Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 9879 

EPA determined that this action will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. The 

EPA has assessed the overall 

protectiveness of modifying the existing 

HOODS against the criteria established 

pursuant to the MPRSA to ensure that 

any adverse impact to the environment 

will be mitigated to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

V. Response to Comments on the 

Proposed Rule, EA and SMMP 

EPA published the draft EA and the 

proposed rule for a 30-day public 

comment period on May 29, 2020, and 

accepted comments until June 29, 2020. 

Both the draft EA and proposed rule 

were available at www.regulations.gov 

(Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OW–2020– 

0188) and at https://www.epa.gov/ 

ocean-dumping/humboldt-open-oceandisposal-site-hoods-documents. 

EPA received feedback from a total of 

four commenters on the draft EA and 

proposed rule. Most of the comments 

did not specify whether they applied to 

the EA, the proposed rule, or the SMMP; 

EPA therefore accepted them as 

applicable to all three documents. The 

full comments, and EPA’s responses, are 

included in Appendix E to the Final EA 

and are summarized below. Based on 

the comments received, only minor, 

clarifying wording changes have been 

made to the Final EA, final rule, and 

updated SMMP. 

One citizen commenter supported 

expanding HOODS, asked how long 

before expansion might be needed 

again, hoped that expansion would 

cause no environmental harm, and 

recommended that dumping violations 

should be punished. EPA responded 

that the site should not need further 

expansion for approximately 75 years at 

present disposal rates; that EPA had 

substantial enforcement authority 

should violations occur; and that 

environmental impacts are not expected 

based on the prior 25 years of site use 

and the results of recent comprehensive 

monitoring studies. 

One agency commenter pointed out 

some potential for confusion regarding 

whether the modified HOODS boundary 

would completely supersede the 

original HOODS boundary on future 

NOAA navigation charts, or whether 

both old and new boundaries would be 

shown. The commenter pointed out that 

if both were shown, confusion could 

result because small corners of the old 

boundary would protrude from the 

(otherwise perfectly square) new 

boundary. EPA responded that the new 

boundary would completely supersede 

the original boundary on future NOAA 

navigation chart updates. 

Another agency commented that it 

looked forward to receiving EPA’s 

consistency determination for the 

proposed boundary modification and to 

working with EPA staff on this 

submittal. EPA thanked the agency and 

noted that EPA would not publish the 

final rule for modifying HOODS until 

the agency’s comments (if any) had been 

fully considered. 

The final agency commenter pointed 

out a minor typographical error in draft 

EA Section 4.4.1. This typographical 

error was corrected. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Section 102 of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412. 

Dated: February 3, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the EPA amends chapter I, 

title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE 

MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES 

FOR OCEAN DUMPING 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 228 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418. 

■ 2. Section 228.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (l)(10) to read as 

follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(10) Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal 

Site (HOODS) Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Site—Region IX. 

(i) Location: The coordinates of the 

four corners of the square site are: 

40°50.300′ North latitude (N) by 

124°018.017′ West longitude (W); 

40°49.267′ N by 124°15.767′ W; 

40°47.550′ N by 124°17.083′ W; and 

40°48.567′ N by 124°19.300′ W (North 

American Datum from 1983). The 

expanded disposal site boundary 

defined by these coordinates replaces 

and supersedes the previous boundary. 

(ii) Size: 4 square nautical miles (13.4 

square kilometers). 

(iii) Depth: Water depths within the 

area range between approximately 150 

to 210 feet (45 to 64 meters). 

(iv) Use Restricted to Disposal of: 

Disposal shall be limited to dredged 

material determined to be suitable for 

ocean disposal according to 40 CFR 

220–228. 

(v) Period of Use: Continuing use for 

50 years from the effective date of this 

updated site designation, subject to 

restrictions and provisions set forth in 

paragraph (l)(10)(vi) of this section. 

(vi) Restrictions/Provisions: Disposal 

at HOODS shall be in accordance with 

the permit or Federal project approval 

that incorporates all conditions set forth 

in the most recent Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the 

HOODS published by EPA in 

consultation with USACE, and as may 

be modified in EPA concurrences for 

individual projects disposing at 

HOODS. The SMMP may be 

periodically revised as necessary; 

proposed substantive revisions to the 

SMMP shall be made following 

opportunity for public review and 

comment. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–02731 Filed 2–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 federallyauthorized 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
9880 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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: Kamke.Sherry@epa.gov. 

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, 

Kamke.Sherry@epa.gov. 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 noncompliance 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 federallyapproved 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
9882 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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-inservice 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 § 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 preexisting 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES