Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59503 

other) in or on the commodities listed 

in fruit, citrus group 10–10, when used 

in accordance with the terms of 

Experimental Use Permit No. 88232– 

EUP–2. This temporary exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance expires 

on August 31, 2020. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20547 Filed 8–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R03–RCRA–2015–0674; FRL–9951– 

51–Region 3] 

Maryland: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Maryland has applied to the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for final authorization of 

revisions to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA has determined that these revisions 

satisfy all requirements needed to 

qualify for final authorization and is 

authorizing Maryland’s revisions 

through this direct final rule. In the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register, EPA is also publishing 

a separate document that serves as the 

proposal to authorize these revisions. 

EPA believes this action is not 

controversial and does not expect 

comments that oppose it. Unless EPA 

receives written comments that oppose 

this authorization during the comment 

period, the decision to authorize 

Maryland’s revisions to its hazardous 

waste program will take effect. If EPA 

receives comments that oppose this 

action, EPA will publish a document in 

the Federal Register withdrawing 

today’s direct final rule before it takes 

effect and the separate document in 

today’s ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this 

Federal Register will serve as the 

proposal to authorize the revisions. 

DATES: This final authorization will 

become effective on October 31, 2016, 

unless EPA receives adverse written 

comments by September 29, 2016. If 

EPA receives any such comments, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

and inform the public that this 

authorization will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

RCRA–2015–0674, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: pratt.stacie@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Stacie Pratt, Mailcode 3LC50, 

Office of State Programs, U.S. EPA 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

4. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

You may inspect and copy Maryland’s 

application from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday at the following 

locations: Maryland Department of the 

Environment, Land Management 

Administration, Resource Management 

Program, 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 

610, Baltimore, Maryland 21230–1719, 

Phone number: (410) 537–3314, attn: Ed 

Hammerberg; and EPA Region III, 

Library, 2nd Floor, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, Phone 

number: (215) 814– 5254. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–RCRA–2015– 

0674. 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 http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

Federal regulations Web site, http://

www.regulations.gov, 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 http://

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. (For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulation.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stacie Pratt, Mailcode 3L50, Office of 

State Programs, U.S. EPA Region III, 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103–2029; Phone: 215–814–5173. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States that 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 is 

revised to become more stringent or 

broader in scope, States must revise 

their programs and apply to EPA to 

authorize the revisions. Authorization of 

revisions to State programs may be 

necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other 

revisions occur. Most commonly, States 

must revise their programs because of 

revisions to EPA’s regulations in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 

279. 

B. What decisions has EPA made in this 

rule? 

On July 31, 2015, Maryland submitted 

a final program revision application 

(with subsequent corrections) seeking 

authorization of revisions to its 

hazardous waste program that 

correspond to certain Federal rules 

promulgated between January 14, 1985 

and August 5, 2005. EPA concludes that 

Maryland’s application to revise its 

authorized program meets all of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

established by RCRA, as set forth in 

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

and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA 

grants Maryland final authorization to 

operate its hazardous waste program 

with the revisions described in its 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

59504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

authorization application, and as 

outlined below in Section G of this 

document. 

Maryland has responsibility for 

permitting treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its 

borders and for carrying out the aspects 

of the RCRA program described in its 

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 those HSWA requirements 

and prohibitions for which Maryland 

has not been authorized, including 

issuing HSWA permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What is the effect of today’s 

authorization decision? 

This action serves to authorize 

revisions to Maryland’s authorized 

hazardous waste program. This action 

does not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations for 

which Maryland is being authorized by 

today’s action are already effective and 

are not changed by today’s action. 

Maryland has enforcement 

responsibilities under its state 

hazardous waste program for violations 

of its program, but EPA retains its 

authority under RCRA sections 3007, 

3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, 

among others, authority to: 

• Perform inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements and 

suspend or revoke permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether Maryland has taken its own 

actions. 

D. Why wasn’t there a proposed rule 

before today’s rule? 

Along with this direct final rule, EPA 

is publishing a separate document in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register that serves as the 

proposal to authorize these State 

program revisions. EPA did not publish 

a proposal before today’s rule because 

EPA views this action as a routine 

program change and does not expect 

comments that oppose its approval. EPA 

is providing an opportunity for public 

comment now, as described in Section 

E of this document. 

E. What happens if EPA receives 

comments that oppose this action? 

If EPA receives comments that oppose 

this authorization, EPA will withdraw 

today’s direct final rule by publishing a 

document in the Federal Register before 

the rule becomes effective. EPA will 

base any further decision on the 

authorization of Maryland’s program 

revisions on the proposal mentioned in 

the previous section, after considering 

all comments received during the 

comment period. EPA will then address 

all such comments in a later final rule. 

You may not have another opportunity 

to comment. If you want to comment on 

this authorization, you must do so at 

this time. 

If EPA receives comments that oppose 

only the authorization of a particular 

revision to the State’s hazardous waste 

program, EPA will withdraw that part of 

this rule, but the authorization of the 

program revisions that the comments do 

not oppose will become effective on the 

date specified above. The Federal 

Register withdrawal document will 

specify which part of the authorization 

will become effective, and which part is 

being withdrawn. 

F. What has Maryland previously been 

authorized for? 

Maryland initially received final 

authorization effective February 11, 

1985 (50 FR 3511; January 25, 1985) to 

implement its base hazardous waste 

management program. EPA granted 

authorization for revisions to 

Maryland’s regulatory program on June 

1, 2001, effective July 31, 2001 (66 FR 

29712), and on July 26, 2004, effective 

September 24, 2004 (69 FR 44463). 

G. What revisions is EPA authorizing 

with this action? 

On July 31 2015, Maryland submitted 

a final program revision application 

(with subsequent corrections), seeking 

authorization of additional revisions to 

its program in accordance with 40 CFR 

271.21. Maryland’s revision application 

includes various regulations that are 

equivalent to, and no less stringent than, 

selected Federal final hazardous waste 

rules, as published in the Federal 

Register between January 14, 1985 and 

August 5, 2005. 

EPA now makes a direct final 

regisule, subject to receipt of written 

comments that oppose this action, that 

Maryland’s hazardous waste program 

revision application satisfies all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization. Therefore, EPA 

grants Maryland final authorization for 

the following program revisions: 

1. Program Revision Changes for Federal 

Rules 

Maryland seeks authority to 

administer the Federal requirements 

that are listed in Table 1 below. This 

table lists the Maryland analogs that are 

being recognized as no less stringent 

than the analogous Federal 

requirements. Note that the Federal 

rules listed in Table 1 may include 

revisions related to the land disposal 

restriction (LDR) regulations. Maryland 

has not adopted, and is not seeking 

authorization for, the LDR regulations. 

Maryland’s regulatory references are 

to Title 26, Subtitle 13 of the Code of 

Maryland Regulations (COMAR), 

Chapters 01 through 10, as amended 

effective November 12, 2010. The State’s 

statutory authority for its hazardous 

waste program is based on the 

Environment Article of the Annotated 

Code of Maryland (2013 Replacement 

Volume and 2014 Supplement), and the 

State Government Article of the 

Annotated Code of Maryland (2014 

Replacement Volume). Maryland’s 

application also includes a revised 

Program Description, which provides a 

description of the hazardous waste 

regulatory program in Maryland. 

TABLE 1—MARYLAND’S ANALOGS TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

Description of Federal requirement 

(revision checklists 1) Federal Register Analogous Maryland authority 

HSWA Cluster I 

Dioxin Waste Listing and Management Standards, Revision Checklist 14.50 FR 1978, 1/14/85 .......... COMAR 26.13.02.05C(1)*, .05C(2)* .05C(5)*, 

.05C(6)(a), .05C(7)*, .07B(1) introductory paragraph*, 

.07B(3) introductory paragraph*, .15E introductory 

paragraph, .15E(1), .16, .19G, .22 Table 1, .22 Table 

3, .23, .24; 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59505 

TABLE 1—MARYLAND’S ANALOGS TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Description of Federal requirement 

(revision checklists 1) Federal Register Analogous Maryland authority 

26.13.05.09H(4) introductory paragraph, .09H(5), 

.11K(1), .11K(2), .12J(1), .12J(2), .13N(1), .13N(2), 

.14P(1), .14P(2), .16F(1)(a) and 16F(1)(b); 

26.13.06.01A(6), .23C, .24B(1); 

26.13.07.02D(21), .02–3B(9), .02–4B(17), .02–5B(10), 

.02–7B(7), .02–8B(8). 

(More stringent provisions: 26.13.06.01A(6), .23C, 

.24B(1)). 

*Certain portions of the regulations are considered 

broader in scope; see discussion in Section H.1(a). 

Location Standards for Salt Domes, Salt Beds, Underground Mines and Caves, Revision Checklist 17E.50 FR 28702, 7/15/85 ........ COMAR 26.13.05.02–1F and 26.13.06.02G. 

Ground-Water Monitoring, Revision Checklist 17I ........... 50 FR 28702, 7/15/85 ........ COMAR 26.13.05.06A(3), .11G(2)(b). 

(More stringent provisions 26.13.05.11(G)(4), 

.12.E(4)(b), .14C(2)(b)). 

Pre-construction Ban, Revision Checklist 17M ................ 50 FR 28702, 7/15/85 ........ COMAR 26.13.07.01B. 

(More stringent provisions: 26.13.07.01B, no State analog to 40 CFR 270.10(f)(3)). 

Permit Life, Revision Checklist 17N ................................. 50 FR 28702, 7/15/85 ........ COMAR 26.13.07.06.A and .06C. 

Research and Development Permits, Revision Checklist 

17Q.

50 FR 28702, 7/15/85 ........ COMAR 26.13.07.02A and .19. 

Exposure Information, Revision Checklist 17S ................ 50 FR 28702, 7/15/85 ........ COMAR 26.13.07.02C and .02D(37). 

HSWA Cluster II 

Permit Modification, Revision Checklist 44D .................... 52 FR 45788, 12/1/87 ........ COMAR 26.13.07.11B(3). 

Permit Conditions to Protect Human Health and the Environment, Revision Checklist 44F.52 FR 45788, 12/1/87 ........ COMAR 26.13.07.02D(36). 

Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled 

Wastes, Revision Checklist 78 2.

55 FR 22520, 6/1/90 .......... COMAR 26.13.02.10B, .11B, .12B, .13B, .14B, .16A/ 

Table, .19C, .23/Table. 

(This checklist is HSWA Cluster II, with the exception of clarifying amendment to 261.33(c) which is in non-HSWA Cluster VI.) 

RCRA Cluster III 

Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes and 

Hazardous Debris; Containment Buildings, Revision 

Checklist 109 2.

57 FR 37194, 8/18/92 ........ COMAR 26.13.01.03.B(9–1), .03.B(53), and .03.B(63); 

26.13.02.03.A(2)(c), .03.C–1(3) introductory paragraph 

through (3)(d), .03.C–1(3)(e)–(g), .03E introductory 

paragraph, .03E(1), and .03(E)(2); 

26.13.03.05.E(1)(b)(iii), 05.E(1)(b)(iv), .05.E(1)(e), 

.05.E(1)(l)(i), .05.E(1)(l)(iii), .05.E(1)(m), .05.E(1)(n), 

.05.E(4); 

26.13.05.07.A(2)(a)–(d), .07.B(3), .07.C(1)(b), .08.A, 

.18, .18–1, .18–2(A), .18–2(B), .18–2(C)(1)–(2), .18– 

2(D)–(F), .18–3; 

26.13.06.12A(1)–(4), .07B(3), .08E(10), .16A, .29; 

26.13.07.13–2A(12) and .23.C(3)(f). 

(More stringent provisions: 26.13.07.13–2A(12); no 

State analogs to 40 CFR 270.42(e)(iii)(B) and 270.42 

Appendix I Item I(6).) 

Toxicity Characteristic Amendment, Revision Checklist 

117B.

57 FR 23062, 6/1/92 .......... COMAR 26.13.02.03A(2)(a) and .03A–1. 

RCRA Cluster IV 

Revision of Conditional Exemption for Small Scale 

Treatability Studies, Revision Checklist 129.

59 FR 8362, 2/18/94 .......... COMAR 26.13.02.04–4B(1)–(2), .04–4C, .04–4D, .04– 

4E, .04–5A(3)–(5), and .04–5A(11)(b). 

RCRA Cluster V 

Recovered Oil Exclusion, Revision Checklist 135 3 ......... 59 FR 38536, 7/28/94 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.03C–1(2), .04A(15) and (16), .06A– 

1(1)(c) and Agency Note, and .06A–1(2)(c)–(e). 

Removal of the Conditional Exemption for Certain Slag 

Residues, Revision Checklist 136 2.

59 FR 43496, 8/24/94 ........ COMAR 26.13.10.01A(4). 

Carbamate Production Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, Revision Checklist 140.60 FR 7824, 2/9/95; as 

amended at 60 FR 

19165, 4/17/95, and at 

60 FR 25619, 5/12/95.

COMAR 26.13.02.03A–2(5)–(7), .03C–1(4), .17, .19E, 

.19G, .23 and .24. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

59506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—MARYLAND’S ANALOGS TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Description of Federal requirement 

(revision checklists 1) Federal Register Analogous Maryland authority 

RCRA Cluster VI 

RCRA Expanded Public Participation, Revision Checklist 

148 3.

60 FR 63417, 12/11/95 ...... COMAR 26.13.01.03B(23–1); 26.13.07.02D(39), .04N, 

.14A(5), .17B(7)–(12), .17D, .19–1, .19–2A, .19–2B, 

.20–2A(5)–(6), .20–2D(4), .20–2E(1)(d)–(f), .20– 

2F(1)(a), .20F(1)(d), .20F(1)(h), .20–2F(3) and .20–3. 

(More Stringent Provisions: COMAR 

26.13.07.17B(12)(c), .20–2A(5)–(6), .20–2F(3), .20– 

3.) 

Amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste; Amendment II, Revision Checklist 150.61 FR 13103, 3/26/96 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.04A(15)–(16). 

RCRA Cluster VII 

Military Munitions Rule, Revision Checklist 156 ............... 62 FR 6622, 2/12/97 .......... COMAR 26.13.01.03B(2–1), .03B(5–1), .03B(22–2)– 

.03B(22–4), .03B(37–1), .03B(51–1), .03B(51–2), 

.03B(51–3), .03B(69–1), .03B(87–2); 

26.13.02.02A(2)(c)–(d); 

26.13.03.01J, .04A(6); 

26.13.04.01A(4)–(5); 

26.13.05.01A(2)(d)–(e), .01A(3)(h)(iv), .01D(5)–(6), 

.05A(2), .21; 

26.13.06.01A(2)(d)–(e), .01A(4)(h)(iv), .01A(5)(b)–(c), 

.05A, .28; 

26.13.07.01A, .13–1C; 

26.13.10.27*, .10.28B–D, .10.29–.31. 

*Certain portions of the regulations are considered 

broader in scope; see discussion in Section H.1(b). 

Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV, Revision Checklist 

157 2.

62 FR 25998, 5/12/97 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.01C(3)(b)–(e), .02G/Table 1, 

.04A(11), .04A(12), .06A–1(2)(b). 

Conformance With the Carbamate Vacatur, Revision 

Checklist 159 2.

62 FR 32974, 6/17/97 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.17A/Table, .19G, .23/Table, and .24. 

RCRA Cluster VIII 

Kraft Mill Steam Stripper Condensate Exclusion, Revision Checklist 164.63 FR 18504, 4/15/98 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.04A(14). 

RCRA Cluster IX 

Petroleum Refining Process Wastes, Revision Checklist 

169 2 3.

63 FR 42110, 8/6/98 .......... COMAR 26.13.02.03A–2(3), .03C–1(2), .03C–1(5), 

.04A(15)–(18), .06A–1(2)(e), .16A, .17A/Table, and 

.23/Table. 

Petroleum Refining Process Wastes—Leachate Exemption, Revision Checklist 178.64 FR 6806, 2/11/99 .......... COMAR 26.13.02.04–1A(16) introductory language and 

(a)–(e) and .02.04–1A–1. 

RCRA Cluster X 

Land Disposal Restrictions ...............................................

Phase IV—Technical Corrections, Revision Checklist 

183 2.

64 FR 56469, 10/20/99 ...... COMAR 26.13.02.17A/Table. 

Petroleum Refining Process Wastes Clarification, Revision Checklist 187 2.65 FR 36365, 6/8/00 .......... COMAR 26.13.02.16A/Table. 

RCRA Cluster XI 

Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs for Newly Identified Wastes, Revision Checklist 189 2.65 FR 67068, 11/8/00 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.17A/Table, .23/Table, and .24. 

Mixture and Derived—From Rules Revisions, Revision 

Checklist 192A.

66 FR 27266, 5/16/01 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.03A(2)(c), .03A(2)(d), .03A–2, 

.03C(2)(a), .03F introductory language and (1)–(2). 

(More Stringent Provisions: COMAR 

26.13.02.03C(2)(a).) 

RCRA Cluster XII 

Mixture and Derived—From Rules Revision II, Revision 

Checklist 194.

66 FR 50332, 10/3/01 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.03A(2)(d), .03A–2, and .03F(3). 

Inorganic Chemical ...........................................................

Manufacturing Wastes 

Identification and Listing, 

Revision Checklist 195 2

66 FR 58258, 11/20/01 ...... COMAR 26.13.02.04–1A(16)(a)–(e), .04–1A–1, .17A/ 

Table, and .23 Table. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59507 

TABLE 1—MARYLAND’S ANALOGS TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Description of Federal requirement 

(revision checklists 1) Federal Register Analogous Maryland authority 

Vacatur of Mineral Processing Spent Materials Being 

Reclaimed as Solid Wastes and TCLP Use With MGP 

Waste, Revision Checklist 199.

67 FR 11251, 3/13/02 ........ COMAR 26.13.02.02C(3) and .14A. 

RCRA Cluster XV 

Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule, Revision 

Checklist 207.

70 FR 10776, 3/4/05; as 

amended 70 FR 35034, 

6/16/05.

COMAR 26.13.01.03B(12), .03B(50)–(51), .03B(55–1– 

1); 

26.13.02.07B(1)(b)(i)–(ii); 

26.13.03.04(A)(1),.04B(1)(b), .04B(1)(c)(i)–(ii), 

.04B(1)(d)–(e), .04(B)(2)(a)(ii), .04B(2)(b)–(d), 

.04B(3)–(6), .04C, .04D(2)(e), .04F(2)(a)–(b), .05C(2), 

.05D, .05E(4), .07–2A(3) and (5), .07–3B(3)–(4), .07– 

3C; 

26.13.04.02A(1), .02A(7), .02B(2)–(4); 

26.13.05.05A(2)–(3), .05B(1)(a)–(d) and (f)–(g), 

.05B(2)(d), .05B(5), .05C, .05G; 

26.13.06.05A. 

RCRA Cluster XVI 

Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Mercury 

Containing Equipment, Revision Checklist 209 2.

70 FR 45508, 8/5/2005 ...... 26.13.01.03B(2–2), .03B(46–1), .03B(51–2), .03B(72– 

2), .03B(89–1); 

26.13.02.07–1B(3); 

26.13.05.01A(3); 

26.13.06.01A(4)(j)(iii); 

26.13.07.01A; 

26.13.10.06B(3); 

26.13.10.09, .14, .17A(2)(d), .17A(3), .19C(1)(a)(iv)–(v), 

.20C, and .21A. 

1A Revision Checklist is a document that addresses the specific revisions made to the Federal regulations by one or more related final rules 

published in the Federal Register. EPA develops these checklists as tools to assist States in developing their authorization applications and in 

documenting specific State analogs to the Federal regulations. For more information see EPA’s RCRA State Authorization Web page at http://

www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/state/index.htm. 2 Maryland is not seeking authorization for the provisions related to the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) regulations because Maryland has not 

adopted the LDR regulations. 3 Maryland is not seeking authorization for the provisions related to the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) regulations because Maryland has 

not adopted these regulations. 

2. State-Initiated Changes 

Maryland’s program revision 

application includes State-initiated 

changes that are not directly related to 

any of the Revision Checklists in Table 

1. Each State-initiated change is related 

to one of the following: (1) The adoption 

of a provision that makes internal 

clarification and conforming changes to 

the State’s regulations, (2) adoption of a 

provision that makes the State’s 

regulations, which had been more 

stringent, now equivalent to the Federal 

hazardous waste regulations, or (3) 

correction of typographical errors. EPA 

has evaluated the changes and has 

determined that the State’s regulations 

remain consistent with, and are no less 

stringent than, the corresponding 

Federal regulations. EPA grants 

Maryland final authorization for the 

State provisions listed in Table 2. These 

requirements are analogous to the 

indicated Federal RCRA regulations 

found at relevant or applicable 40 CFR 

sections as of July 1, 2005. 

TABLE 2—EQUIVALENT STATE-INITIATED CHANGES

State citation (COMAR) Federal RCRA citation (40 CFR) 

26.13.02.05D(2)(c)(iv) ............................................................................... No direct Federal analog. Related to 40 CFR 261.5(g)(3). 

26.13.02.11A(3), A(4), and C; 26.13.02.11–1 .......................................... 40 CFR 261.21(a)(3); No Federal analog to 26.13.02.11–1. 

26.13.02.13A(8) and C ............................................................................. 40 CFR 261.23(a)(8). 

26.13.03.07–5A(2) .................................................................................... 262.58(a). 

26.13.06.01A(4)(k) .................................................................................... 265.1(c)(13). 

26.13.07.20–2F(3)(e) ................................................................................ No Federal analog in 40 CFR 124.32. 

26.13.10.03A ............................................................................................ 266.70(a). 

26.13.10.04C ............................................................................................ 266.80. 

26.13.10.26 ............................................................................................... No Federal analog in 40 CFR 273. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

59508 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

H. Where are the revised Maryland 

rules different from the federal rules? 

1. Maryland Requirements That Are 

Broader in Scope 

The Maryland hazardous waste 

program contains certain provisions that 

are broader in scope than the Federal 

program. These broader in scope 

provisions are not part of the program 

being authorized by today’s action. EPA 

cannot enforce requirements that are 

broader in scope, although compliance 

with such provisions is required by 

Maryland law. Examples of broader in 

scope provisions of Maryland’s program 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

(a) COMAR 26.13.02.05C(1) and (2), 

.05.C(5), .05C(6)(b), .05C(7), .07B(1) 

introductory paragraph, .07B(3) 

introductory paragraph, and .15E(2) 

(part of the State’s analogs to 40 CFR 

261.5(e), 261.7(b), and 261.30(d)) 

contain references to polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) and to State-only 

wastes listed at COMAR 26.13.02.17 

(K991 through K999; military wastes), 

COMAR 26.13.02.18 (MD01: a type of 

Filter cake and chemical sludge) and 

COMAR 26.13.02.19.F (M001: PCBs 

above 500 parts per million (ppm), 

which is regulated under the Toxic 

Substances and Control Act (TSCA)). 

The portions of these provisions that are 

associated with the State-only wastes 

and the PCBs above 500 ppm go beyond 

the scope of the Federal program 

because PCBs and the State-only wastes 

are not Federal hazardous wastes and, 

thus, are not part of the program being 

authorized by today’s action. 

(b) At COMAR 26.13.10.27B(3)(a)–(b), 

Maryland has included as solid wastes 

those unused military munitions that 

have been abandoned by being treated 

((3)(a)(v)) or removed from storage and 

treated ((3)(b)(iii)). The Federal analogs 

at 40 CFR 266.202(b)(1) and (2) do not 

include treatment alone as a 

requirement for becoming a solid waste. 

Instead, treatment is used in the context 

of the step prior to disposal (see 56 FR 

6626). As such, Maryland’s 

requirements at COMAR 

26.13.10.27B(3)(a)(v) and 

26.13.10.27B(3)(b)(iii) are broader in 

scope than the Federal program, where 

an unused munition that is subject to 

chemical treatment without disposal 

would not be regulated as a solid waste. 

(c) Maryland has not adopted the 

mixed waste rule (66 FR 27218). 

Therefore, Maryland does not have an 

analog to 40 CFR 261.3(h), which 

exempts eligible radioactive mixed 

waste from regulation as a hazardous 

waste. As a result, Maryland’s 

regulations is broader in scope than the 

Federal program because eligible 

radioactive mixed wastes are not 

Federal hazardous wastes and, thus, are 

not part of the program being authorized 

by today’s action. 

(d) Maryland has not adopted the 

vacatur of mineral processing spent 

materials being reclaimed as solid 

wastes. Therefore, Maryland does not 

have an analog to 40 CFR 261.4(a)(17). 

By regulating these materials, 

Maryland’s program is broader in scope 

than the Federal program because these 

materials are not Federal solid wastes 

and, thus, are not part of the program 

being authorized by today’s action. 

2. Maryland Requirements That Are 

More Stringent Than the Federal 

Program 

Maryland’s hazardous waste program 

contains several provisions that are 

more stringent than the RCRA program. 

The more stringent provisions are part 

of a Federally-authorized program and 

are, therefore, Federally-enforceable. 

The specific more stringent provisions 

are also noted in Table 1 and in 

Maryland’s authorization application. 

They include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

(a) Maryland has not adopted analogs 

to the Federal provisions at 40 CFR 

265.1(d)(1)(iv)–(v), which allow dioxin 

wastes to be burned in certain 

incinerators and facilities that thermally 

treat the waste in other devices. 

Maryland has replaced these provisions 

with a provision at COMAR 

26.13.06.01.A(6)(d) that allows dioxin 

wastes to be managed at a permitted 

facility, thus making Maryland’s 

regulations more stringent. 

(b) The Federal regulations at 40 CFR 

265.352 and 265.383 allow owners and 

operators of incinerators and thermal 

treatment devices who have received 

the required certification to burn EPA 

hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, 

F023, F026, or F027. However, 

Maryland’s regulations at COMAR 

26.13.06.23C and .24.B(1) prohibit the 

burning of such wastes, thus making 

Maryland’s regulations more stringent. 

(c) Maryland did not adopt an analog 

to the Federal provision at 40 CFR 

270.10(f)(3), which was removed by the 

July 15, 1985 rule (50 FR 28702), nor 

has Maryland adopted the optional 

provision introduced by the July 15, 

1985 rule at 40 CFR 270.10(f)(3). As a 

result, COMAR 26.13.07.01B, which is 

Maryland’s analog to 40 CFR 

270.10(f)(1), does not include the phrase 

analogous to ‘‘except as provided in 

paragraph (f)(3) of this section.’’ The 

Federal provision at 40 CFR 270.10(f)(3) 

allows a person to construct a facility 

for the incineration of PCBs without a 

RCRA permit if an approval has been 

issued under TSCA. Without this 

exemption, Maryland’s regulations are 

more stringent. 

(d) Certain provisions of Maryland’s 

regulations pertaining to containment 

buildings are considered more stringent 

than the Federal requirements. These 

provisions include: 

• Maryland has not adopted an 

analog to 40 CFR 270.42(e), which 

allows the Director to grant a permittee 

a temporary authorization without prior 

public notice and comment. Maryland’s 

regulations are considered more 

stringent because it does not provide for 

temporary authorizations. 

• The Federal regulations at 40 CFR 

270.42 Appendix I classify the 

conversion of an enclosed waste pile to 

a containment building as a Class 2 

modification. Unlike the Federal 

regulations, which have three classes of 

permit modifications, Maryland only 

lists minor modifications in COMAR 

26.13.07.13–2. Any modification not 

listed in COMAR 26.13.07.13–2 is a 

major modification in Maryland. 

Maryland’s regulations are more 

stringent because it treats this Class 2 

modification in the Federal regulations 

as a major modification. 

• Maryland has adopted the Federal 

Class 1 modifications of 40 CFR 270.42 

Appendix I as part of its minor 

modifications. Maryland’s regulations 

are more stringent because it treats the 

Federal Class 2 and 3 permit 

modifications for containment buildings 

as major modifications. 

(e) Maryland has several additional 

requirements for public participation in 

the hazardous waste program permitting 

process, which make the State’s 

regulations more stringent. The 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

• Maryland’s regulations at COMAR 

26.13.07.17B(12)(c) provides a specific 

number of days (30) rather than 

requiring ‘‘a reasonable period of time,’’ 

as found in the Federal regulations. 

Therefore, Maryland’s regulations are 

considered more stringent. 

• Maryland’s requirements at 

COMAR 26.13.07.20–2A(5) and (6) are 

more stringent because public notice 

must also be given of receipt of an 

application for a permit modification 

and of receipt of an application for postclosure activities. 

• Maryland’s regulations at COMAR 

26.13.07.20–2F(3)(e) require that the 

public notice include information on 

how to request that an informational 

meeting be held. This requirement is an 

additional requirement making 

Maryland’s regulations more stringent. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59509 

• Maryland’s regulations at COMAR 

26.13.07.20–3 require the Director to 

hold informational meetings under 

specific conditions, which is considered 

more stringent than the Federal 

regulations. 

(f) Maryland has not adopted the 

mixed waste rule (66 FR 27218). 

Therefore, Maryland’s regulation at 

COMAR 26.13.02.03C(2) is more 

stringent than the Federal requirements 

because the Maryland regulation does 

not include all of the exceptions found 

in the analogous Federal regulation at 

40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i). 

3. Federal Requirements for which 

Maryland is not Seeking Authorization 

Maryland is not seeking authorization 

for the land disposal restriction (40 CFR 

268), used oil standards (40 CFR 279), 

boiler and industrial furnace standards 

(40 CFR 266, Subpart H), air emission 

standards (40 CFR 264 and 265, 

Subparts AA, BB, and CC), or HSWA 

corrective action requirements. 

I. Who handles permits after the 

authorization takes effect? 

After this authorization revision, 

Maryland will issue permits covering all 

the provisions for which it is authorized 

and will administer all such permits. 

EPA will continue to administer any 

RCRA hazardous waste permits or 

portions of permits that it issued prior 

to the effective date of this authorization 

until the timing and process for effective 

transfer to the State are mutually agreed 

upon. Until such time, as EPA formally 

transfers responsibility for a permit to 

Maryland and EPA terminates its 

permit, EPA and Maryland agree to 

coordinate the administration of such 

permit in order to maintain consistency. 

EPA will not issue any more new 

permits or new portions of permits for 

the provisions listed in Section G after 

the effective date of this authorization. 

EPA will continue to implement and 

issue permits for HSWA requirements 

for which Maryland is not yet 

authorized. 

J. How does this action affect Indian 

country (18 U.S.C. 115) in Maryland? 

Maryland is not seeking authority to 

operate the program on Indian lands, 

since there are no Federally-recognized 

Indian Lands in Maryland. 

K. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying Maryland’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 

action by referencing the authorized 

State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA 

reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 

272, subpart V, for this authorization of 

Maryland’s program revisions until a 

later date. 

L. Administrative Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this action from 

the requirements of Executive Order 

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 pursuant 

to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. Accordingly, I 

certify that 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). In any case, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule since there are no Federally 

recognized tribes in Maryland. 

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 

concern environmental health or safety 

risks that may disproportionately affect 

children. 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 under Executive Order 

12866. 

Under RCRA section 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 satisfies the requirements 

of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

3701, et seq.) 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 18, 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.). Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

59510 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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 will be effective October 31, 

2016. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Indian lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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: August 12, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20849 Filed 8–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 225 

[Docket DARS–2016–0029] 

RIN 0750–AJ04 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Request for 

Audit Services in France, Germany, the 

Netherlands, or the United Kingdom 

(DFARS Case 2016–D027) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to specify the countries with 

which DoD has audit agreements. 

DATES: Effective August 30, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372– 

6106. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is amending DFARS 225.872–6 

to specify the qualifying countries that 

have audit agreements with the United 

States (i.e., France, Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). 

II. Publication of This Final Rule for 

Public Comment Is Not Required by 

Statute 

The statute that applies to the 

publication of the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) is 41 U.S.C. 1707 

entitled ‘‘Publication of Proposed 

Regulations.’’ Paragraph (a)(1) of the 

statute requires that a procurement 

policy, regulation, procedure, or form 

(including an amendment or 

modification thereof) must be published 

for public comment if it relates to the 

expenditure of appropriated funds, and 

has either a significant effect beyond the 

internal operating procedures of the 

agency issuing the policy, regulation, 

procedure, or form, or a significant cost 

or administrative impact on contractors 

or offerors. This final rule is not 

required to be published for public 

comment, because it only specifies the 

qualifying countries that have audit 

agreements with the United States, 

rather than requiring each contracting 

officer to contact the Deputy Director of 

Defense Procurement and Acquisition 

Policy (Contract Policy and 

International Contracting), to determine 

whether a qualifying country has such 

an audit agreement. These regulations 

affect only the internal operating 

procedures of the Government. 

III. Applicability to Contracts at or 

Below the Simplified Acquisition 

Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial 

Items, Including Commercially 

Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items 

This case does not add any new 

provisions or clauses or impact any 

existing provisions or clauses. 

IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does 

not apply to this rule because this final 

rule does not constitute a significant 

DFARS revision within the meaning of 

FAR 1.501–1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does 

not require publication for public 

comment. 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225 

Government procurement. 

Jennifer L. Hawes, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR part 225 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 225 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

■ 2. Revise section 225.872–6 to read as 

follows: 

225.872–6 Request for audit services. 

Handle requests for audit services in 

France, Germany, the Netherlands, or 

the United Kingdom in accordance with 

PGI 215.404–2(c), but follow the 

additional procedures at PGI 225.872–6. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20476 Filed 8–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 231 

[Docket DARS–2016–0002] 

RIN 0750–AI86 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Costs Related 

to Counterfeit Electronic Parts (DFARS 

Case 2016–D010) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to implement a section of the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES