[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9879-9883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03168]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[EPA-R05-UST-2020-0685; FRL-10020-05-Region 5]


Indiana: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program 
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 
or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct 
final action to approve revisions to the State of Indiana's Underground 
Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. EPA has determined 
that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program 
approval. The State's federally-authorized program, as revised pursuant 
to this action, will remain subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement 
authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA subtitle I and other 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

DATES: This rule is effective April 19, 2021, unless EPA receives 
adverse comment by March 19, 2021. If EPA receives adverse comment, it 
will publish a timely withdrawal in the

[[Page 9880]]

Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R05-UST-2020-0685 by 
one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e351f13151b502d161b0c0c073e1b0e1f50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="753e14181e105b261d1007070c351005145b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-UST-
2020-0685. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be available online at 
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The federal https://www.regulations.gov 
website 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 https://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.
    EPA encourages electronic submittals, but if you are unable to 
submit electronically, please reach out to EPA contact person listed in 
the notice for assistance with additional submission methods.
    You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this 
action and associated publicly available materials through 
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Kamke, Environmental Engineer, 
Corrective Action Section #3, Remediation Branch (LR-17J), EPA Region 
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5794, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7239131f19175c211a1700000b321702135c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afe4cec2c4ca81fcc7caddddd6efcadfce81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the 
public and our staff, EPA's Region 5 office will be closed to the 
public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the 
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov or via email. 
Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative 
means to access the material provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Approval of Revisions to Indiana's Underground Storage Tank Program

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States which have received final approval from EPA under RCRA 
section 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), must maintain an 
underground storage tank program that is equivalent to, consistent 
with, and no less stringent than the federal underground storage tank 
program. When EPA makes revisions to the regulations that govern the 
UST program, states must revise their programs to comply with the 
updated regulations and submit these revisions to EPA for approval. 
Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to 
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 280. 
States can also initiate changes on their own to their underground 
storage tank program and these changes must then be approved by EPA.

B. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

    On October 11, 2018, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Indiana 
submitted a complete program revision application seeking EPA approval 
for its UST program revisions (State Application). Indiana's revisions 
correspond to EPA's final rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 
41566), which revised the 1988 UST regulations and the 1988 state 
program approval (SPA) regulations (2015 Federal Revisions). As 
required by 40 CFR 281.20, the State Application contains the 
following: A transmittal letter from the Governor requesting approval, 
a description of the program and operating procedures, a demonstration 
of the state's procedures to ensure adequate enforcement, a Memorandum 
of Agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities of EPA and the 
implementing agency, a statement of certification from the Attorney 
General, and copies of all relevant state statutes and regulations. We 
have reviewed the State Application and determined that the revisions 
to Indiana's UST program are equivalent to, consistent with, and no 
less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in subpart C 
of 40 CFR part 281, and that the Indiana program provides for adequate 
enforcement of compliance (40 CFR 281.11(b)). Therefore, EPA grants 
Indiana final approval to operate its UST program with the changes 
described in the program revision application and as outlined below in 
Section I.G of this document.

C. What is the effect of this action on the regulated community?

    This action does not impose additional requirements on the 
regulated community because the regulations being approved by this rule 
are already in effect in the State of Indiana, and are not changed by 
this action. This action merely approves the existing state regulations 
as meeting the federal requirements and renders them federally 
enforceable.

D. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed 
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and we 
anticipate no adverse comment. Indiana did not receive any comments 
during its comment period when the rules and regulations being 
considered today were proposed at the state level.

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

    Along with this direct final rule, EPA is publishing a separate 
document in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register 
that serves as the proposal to approve the State's UST program 
revisions, and provides an opportunity for public comment. If EPA 
receives comments that oppose this approval, EPA will withdraw this 
direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register 
before it becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on 
approval of the State Application after considering all comments 
received during the comment period. EPA will then address all public 
comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to 
comment. If you want to comment on this approval, you must do so at 
this time.

F. For what has Indiana previously been approved?

    On August 11, 2006, EPA finalized a rule approving the UST program 
that Indiana proposed to administer in lieu of the federal UST program. 
The State's

[[Page 9881]]

program has not previously been codified.

G. What changes are we approving with this action and what standards do 
we use for review?

    In order to be approved, each state program application must meet 
the general requirements in 40 CFR 281.11, and specific requirements in 
40 CFR Subpart B (Components of a Program Application); Subpart C 
(Criteria for No Less Stringent); and Subpart D (Adequate Enforcement 
of Compliance). This also is true for proposed revisions to approved 
state programs.
    As more fully described below, the State has made the changes to 
its approved UST program to reflect the 2015 Federal Revisions. EPA is 
approving the State's changes because they are equivalent to, 
consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal UST program and 
because EPA has confirmed that the Indiana UST program will continue to 
provide for adequate enforcement of compliance as described in 40 CFR 
281.11(b) and part 281, Subpart D after this approval.
    The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM or 
Department) is the lead implementing agency for the UST program in 
Indiana, except in Indian country.
    IDEM continues to have broad statutory authority to regulate the 
installation, operation, maintenance, and closure of USTs, as well as 
UST releases under Indiana Code Title 4 State Offices and 
Administration, Article 22 Administrative Rules and Procedures, Chapter 
2, Adoption of Administrative Rules; and selected provisions from Title 
13 Environment, Article 23 Underground Storage Tanks. The Indiana UST 
Program gets its enforcement authority from the powers of the 
Department found in IC Sections 4-21.5-4, 13-14-2-6. 13-14-2-7, 13-23-
1-4, 13-23-14-3, and 13-30-3. Under IC 13-14-2-2, an employee or agent 
of the Department has the authority to enter and inspect any property 
premises or place where regulated substances are stored at any 
reasonable time. In the case of a release, IC Sections 13-23-13-2, 13-
23-13-4, and 13-23-13-12 provide employees or agents of the Department 
the authority to take such action as necessary, including the authority 
to enter any property, premises or place where an UST is located for 
inspection, in order to conduct sampling, and to have access to 
records. IC Section 13-23-13-1 provides the Department with rulemaking 
authority for corrective action. Notice of violation may be issued, and 
penalties for non-compliance with Indiana's UST Act may be assessed 
under IC 13-30-3-3. The State also includes requirements for delivery 
prohibitions in the event of non-compliance as described in 329 Indiana 
Administrative Code (IAC) Section 9-1-15.1.
    Specific authorities to regulate the installation, operation, 
maintenance, and closure of USTs, as well as UST releases are found 
under IC 13-23, in addition to the regulatory provisions in 329 IAC 
Article 9 Underground Storage, as amended effective June 28, 2018; 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are found under 329 IAC 9-3-1. 
The aforementioned statutory and regulatory sections satisfy the 
requirements of 40 CFR 281.40 and 281.41.
    Through a Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Indiana and 
EPA, signed by EPA Region 5 Regional Administrator November 27, 2018, 
the State maintains procedures for receiving and ensuring proper 
consideration of information about violations submitted by the public. 
The State agrees to comply with public participation provisions 
contained in 40 CFR 281.42 including the provision that the State will 
not oppose intervention under Rule 24 of the Indiana Rules of Court, 
Rules of Trial Procedure, in the same manner as the Federal rules at 40 
CFR 281.42.
    To qualify for final approval, revisions to a state's program must 
be ``equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent'' than the 
2015 Federal Revisions. In the 2015 Federal Revisions, EPA addressed 
UST systems deferred in the 1988 UST regulations, and added, among 
other things, new operation and maintenance requirements; secondary 
containment requirements for new and replaced tanks and piping; 
operator training requirements; and a requirement to ensure UST system 
compatibility before storing certain biofuel blends. In addition, EPA 
removed past deferrals for emergency generator tanks, field constructed 
tanks, and airport hydrant systems. EPA analyzes revisions to approved 
state programs pursuant to the criteria found in 40 CFR 281.30 through 
281.39.
    The Department has revised its regulations to help ensure that the 
state's UST program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and 
no less stringent than the 2015 Federal Revisions. In particular, the 
Department has amended Indiana Administrative Code to incorporate the 
revised requirements of 40 CFR part 280, including the requirements 
added by the 2015 Federal Revisions. The State, therefore, has ensured 
that the criteria found in 40 CFR 281.30 through 281.38 are met.
    Title 40 CFR 281.39 describes the state operator training 
requirements that must be met in order to be considered equivalent to, 
consistent with, and no less stringent than federal requirements. 
Indiana has elected to incorporate by reference the Federal Rules at 
329 IAC 9-1-1(b) and (c); therefore, Indiana's operator training 
requirements are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent 
than federal requirements.
    As part of the State Application, the Chief Counsel in the Advisory 
Division of the State of Indiana--Office of the Attorney General 
certified that the laws of Indiana provide adequate authority to carry 
out the ``no less stringent'' technical requirements submitted by the 
State in order to meet the criteria in 40 CFR 281.30 through 281.39. 
EPA is relying on this certification in addition to the analysis 
submitted by the State in making our determination.
    For further information on EPA's analysis of the State's 
application, see the supporting documentation for both the statutory 
and regulatory programs contained in the docket for this rulemaking.

H. Where are the revised rules different from the federal rules?

Broader in Scope Provisions
    Where an approved state program has a greater scope of coverage 
than required by federal law, the additional coverage is not part of 
the federally-approved program and are not federally enforceable (40 
CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii)). The following regulatory requirements are 
considered broader in coverage than the federal program as these state-
only regulations are not required by federal regulation and are 
implemented by the state in addition to the federally approved program:
    Indiana Code Title 13, Article 23 Underground Storage Tanks:
    Chapter 6 Underground Storage Petroleum Tank Trust Fund, Sections 
13-23-6-1 through 13-23-6-5; Chapter 7 Underground Petroleum Storage 
Tank Excess Liability Fund, Sections 13-23-7-1 through 13-23-7-7; 
Chapter 8 Use of Money in Excess Liability Fund, Sections 13-23-8-4 
through 13-23-8-6; Chapter 9 Payment from Excess Liability Fund, 
Sections 13-23-9-1.3 through 13-23-9-6; and Chapter 13 Corrective 
Actions, Sections 13-23-13-6 and 13-23-13-7, because funds of this type 
are state specific and are broader in scope than the federal program.
    Chapter 12 Fees, Sections 13-23-12-1 through 13-23-12-4 because 
fees are

[[Page 9882]]

broader in scope and not imposed by the federal program.
More Stringent Provisions
    Where an approved state program includes requirements that are 
considered more stringent than required by federal law, the more 
stringent requirements become part of the federally approved program 
(40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(i)).
    The following regulatory requirements are considered more stringent 
than the federal program, and on approval, they become part of the 
federally approved program and are federally enforceable:
    Under 329 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC):
    At Section 329 IAC 9-2-2(f) Indiana requires UST system owners and 
operators to ensure that workers performing UST installations, testing, 
upgrades, closures, removals, and change in service are certified by 
the State Fire Marshall. The federal regulations do not require 
certification making the state requirement more stringent.
    At Section 329 IAC 9-2-2(g) Indiana requires UST system owners and 
operators to submit notice of temporary closure, upgrades, or release 
detection installation within 30 days of completing such actions. The 
federal regulations do not contain similar requirements.
    Indiana has state-only provisions related to reporting at 329 IAC 
9-3-1(b)(4), and (b)(6)-(b)(15). These additional reporting 
requirements are more stringent than the federal regulations because 40 
CFR 280.34 does not require the submittal of the documentation 
described in this state program requirement.
    At Section 329 IAC 9-3-1(c)(5)-(c)(10) the state has additional 
recordkeeping requirements that require retention of additional items 
not required by the federal regulations. These additional requirements 
make the state program more stringent than the federal regulations.
    329 IAC 9-2-3 requires UST system owners or operators to certify 
compliance with the release detection requirements of 40 CFR 280, 
Subpart D and Indiana Article 9 within the state's notification forms. 
The federal program requires certification, but does not require the 
use of specific notification forms or that the person who performs the 
work be certified by the state fire marshal, making this state-only 
requirement more stringent.
    At Section 329 IAC 9-4-4(a)(1) the State requires owners and 
operators to contain, cleanup a spill or overfill, and report the 
incident in cases when a petroleum release to the environment equals or 
exceeds 25 gallons at 329 IAC 9-4-4(a)(1)(A). This state provision is 
more stringent than the federal regulations, because under the federal 
regulations these actions are only required if the release of petroleum 
exceeds 25 gallons.
    Section 329 IAC 9-5-5.1 is more stringent because Indiana has 
additional and more detailed requirements for site characterization 
after release than federal regulations. Specifically, at 329 IAC 9-5-
5.1(b), Indiana requires an investigation and submittal of a signed 
report detailing specific information concerning site background, 
release incident description, initial response and abatement, free 
product recovery, investigation, sampling, results and conclusions, and 
recommendations.
    At Section 329 IAC 9-5-4.2 the state provision is more stringent 
because Indiana has a more detailed requirement for the safe handling 
of flammable products. Specifically, at 329 IAC 9-5-4.2(3), Indiana 
requires that flammable products be handled in in accordance with the 
site health and safety plan which is required under the State's 
corrective action plan at Section 329 IAC 9-5-7(e).
    329 IAC 9-5-6 addresses further site investigations for soil and 
ground water cleanup. The state provisions are more stringent than the 
federal regulations because Indiana has additional and more detailed 
requirements for further site investigation in the event evidence 
exists that a contaminant exceeds the cleanup objectives of IC 13-12-3-
2.
    At Section 329 IAC 9-5-7 the state provisions are more stringent 
because Indiana has additional and more detailed requirements for the 
corrective action plan than the federal regulations including 
consideration of the proximity of potential contaminant receptors and 
suitability of chosen remediation method when approving corrective 
action plans and adherence to a written health and safety plan.
    At 329 IAC 9-6-5(d) the State requires owners and operators provide 
certification of closure compliance pursuant to the notification form 
requirements at 329 IAC 9-2-2 (see specifically 329 IAC 9-2-2(f) and 
(g)). The federal program does not include a similar requirement making 
the state provision potentially more stringent than the federal 
regulations.
    At 329 IAC 9-6-2.1(a) the State requires owners and operators to 
notify both the department and the office of the state fire marshal 
before beginning permanent closure or a change-in-service where the 
federal regulation requires notification only of the implementing 
agency. The state provision is more stringent than federal regulations 
because of this additional notification requirement.
    Section 329 IAC 9-6-3 requires that when previously closed UST 
systems must be assessed and closed as directed by the State 
Commissioner, the closures be performed by a person certified under the 
rules of the fire prevention and building safety commission at 675 IAC 
12-12. The State's requirement for certification is more stringent than 
federal regulations.
    At Section 329 IAC 9-8-4(a) the state provision is more stringent 
than the federal regulations as it requires all UST system owners and 
operators to maintain financial responsibility for corrective action 
and third-party claims in a per-occurrence amount of at least $1 
million, without considering their monthly throughput or whether they 
are located at petroleum marketing facilities. The federal regulations 
allow owners or operators who do not meet the requirement of 
280.93(a)(1) to maintain financial responsibility of $500,000.
    At Section 329 IAC 9-8-17(b) this state provision continues to 
require that the local government fund be funded for ten times the full 
amount of coverage required under 329 IAC 9-8-4 though EPA reduced the 
required local government fund funding amount from ten times the full 
amount of coverage required under Sec.  280.93 to five times the 
coverage. The State's higher coverage requirement makes the state 
provision more stringent than the federal regulations.
    At Section 329 IAC 9-8-25(a) and (b) the State requires owners or 
operators to replenish guarantees, letters of credit and surety bonds 
by the anniversary date or within 120 days after the reduction has 
occurred, whichever is sooner. The State's inclusion of this other 
option and subjecting owners or operators to whichever option is sooner 
is more stringent than the federal program that does not contain these 
requirements.

I. How does this action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 
Indiana?

    EPA's approval of Indiana's Program does not extend to Indian 
country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country generally includes 
any land held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe; and 
any other areas that are ``Indian country'' within the meaning of 18 
U.S.C. 1151. Any lands removed from an Indian reservation status by 
federal court action are not considered reservation lands even if 
located within

[[Page 9883]]

the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation. EPA will retain 
responsibilities under RCRA for underground storage tanks in Indian 
country. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian country. See 40 
CFR 281.12(a)(2).

II. Statutory and Executive Order (E.O.) Reviews

    This action only applies to Indiana's UST Program requirements 
pursuant to RCRA Section 9004 and imposes no requirements other than 
those imposed by state law. It complies with applicable EOs and 
statutory provisions as follows:

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

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action 
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 
1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011). This action approves state 
requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 9004 and imposes no 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Therefore, 
this action is not subject to review by OMB.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 13175: Consultation 
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Because this action approves 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 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). 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).

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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, Aug. 10, 1999), because it merely approves state requirements as 
part of the state RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program without 
altering the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by RCRA.

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

    This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, Apr. 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and 
it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety 
risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 
22, 2001) because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under RCRA section 9004(b), EPA grants a state's application for 
approval 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 approval application, to require the use of any particular 
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that 
otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    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.

H. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, Mar. 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.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    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.). ``Burden'' is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

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

    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 approves pre-
existing state rules which are at least equivalent to, consistent with, 
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.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, 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). However, 
this action will be effective April 19, 2021 because it is a direct 
final rule.

    Authority: This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 
2002(a), 7004(b), and 9004, 9005 and 9006 of the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), and 6991c, 
6991d, and 6991e.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 281 and 282

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Hazardous substances, State program approval, and Underground storage 
tanks.

    Dated: February 9, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-03168 Filed 2-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>