Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 35641 

December 28, 2012; 2010 NO2

NAAQS—January 2, 2013; and 2010 SO2

NAAQS—May 30, 2013. These 

infrastructure SIPs are approved, with 

the exception of certain elements within 

110(a)(2)(C)(ii), D(i)(II), and J(iii), which 

are conditionally approved. Connecticut 

submitted infrastructure SIPs for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on 

September 4, 2008, and September 18, 

2009, respectively, and elements 

110(a)(2)(A), D(ii), and E(ii), which were 

previously conditionally approved, are 

now approved. Also with respect to the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, elements 

related to PSD, which include 

110(a)(2)C(ii), D(i)(II), and J(iii) are 

newly conditionally approved. 

Connecticut also submitted an 

Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on December 28, 2007, 

and element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which was 

previously conditionally approved, is 

now approved. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12375 Filed 6–2–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0822; FRL–9947– 

28–Region 9] 

Nevada: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA received several 

comments during the open comment 

period on the March 23, 2016, proposed 

rule to authorize Nevada’s changes to 

the State Hazardous Waste Management 

program. EPA is responding to one 

comment opposing the action and 

reaffirming the effective date of the 

direct final rule as June 6, 2016. 

DATES: The final authorization is 

effective June 6, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street LND–1–1, San 

Francisco, CA 94105, amaro.laurie@

epa.gov, 415–972–3364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. What decisions has EPA made in this 

rule? 

On November 25, 2015, and December 

28, 2015, Nevada submitted final 

complete program revision applications 

seeking authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program that 

correspond to certain federal rules 

promulgated between July 1, 2005, and 

June 30, 2008, (also known as RCRA 

Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA 

concludes that Nevada’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 Nevada final 

authorization to operate as part of its 

hazardous waste program the changes 

listed in Section G of the direct final 

rule (81 FR 15440), as further described 

in the authorization application. 

Nevada has responsibility for 

permitting treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities within its borders 

(except in Indian country) and for 

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

program application. New federal 

requirements and prohibitions imposed 

by federal regulations that EPA 

promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

take effect in authorized states at the 

same time that they take effect in 

unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will 

implement those requirements and 

prohibitions in Nevada, including the 

issuance of new permits implementing 

those requirements, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

B. What is the effect of today’s 

authorization decision? 

The effect of this decision is that the 

changes described in Nevada’s 

authorization application will become 

part of the authorized state hazardous 

waste program and therefore will be 

federally enforceable. Nevada will 

continue to have primary enforcement 

authority and responsibility for its state 

hazardous waste program. EPA retains 

its authorities under RCRA sections 

3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including 

its authority to: 

• Conduct inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements, 

including authorized state program 

requirements, and suspend or revoke 

permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the state has taken its own 

actions. 

This action does not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the 

regulations for which Nevada is being 

authorized by today’s action are already 

effective and are not changed by today’s 

action. 

C. What were the comments on EPA’s 

proposal and what is EPA’s response? 

On March 23, 2016, EPA published a 

proposed rule (81 FR 15497) and a 

direct final rule (81 FR 15440) to 

authorize Nevada’s November 25 and 

December 28, 2015, applications to 

make revisions to Nevada’s State 

Hazardous Waste Management program 

that correspond to certain federal rules 

promulgated between July 1, 2005, and 

June 30, 2008 (also known as RCRA 

Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA stated 

that if adverse comments were received 

by May 9, 2016, the rule would be 

withdrawn and not take effect. On May 

9, 2016, EPA received a comment 

opposing approval; however, due to the 

reasons explained below, EPA is not 

withdrawing the direct final rule but 

rather is responding to the comment and 

reaffirming the effective date of June 6, 

2016, of the rule, pursuant to 40 CFR 

271.21(b)(3)(iii)(B). 

EPA received four comments on the 

proposed rule, Nevada: Final 

Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 

Management Program Revisions. Three 

comments stated, ‘‘Good’’ and do not 

require a response. The fourth comment 

stated, ‘‘Instead of not authorizing 

Nevada’s antifreeze recycling program 

(and in the process violate 271.1(h), the 

partial authorization prohibition) EPA 

should instead require the program to be 

amended so it is no less stringent than 

EPAs [sic] requirements. This has been 

wrong since 2009!’’ 

The State of Nevada adopted 

regulations for the ‘‘Recycling of Used 

Antifreeze’’ effective October 3, 1996, at 

NAC 444.8801–9071. These regulations 

are applicable to those categories of 

antifreeze that are recycled and have 

been determined to be hazardous waste 

because they either exhibit a 

characteristic of hazardous waste (i.e., 

the toxicity characteristic) or they are a 

listed hazardous waste in the state of 

their origin, for those categories of 

antifreeze entering Nevada from another 

State (NAC 444.8871). Under the 

Federal code, spent antifreeze destined 

to be recycled, as defined by Nevada, 

would be subject to the requirements of 

40 CFR 261.6(b)–(d) ‘‘Requirements for 

Recyclable Materials.’’ In the Nevada 

regulations at NAC 444.8801–9071, 

spent antifreeze that is recycled is not 

regulated as universal waste, but is 

subject to requirements that are less 

stringent than the Federal regulations at 

40 CFR 261.6(b)–(d). Accordingly, EPA 

cannot authorize Nevada’s regulations 

specific to the recycling of used 

antifreeze. 

However, Nevada has incorporated 

the federal regulations contained in 40 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

35642 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR 261.6(b)–(d) at NAC 444.8632. The 

purpose of EPA’s notice in the Federal 

Register is to direct generators and 

recyclers of used antifreeze to comply 

with 40 CFR 261.1(b)–(d) as 

incorporated by reference in NAC 

444.8632, rather than the antifreezespecific provisions at NAC 444.8801– 

9071. Because Nevada’s authorized 

program regulates used antifreeze 

recycling at NAC 444.8632 in a program 

that is no less stringent than the federal 

requirements, there is no gap in 

coverage of used antifreeze recycling 

that could be considered a partial 

authorization, and EPA is not running 

afoul of the requirement contained in 40 

CFR 271.1(h). Additionally, as noted in 

the guidance document, Clarification of 

EPA Policy on Authorizing Incomplete 

or Late ‘‘Clusters’’ Under 40 CFR 271.21 

and Availability of Public Information 

under RCRA Section 3006(f), Nov. 6, 

1992, 

There is regulatory history [relevant to 40 

CFR 271.1(h)] which supports our 

interpretation that the prohibition on partial 

programs means States are prohibited from 

implementing RCRA programs that address 

only part of the universe of waste handlers, 

e.g., ‘‘generators’’, ‘‘transporters’’, ‘‘treatment, 

storage and disposal facilities’’. This 

prohibition, therefore, would not be relevant 

to the great majority of program revisions, 

since any State program that has obtained 

initial authorization already addresses the 

full universe of waste handlers. 

The prohibition contained in 40 CFR 

271.1(h) therefore does not apply to this 

authorization decision. Nevada obtained 

initial authorization of its hazardous 

waste management program on August 

19, 1985, effective November 1, 1985 (50 

FR 42181), and Nevada’s federally 

authorized program covers the full 

universe of waste handlers. 

Accordingly, EPA affirms that the 

immediate final decision takes effect on 

June 6, 2016, as described in the direct 

final rule, Nevada: Final Authorization 

of State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions. 

D. Administrative Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this action from 

the requirements of Executive Orders 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). Therefore this action is not 

subject to review by OMB. This action 

authorizes state requirements for the 

purpose of RCRA 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 (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). This 

action will not have substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 

merely authorizes state requirements as 

part of the state RCRA hazardous waste 

program without altering the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

RCRA. This action also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant and it does not 

make decisions based on environmental 

health or safety risks. This rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action 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 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. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney 

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the executive order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). ‘‘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. 801–808, 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 

is effective 75 days after the date of 

initial publication in the Federal 

Register. 

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, and 

6974(b). 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 35643 

Dated: May 26, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2016–13161 Filed 6–2–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 403 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Part 1331 

RIN 0985–AA11 

State Health Insurance Assistance 

Program (SHIP) 

AGENCY: Administration for Community 

Living (ACL), Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) and Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services is issuing a final 

regulation that adopts, without change, 

the interim final rule (IFR) entitled 

‘‘State Health Insurance Assistance 

Program (SHIP).’’ This final rule 

implements a provision enacted by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2014 and reflects the transfer of the 

State Health Insurance Assistance 

Program (SHIP) from the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) to the Administration 

for Community Living (ACL) in HHS. 

Prior to the interim final rule, prior 

regulations were issued by CMS under 

the authority granted by the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 

(OBRA), Section 4360. 

DATES: Effective June 3, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Hodges, Administration for Community 

Living, telephone (202) 795–7364 

(Voice). This is not a toll-free number. 

This document will be made available 

in alternative formats upon request. 

Written correspondence can be sent to 

Administration for Community Living, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 330 C St. SW., Washington, DC 

20201. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The State Health Insurance Assistance 

Program (SHIP) was created under 

Section 4360 of the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 

(Pub. L. 101–508). This section of the 

law authorized the Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services (CMS) to make 

grants to States to establish and 

maintain health insurance advisory 

service programs for Medicare 

beneficiaries. Grant funds were made 

available to support information, 

counseling, and assistance activities 

relating to Medicare, Medicaid, and 

other related health insurance options 

such as: Medicare supplement 

insurance, long-term care insurance, 

managed care options, and other health 

insurance benefit information. In 

January 2014, in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2014, Congress 

transferred the funding for the SHIP 

program from CMS to the 

Administration for Community Living 

(ACL). This transfer reflects the existing 

formal and informal collaborations 

between the SHIP programs and the 

networks that ACL serves. 

On February 4, 2016, ACL and CMS 

issued an IFR (81 FR 5917) that 

transferred all provisions of the existing 

SHIP regulations at 42 CFR part 403 

Subpart E, (§§ 403.500 through 403.512), 

to a new part at 45 CFR 1331.1–1331.7. 

The IFR also changed all references to 

CMS’ administration of the program to 

ACL and made a technical change to 

reflect new Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, 

codified at 45 CFR part 75. This final 

rule adopts, without making any 

changes, the regulatory requirements 

established in the IFR. 

II. Comments on the IFR 

HHS received one responsive 

comment to the IFR. The commenter 

expressed support for the rule and 

optimism for the new opportunities that 

come with the SHIP’s transfer to ACL. 

We are grateful for the commenter’s 

support and look forward to continuing 

to improve the program’s effectiveness 

and efficiency. 

III. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This rule is not being treated as a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(Pub. L. 96–354), that this regulation 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The primary impact of this 

regulation is on entities applying for 

SHIP funding opportunities, specifically 

researchers, States, public or private 

agencies and organizations, institutions 

of higher education, and Indian tribes 

and Tribal organizations. The regulation 

does not have a significant economic 

impact on these entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 

3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1) (PRA), 

ACL and CMS have determined that 

there are no new collections of 

information contained in this final rule. 

D. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA), ACL and CMS are required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and provide the public with 

an opportunity to comment on proposed 

regulations prior to establishing a final 

rule unless it is determined for good 

cause that the notice and comment 

procedure is impracticable, unnecessary 

or contrary to public interest. 5 U.S.C. 

553(b). As noted previously, Congress 

has already transferred the SHIP 

program to ACL under the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2014. This final 

rule makes no changes other than 

aligning the location of the regulations 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

with other ACL programs; amending the 

name of the administering agency to 

ACL; and updating a reference to new 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for HHS Awards, which 

have already undergone notice and 

comment rulemaking, therefore, there is 

good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for 

waiving proposed rulemaking as 

unnecessary. 

E. Waiver of Delayed Effective Date 

Agencies are required to delay the 

effective date of their final regulations 

by 30 days after publication, as required 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), unless an 

exception under subsection (d) applies. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), ACL and CMS 

may waive the delayed effective date 

requirement if they find good cause and 

explain the basis for the waiver in the 

final rulemaking document or if the 

regulations grant or recognize an 

exemption or relieve a restriction. 

In the present case, there is good 

cause to waive the delayed effective 

date for this final rule, because the 

substance of the regulation, other than 

the name of the administering agency, is 

identical to the current regulation. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES