s action? 

On January 16, 2015, Vermont 

submitted a final complete program 

revision application, seeking 

authorization for their changes in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. 

Vermont is seeking authorization for 

regulations that the state has adopted 

governing the operation of wastewater 

evaporation units. 

We are now making an immediate 

final decision that, subject to 

reconsideration only if we receive 

written comments that oppose this 

action, Vermont’s hazardous waste 

program revisions satisfy all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

Final authorization. We have 

determined that the Vermont 

requirements governing wastewater 

evaporation units are ‘‘more stringent’’ 

than federal requirements. Therefore, 

we grant Vermont Final authorization 

for the following program changes: 

Vermont Hazardous Waste Management 

Regulation (VHWMR) section 7– 

502(o)(8), along with the revision to the 

note following VHWMR section 7– 

502(o)(10) and the definition of 

wastewater evaporator unit in VHWMR 

section 7–103. Since Vermont regulates 

wastewater evaporator units under 

various conditions set forth in its 

generator treatment in tanks provisions, 

the analogous federal requirements are 

in 40 CFR 262.34. 

The Final authorization of these state 

regulations is in addition to the 

previous authorization of state 

regulations, which remain part of the 

authorized program. 

G. How are the revised state rules 

different from the federal rules and 

why have they been determined to be 

more stringent? 

Wastewater evaporation units 

(evaporators) (as further defined by 

Vermont) evaporate water using heat to 

reduce the volume of wastewater and to 

concentrate hazardous wastes. Vermont 

regulates these units using its permit 

exemption for generator treatment in 

tanks and additional conditions 

designed to effectively regulate 

evaporators. EPA has analyzed whether 

the Vermont regulations are equally or 

more protective of human health and 

the environment than the federal 

regulations, rather than being less 

stringent. The Agency has determined 

that Vermont’s regulations are more 

protective/stricter, thus being within the 

State’s authority to maintain under 

RCRA section 3009. A Memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Further Explanation of 

Decision’’ dated February 2015, 

containing a more detailed analysis of 

this issue, has been included in the 

Administrative Record. Additionally, 

the EPA analyzed whether the stricter 

state regulations are ‘‘more stringent’’ or 

‘‘broader in scope’’. EPA has determined 

that they are ‘‘more stringent’’ thus 

being regulations that should be 

federally authorized and enforced. An 

explanation of EPA’s determinations is 

set forth below. 

1—Determination That State 

Regulations Are Stricter Than the 

Federal Regulations 

To determine whether the state 

regulations are stricter and not less 

stringent than the federal regulations, 

EPA has compared the state regulations 

to the federal regulations, including 

examining interpretations that have 

been made of the federal regulations 

(available in the administrative record 

and in RCRA Online). However, in line 

with the national policy: Determining 

Equivalency of State RCRA Hazardous 

Waste Programs, September 7, 2005 

(Equivalency Policy), EPA has not 

required that the state follow the same 

identical approach as the federal 

regulations. Rather, EPA has focused, 

‘‘on whether the state requirements 

provide [at least] equal environmental 

results as the federal counterparts.’’ Id. 

At the federal level, the wastewater 

treatment unit (WWTU) exemption has 

been interpreted to cover many 

hazardous waste evaporators. Vermont 

is stricter than this federal approach in 

that it excludes wastewater evaporation 

units from being covered under its 

WWTU exemption. Rather, it regulates 

them under its more protective 

generator treatment in tanks exemption. 

Furthermore, Vermont’s generator 

treatment in tanks exemption is more 

stringent than the federal exemption in 

that it imposes additional requirements 

designed to effectively regulate 

evaporators. 

However, there may be some 

evaporators that do not qualify for the 

WWTU exemption at the federal level. 

EPA has assumed for purposes of 

today’s decision that the current EPA 

interpretation of the federal regulations 

is that, at the federal level, evaporation 

treatment is considered to be thermal 

treatment and is not allowed to be 

conducted by generators without 

permits under the generator treatment in 

tanks exemption. Nevertheless, for the 

reasons explained below, EPA has 

determined that the Vermont 

regulations are stricter, not less stringent 

than, the federal regulations. 

EPA has concluded that we should 

look at the overall RCRA program and 

assess the effect of the Vermont program 

across the board. In doing that, EPA has 

concluded that the Vermont program is 

stricter than any of the federal 

requirements with respect to wastewater 

evaporators. RCRA section 3009. 

Vermont consistently and strictly 

regulates all generator evaporators by 

imposing hazardous waste management 

requirements and comprehensive air 

emissions regulations. This approach is 

stricter across the board than the federal 

approach, and thus should be allowed 

consistent with the national 

Equivalency Policy, which emphasizes 

that states may take different but equally 

or more protective approaches. 

Vermont has requirements that are 

comparable to permits because the 

Vermont regulations require the same 

type of tank management standards and 

air emission control requirements as 

would be included in permits. Vermont 

also requires every generator operating 

an evaporator to submit a notice and 

obtain review of its operation. 

EPA emphasizes that this decision 

allows non-permitted evaporation 

treatment (outside of the WWTU 

exemption) only in Vermont. Such 

treatment will be allowed only because 

it has been federally authorized as 

‘‘functionally equivalent,’’ and this 

federal authorization is being granted 

based on the strict requirements 

adopted by Vermont. EPA further 

emphasizes that this regional 

rulemaking has no implications for how 

other kinds of ‘‘thermal treatment’’ will 

be regulated. Generally ‘‘thermal 

treatment’’ is not allowed without 

permits under either the generator 

treatment in tanks (and containers) 

exemption or under the WWTU 

exemption. Here, EPA is only allowing, 

subject to stricter Vermont standards, 

the same kind of evaporation treatment 

that already has been allowed without 

permits under the WWTU exemption at 

the federal level and in the many states 

that follow the federal approach. 

Finally, EPA notes that Vermont is 

stricter than the federal approach with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 21653 

respect to any evaporators located at 

Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

Facilities (TSDFs). These evaporators 

must always obtain RCRA permits in 

Vermont, since Vermont does not allow 

the use of the WWTU exemption for 

evaporators and Vermont’s treatment in 

tanks permit exemption for evaporators 

is limited to generators. 

2—Determination That State 

Regulations Are More Stringent Rather 

Than Broader in Scope 

State regulations that are stricter may 

be determined to be more stringent or 

broader in scope. While states are 

allowed to maintain both types of 

requirements, this determination is 

important because state regulations that 

EPA determines to be more stringent are 

made part of the federally authorized 

program and are federally enforceable. 

State regulations that the EPA 

determines to be broader in scope are 

not made part of the federally 

authorized program and thus, are not 

federally enforceable. 

To determine whether the Vermont 

regulations are more stringent or 

broader in scope, EPA has consulted the 

national policy: Determining Whether 

State Hazardous Waste Requirements 

are More Stringent or Broader in Scope 

than the Federal RCRA Program, 

December 23, 2014. Included in that 

policy is a two-part test that Regions 

generally use to determine whether state 

provisions are more stringent or broader 

in scope. EPA has determined that the 

Vermont regulations are more stringent. 

As noted in that policy, when EPA 

regulates hazardous waste through 

conditional exclusions, the federal 

conditions amount to a form of 

regulation. When a state imposes 

additional conditions for materials still 

considered to be hazardous wastes at 

the federal level even when the federal 

conditions are met, the additional state 

conditions do not increase the size of 

the regulated community. Therefore, 

these are considered to be a more 

stringent not broader in scope 

conditions under the first test. As noted 

in the Appendix to the policy, an 

example of this is the WWTU 

exemption. While EPA regulates 

evaporators under the WWTU 

exemption less strictly than Vermont, 

both are regulating them and the 

additional Vermont regulations pass the 

first test set forth in the policy for being 

considered more stringent. Evaporators 

that do not qualify for the WWTU 

exemption at the federal level are 

regulated at the federal level, and thus 

the state regulation of them is also 

within the scope of the federal program 

under the first test. 

The Vermont regulations pass the 

second test in the policy for being 

considered more stringent. The federal 

WWTU exemption requires treatment to 

occur within a tank or tank system in 

order to prevent releases of hazardous 

wastes. Similarly, the state requirements 

for evaporators are counterparts to the 

federal requirement in that they seek to 

prevent releases. In addition, the state 

imposes its large quantity generator 

(LQG) and small quantity generator 

(SQG) requirements on those generators 

operating evaporators, counterparts to 

these requirements exist in the federal 

LQG and SQG regulations. The state 

regulation of evaporators is similar to 

when additional state regulation of 

CESQGs exist, which is cited in the 

national policy as meeting both tests for 

being more stringent rather than broader 

in scope. For those evaporators not 

subject to the federal WWTU 

exemption, the state regulations have 

counterparts in the federal permit 

regulations. 

The regulations listed in Section F. 

above are being federally authorized and 

will be federally enforceable. The other 

previously authorized Vermont 

generator requirements will also be 

federally enforceable with respect to 

generator evaporators. In addition, the 

previously authorized full state permit 

requirements with respect to any 

evaporators at TSDFs will also be 

federally enforceable. Also, as 

previously authorized, the WWTU 

exemption will not apply to any 

evaporators in Vermont since they are 

excluded under the definition of WWTU 

adopted by Vermont. 

H. Who handles permits after the 

authorization takes effect? 

Vermont will issue permits for all the 

provisions for which it is authorized 

and will administer the permits it 

issues. EPA will implement and issue 

permits for any HSWA requirements for 

which Vermont is not yet authorized. 

I. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying Vermont’s hazardous waste 

program as authorized in this rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste program into the Code 

of Federal Regulations. We do this by 

referencing the authorized State rules in 

40 CFR part 272. We reserve the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

UU for this authorization of Vermont’s 

program until a later date. 

J. Administrative Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this action (RCRA 

State Authorization) from the 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

review by OMB. This action authorizes 

State requirements for the purpose of 

RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, this action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action 

authorizes pre-existing requirements 

under State law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by State law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). For the same reason, 

this action also does not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of 

Tribal governments, as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). This action will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

authorizes State requirements as part of 

the State RCRA hazardous waste 

program without altering the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

RCRA. This action also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant and it does not 

make decisions based on environmental 

health or safety risks. This rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a 

State’s application for authorization as 

long as the State meets the criteria 

required by RCRA. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a State 

authorization application, to require the 

use of any particular voluntary 

consensus standard in place of another 

standard that otherwise satisfies the 

requirements of RCRA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

21654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney 

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the executive order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Because this rule authorizes pre-existing 

State rules which are at least equivalent 

to, and no less stringent than existing 

federal requirements, and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law, and there are no 

anticipated significant adverse human 

health or environmental effects, the rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 12898. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 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 document and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication in the Federal Register. A 

major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

action nevertheless will be effective 60 

days after it is published, because it is 

a direct final rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). 

Dated: March 24, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08997 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

45 CFR Part 1640 

Application of Federal Law to LSC 

Recipients 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule updates the 

Legal Services Corporation (LSC or 

Corporation) regulation on the 

application of Federal law to LSC 

recipients. The FY 1996 appropriations 

act (incorporated in LSC’s 

appropriations by reference annually 

thereafter) subjects LSC recipients and 

its employees and board members to 

Federal law relating to the proper use of 

Federal funds. This final rule provides 

recipients with notice of the applicable 

Federal laws each recipient and its 

employees and board members must 

agree to be subject to under this rule, the 

consequences of a violation of an 

applicable Federal law, and where LSC 

will maintain the list of applicable laws. 

DATES: This final rule will be effective 

on May 20, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General 

Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 

3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 

20007; (202) 295–1563 (phone), (202) 

337–6519 (fax), or sdavis@lsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. History of This Rulemaking 

Section 504(a)(19) of LSC’s FY 1996 

appropriations act required LSC 

recipients to enter into a contract that 

subjected them to ‘‘all provisions of 

Federal law relating to the proper use of 

Federal funds.’’ Sec. 504(a)(19), Public 

Law.= 104–134, title V; 110 Stat. 1321. 

By its terms, a violation of Sec. 

504(a)(19) renders any LSC grant or 

contract null and void. The provision 

has been incorporated by reference into 

each of LSC’s annual appropriations act 

since. Accordingly, the preamble and 

text of this final rule continue to refer 

to the relevant section number of the FY 

1996 appropriations act. 

The Corporation first issued 45 CFR 

part 1640 as an interim rule in 1996 to 

implement Sec. 504(a)(19). 61 FR 45760, 

Aug. 29, 1996. The interim rule was put 

in place to provide immediate guidance 

to LSC recipients on legislation that was 

already in effect and carried significant 

penalties for noncompliance. Id. In the 

preamble to the interim rule, LSC 

announced that it was interpreting the 

statutory phrase ‘‘all provisions of 

Federal law relating to the proper use of 

Federal funds’’ to mean ‘‘with respect to 

[a recipient’s] LSC funds, all programs 

should be subject to Federal laws which 

address issues of waste, fraud and abuse 

of Federal funds.’’ Id. LSC based its 

interpretation on legislative history that 

appeared to limit the applicable laws to 

those dealing with fraud, waste, and 

abuse of Federal funds. 

In particular, LSC relied on two 

congressional documents to support its 

interpretation. First, the Corporation 

cited to the House Report for H.R. 2076, 

which was a prior effort to enact a 

provision similar to section 504(a)(19). 

The relevant language in that report 

stated: 

[S]ection 504(20) requires all programs 

receiving Federal funds to comply with 

Federal statutes and regulations governing 

waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal funds. 

H. Rep. No. 104–196, 104th Cong., 1st 

Sess. 116 (July 1995) (emphasis added). 

Second, LSC cited section 5 of H.R. 

1806, the Legal Services Reform Act of 

1995, which was an unsuccessful 

attempt to revise the LSC Act. As an 

extension of his remarks introducing 

H.R. 1806, Rep. McCollum submitted a 

partial summary of the bill, including a 

discussion of section 5 entitled 

‘‘Application of waste, fraud, and abuse 

laws.’’ 141 Cong. Rec. E1220–21 (daily 

ed. June 9, 1995). Section 5 itself was 

titled ‘‘Protection Against Theft and 

Fraud,’’ and expressly included 

provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code 

pertaining to criminal offenses 

involving the misuse of Federal funds, 

as well as provisions of the False Claims 

Act. H.R. 1806, 104th Cong., § 5 (1995). 

LSC adopted the list of statutes in 

section 5, with one exception. Through 

negotiation with LSC’s Office of 

Inspector General (OIG), LSC 

determined that two other criminal 

statutes should be included in the list. 

61 FR 45760, Aug. 29, 1996. These 

statutes prohibit bribery of public 

officials and witnesses and conspiracy 

to defraud the United States. Id. at 

45761. 

Minor changes to the interim rule, not 

affecting this list, were made before the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES