29520 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden, or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

This action proposes no regulatory 

requirements. We have therefore 

concluded that this action will have no 

net regulatory burden for all directly 

regulated small entities. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It 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. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because this action 

proposes no regulatory requirements. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in Section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action proposes no regulatory 

requirements. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that this action is not 

subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994) because it does 

not establish an environmental health or 

safety standard and imposes no 

regulatory requirements. 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13470 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2018–0267; FRL–9979– 

60—Region 9] 

Hawaii: Proposed Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Hawaii has applied to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for final authorization of certain changes 

to its hazardous waste program under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). 

These changes correspond to certain 

federal rules promulgated between May 

26, 1998 and June 30, 2016 (also known 

as RCRA Checklist 167 and Clusters IX 

through XXIV) plus several changes 

initiated by the State. EPA has reviewed 

Hawaii’s application with regards to 

federal requirements and is proposing to 

authorize the changes. The EPA seeks 

public comment prior to taking final 

action. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by July 25, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–RCRA–2018–0267 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

You may also view Hawaii’s 

application from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

Monday to Friday, excluding State 

holidays at Hawaii State Department of 

Health OPPPD, 1250 Punchbowl Street, 

Room 120, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, 

phone number: 808–586–4188. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, Land 

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street (LND–1– 

1), San Francisco, CA 94105, phone 

number: 415–972–3364, email: 

amaro.laurie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

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

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the federal 

program. As the federal program 

changes, states must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

changes. Changes to state programs may 

be necessary when federal or state 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, states must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 

260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279. 

B. What decisions has EPA made in this 

rule? 

On December 13, 2017, Hawaii 

submitted a final complete program 

revision application seeking 

authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program corresponding 

to certain federal rules promulgated 

between May 26, 1998 and June 30, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29521 

2016 (also known as RCRA Checklist 

167 and Clusters IX through XXIV) plus 

several changes initiated by the State. 

EPA concludes that Hawaii’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all 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 proposes to 

grant Hawaii final authorization to 

operate as part of its hazardous waste 

program the changes listed below in 

Section F of this document, as further 

described in the authorization 

application. 

Hawaii has responsibility for 

permitting treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities within its borders and 

for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

program application, subject to the 

limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

C. What is the effect of today’s 

authorization decision? 

The effect of this decision is that the 

changes described in Hawaii’s 

authorization application will become 

part of the authorized state hazardous 

waste program, and therefore will be 

federally enforceable. Hawaii 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 Hawaii is being 

authorized by today’s action are already 

effective, and are not changed by today’s 

action. 

D. What happens if EPA receives 

comments that oppose this proposed 

action? 

EPA will consider all comments 

received during the comment period 

and address all such comments in a 

final rule. You may not have another 

opportunity to comment. If you want to 

comment on this authorization, you 

must do so during the comment period 

for this proposed rule. 

E. For what has Hawaii previously been 

authorized? 

Hawaii initially received final 

authorization to implement its base 

hazardous waste management program 

including federal program revisions 

through May 25, 1998 (Cluster VIII 

partial) on November 13, 2001 (66 FR 

55115). Since initial authorization 

Hawaii has not applied for or received 

authorization for revisions to its 

hazardous waste program. 

F. What changes is EPA proposing with 

today’s action? 

Hawaii has applied to EPA for 

authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program that 

correspond to certain federal rules 

promulgated between May 25, 1998 and 

July 1, 2016 (also known RCRA Cluster 

VIII through XXIV) and for 

authorization of state-initiated changes 

that are equivalent to or more stringent 

than the federal program. 

EPA proposes to determine, subject to 

public review and comment, that 

Hawaii’s hazardous waste program 

revisions as described in the State’s 

authorization revision application dated 

November 22, 2017 are equivalent to, 

consistent with, and no less stringent 

than the Federal program, and therefore 

satisfy all the requirements necessary to 

qualify for final authorization. 

Regulatory revisions that are less 

stringent than the Federal program 

requirements and those regulatory 

revisions that are broader in scope than 

the Federal program requirements are 

not authorized. Accordingly, EPA 

proposes to grant Hawaii final 

authorization for the program changes 

described below. 

Hawaii has revised the format of its 

hazardous waste regulations from 

verbatim adoption to incorporation by 

reference of the Federal hazardous 

waste management regulations into their 

counterpart Hawaii Administrative 

Rules (HAR). HAR chapter 11–280 has 

been repealed without replacement. The 

requirements for public availability of 

information (RCRA § 3006(f)) previously 

found in 11–280 are met by HAR 

chapters 2–71 and 11–1, HRS chapter 

92F and sections 342J–14 and 342J– 

14.5, and provisions adopted from 

Federal rules (40 CFR 260.2) in HAR 

chapter 11–260.1. 

The repeal of the verbatim adoption of 

the Federal program in HAR Title 11 

chapters 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 

266, 268, 270, 271, 273, 279, and 280 is 

replaced by incorporation by reference 

(‘‘IBR’’) into HAR Title 11 chapters 

260.1, 261.1, 262.1, 263.1, 264.1, 265.1, 

266.1, 268.1, 270.1, 271.1, 273.1, and 

279.1 and are effective July 17, 2017. 

The applicable Federal rules and 

analogous State rules are identified in 

the table below. 

Federal hazardous waste requirements Analogous State authority 

40 CFR parts 260–266, 268, 270, 273, 279, effective by July 1, 2016 .. Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 11–260.1–266.1, 11–268.1, 11– 

270.1, 11–273.1, 11–279.1, effective July 17, 2017. 

40 CFR Part 124 subparts A and B ......................................................... HAR 11–271.1, effective July 17, 2017.

G. Where are the revised State rules 

different from the Federal rules? 

Under RCRA § 3009, the EPA may not 

authorize state rules that are less 

stringent than the Federal program. Any 

state rules that are less stringent do not 

supplant the federal regulations. State 

rules that are broader in scope than the 

Federal program requirements are 

allowed but do not become part of the 

enforceable federal program. State rules 

that are equivalent to or more stringent 

than the federal program may be 

authorized, in which case they are 

enforceable by the EPA. 

This section does not discuss the 

program differences previously 

published in Hawaii’s base program 

authorization in 2001, at 66 FR 55115 

(November 1, 2001). Areas identified in 

the base program authorization as more 

stringent or broader in scope than the 

federal program have been carried 

forward into the new regulations as 

amendments or additions to the 

incorporation by reference of the federal 

regulations. This section discusses new 

State requirements that are more 

stringent, or new requirements that are 

broader in scope and cannot be 

authorized. 

1. More Stringent 

States may seek authorization for state 

requirements that are more stringent 

than federal requirements. The EPA has 

the authority to authorize and enforce 

those parts of a state’s program the EPA 

finds to be more stringent than the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
29522 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

federal program. This section does not 

discuss each more stringent finding 

made by the EPA, but rather rules of 

particular interest that were not 

previously described in 2001, available 

at 66 FR 55115, November 1, 2001. 

Persons should consult the docket for 

this rule, including Hawaii’s revised 

Program Description, dated May 1, 2018 

for a complete list of rules determined 

to be more stringent than federal rules. 

i. More stringent regulation of specific 

wastes 

a. Solvent-Contaminated Wipes: 

Hawaii is adopting the conditional 

exclusions for solvent-contaminated 

wipes addressed by Revision Checklist 

229, but is adding one additional 

condition to the incorporated version of 

40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) and 261.4(b)(18): 

Containers in which solventcontaminated wipes eligible for the 

exclusion are being accumulated must 

be labeled with the accumulation start 

date. 

b. Spent lead-acid batteries: Hawaii 

regulates persons who generate, 

transport, collect, or store spent-lead 

acid batteries sent for reclamation (other 

than through regeneration) as handlers/ 

transporters of universal waste under 

chapter 11–273.1. This is more stringent 

than the federal program, which 

exempts these groups from many 

regulations under 40 CFR 266.80. 

ii. Notification before cancellation of 

certain financial assurance instruments. 

Hawaii requires hazardous waste 

treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities, and reclamation and 

intermediate facilities managing 

hazardous secondary materials, to notify 

both the State Director and the Regional 

Administrator before cancellation of 

certain financial assurance instruments. 

The federal regulations require only one 

authority to be notified, so the 

requirement to notify the Regional 

Administrator in addition to the State 

Director is more stringent than the 

federal regulation. This applies to surety 

bonds, letters of credit, corporate 

guarantees, liability endorsements, 

certificates of liability insurance, and 

standby letters of credit (Incorporated 

version of 40 CFR 261.151(b), (c), (g), 

(h), (i), (j), (k), 264.151(b), (c), (d), (h), 

(i), (j), (k), and (l)). 

iii. Used oil processor facility 

standards: The State does not allow for 

exceptions to the requirement that used 

oil processors have emergency 

equipment listed in 40 CFR 279.52(a)(2). 

The State also does not allow for the 

possibility that aisle space required in 

279.52(a)(5) is not necessary. 

iv. Notification in case of emergency. 

Hawaii requires notification of 

emergencies to the State Hazard 

Evaluation and Emergency Response 

(HEER) office designated on-scene 

coordinator in addition to the National 

Response Center (NRC) for: Facilities 

handling secondary hazardous materials 

(HSM), generators of hazardous waste, 

transporters of hazardous waste and 

used oil, treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities and used oil 

processors. 

v. Recordkeeping requirements. The 

State requires the following additional 

recordkeeping requirements: 

a. Generator container storage area 

inspection log: Generators must keep a 

log of the weekly container storage area 

inspections. 

b. Universal waste transporters: 

Universal waste transporters must 

maintain the same type of records that 

Large Quantity Handlers of Universal 

Waste and Destination Facilities must 

maintain. Records must be maintained 

for three years. 

c. Used oil generators: Used oil 

generators must keep records of 

shipments, similar to the records 

required for used oil transporters under 

the federal program. These records must 

be maintained for three years. 

d. Used oil processors: Used oil 

processors must keep records of the 

equipment testing and maintenance 

required by 40 CFR 279.52(a)(3) (in the 

incorporated version of 279.57(a)(2)). 

vi. Permits: The State limits the 

duration of Remedial Action Plans to 

five years instead of ten (40 CFR 

270.195). 

vii. No standard permit option: The 

State has not adopted federal 

regulations allowing standardized 

permits. 

viii. Used oil management. 

a. Used oil testing: The State requires 

that used oil transporters and processors 

make a hazardous waste determination 

for used oil sent for disposal. The State 

regulations allow used oil burners and 

marketers to either test used oil for 

halogens or obtain results of tests 

performed by the processor. 

b. Annual reporting for used oil 

processors: The State requires used oil 

processors to submit an annual report of 

used oil activities by July 31. The 

content of the report is similar to the 

biennial report required in the federal 

program and replaces the used oil 

biennial reporting requirement (40 CFR 

279.57(b)). 

ix. Alternative groundwater 

monitoring plans. The State has added 

a requirement that any interim status 

facility opting for an alternative 

groundwater monitoring plan under the 

incorporated version of 40 CFR 

265.90(d) submit a copy of the plan to 

the department, in addition to 

maintaining the plan on-site at the 

facility. 

x. Notification of newly regulated 

hazardous waste activity. State 

regulations (HRS 342J–6.5) require 

generators, transporters, and owners or 

operators of treatment, storage, or 

disposal facilities newly regulated due 

to a change in the definition of 

hazardous waste (HAR chapter 11– 

261.1) to submit a notification within 45 

days of the regulatory revision (rather 

than the federal requirement of 90 days) 

(40 CFR 270.1(b)). 

xi. Academic laboratory generator 

standards: The State is not adopting the 

alternative requirements for hazardous 

waste determination and accumulation 

of unwanted materials at academic 

laboratories, (73 FR 72912, December 1, 

2008 and 75 FR 79304, December 20, 

2010). 

xii. Used oil storage requirements: 

The State has added language to the 

incorporated version of 40 CFR 279.22, 

279.45, 279.54, 279.64, to clarify that 

containers and aboveground tanks 

storing used oil must be kept closed. 

2. Areas Where the State Program Is 

Broader in Scope 

i. Coal combustion residuals: The 

State is not adopting the Federal final 

rule that added a list of coal combustion 

residuals to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4)(ii) to the 

ash and other waste types from coal 

combustion that were already included 

in an exemption from the definition of 

hazardous waste, if these residuals are 

co-disposed with the waste types 

originally listed (80 FR 21302–21501, 

October 19, 2015). Hawaii does not 

exclude these waste types from the 

definition of solid waste. 

ii. Cathode Ray Tubes and Carbon 

Dioxide Streams in Geological 

Sequestration Activities: Hawaii is not 

adopting the Federal final rules that 

introduced and/or revised conditional 

exclusions for (1) Cathode Ray Tubes 

(CRTs) from the definition of solid 

waste (40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)) and (2) 

carbon dioxide (CO2) streams in 

geological sequestration activities from 

the definition of hazardous waste (at 40 

CFR 261.4(h)). Hawaii program is 

broader in scope so long as all the 

conditions of the Federal exclusion are 

met. 

3. Universal Waste: Electronic Item 

Added 

The State has added a category of 

universal waste to HAR chapter 11– 

273.1 called ‘‘electronic items’’ and 

defined waste management and 

labeling/marking requirements for this 

type of universal waste. The State 

determined, based on extensive 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29523 

research, that most waste electronic 

items are toxicity characteristic 

hazardous wastes due to the presence 

and concentration of one or more metals 

(e.g. lead, cadmium) and may also 

contain other dangerous constituents, 

such as a brominated (flame retardant) 

plastics. The State also determined that 

electronic items (as defined in HAR 

chapters 11–260.1 and 11–273.1) as a 

category meet the criteria of 40 CFR 

273.81. EPA allows authorized States to 

create regulations for State-only 

universal wastes provided that these 

criteria are met for the waste or waste 

category, including the key 

requirements that universal waste 

management is sufficiently protective of 

human health and the environment and 

that regulation as universal waste 

increases the likelihood of similar 

unregulated wastes (such as CESQG or 

household wastes) being diverted from 

non-hazardous to hazardous waste 

management systems. 

4. Procedural Rules 

i. Contested case hearings and 

declaratory orders: The State’s previous 

regulations governing contested case 

hearings (HAR chapter 11–271 

subchapter B, based on 40 CFR part 22) 

and declaratory rulings (HAR chapter 

11–271 subchapter C) for the hazardous 

waste program have been repealed. The 

State Department of Health has similar 

department-wide procedures for case 

hearings and declaratory orders that 

now apply (HAR chapter 11–1). The 

State is not adopting an equivalent to 40 

CFR 124.19 and instead adds 

procedures for requesting a contested 

case hearing in the incorporated version 

of 40 CFR 124.15 in HAR chapter 11– 

271.1. 

ii. Public availability of information: 

The State’s previous regulations 

regarding public availability of 

information and treatment of 

confidential business information (HAR 

chapter 11–280) have been repealed. 

Requests for public information will be 

handled under HRS 342J–14 and 342J– 

14.5 and applicable provisions of HRS 

chapter 92F and HAR chapter 2–71, 

which are referenced in the 

incorporated version of 40 CFR 260.2. 

EPA determines that Hawaii’s 

requirements for public availability of 

information and treatment of 

confidential business information are 

substantially similar to EPA’s federal 

regulations. 

Other than the differences discussed 

above, Hawaii incorporates by reference 

the remaining federal rules listed in 

Section F; therefore, there are no 

significant differences between the 

remaining federal rules and the revised 

state rules being authorized today. 

H. Who handles permits after the 

authorization takes effect? 

Hawaii will continue to issue permits 

for all the provisions for which it is 

authorized and will administer the 

permits it issues. Section 3006(g)(1) of 

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g)(1), gives EPA 

the authority to issue or deny permits or 

parts of permits for requirements for 

which the State is not authorized. 

Therefore, whenever EPA adopts 

standards under HSWA for activities or 

wastes not currently covered by the 

authorized program, EPA may process 

RCRA permits in Hawaii for the new or 

revised HSWA standards until Hawaii 

has received final authorization for such 

new or revised HSWA standards. 

I. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying Hawaii’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. EPA does this by 

referencing the authorized state rules in 

40 CFR part 272. EPA is not codifying 

the authorization of Hawaii’s changes at 

this time. However, EPA reserves the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

M for this authorization of Hawaii’s 

program changes until a later date. 

J. Administrative Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this action (RCRA 

State authorization) from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 

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

This action authorizes state 

requirements for the purpose of RCRA 

3006 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to review by OMB. This action 

is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 

9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory 

action because actions such as this 

proposed authorization of Hawaii’s 

revised hazardous waste program under 

RCRA are exempted under Executive 

Order 12866. This action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

authorizes pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

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

this action also does not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of 

Tribal governments, as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). This action will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

authorizes state requirements as part of 

the state RCRA hazardous waste 

program without altering the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

RCRA. This action also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant and it does not 

make decisions based on environmental 

health or safety risks. This rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Under RCRA 3006(b), the 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 the 

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, the EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. The 

EPA has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the Executive 

Order. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
29524 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 impose 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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this 

document and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action 

nevertheless will be effective 60 days 

after the final approval is published in 

the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Incorporation by 

reference, Indian—lands, Hazardous 

waste transportation, Intergovernmental 

relations, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

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). 

Dated: June 8, 2018. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13573 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 411 

[CMS–1720–NC] 

RIN 0938–AT64 

Medicare Program; Request for 

Information Regarding the Physician 

Self-Referral Law 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: This request for information 

seeks input from the public on how to 

address any undue regulatory impact 

and burden of the physician self-referral 

law. 

DATES: Comment Date: To be assured 

consideration, comments must be 

received at one of the addresses 

provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on 

August 24, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, refer to file 

code CMS–1720–NC. Because of staff 

and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

Comments, including mass comment 

submissions, must be submitted in one 

of the following three ways (please 

choose only one of the ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Attention: 

CMS–1720–NC, P.O. Box 8013, 

Baltimore, MD 21244–8013. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

following address ONLY: Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Attention: CMS–1720–NC, 

Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

For information on viewing public 

comments, see the beginning of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

O. Wilson, (410) 786–8852. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period are available for 

viewing by the public, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post all comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on the following 

website as soon as possible after they 

have been received: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the search 

instructions on that website to view 

public comments. 

I. Introduction 

The Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) is working to transform 

the healthcare system into one that pays 

for value. Care coordination is a key 

aspect of systems that deliver value. 

Removing unnecessary government 

obstacles to care coordination is a key 

priority for HHS. To help accelerate the 

transformation to a value-based system 

that includes care coordination, HHS 

has launched a Regulatory Sprint to 

Coordinated Care, led by the Deputy 

Secretary. This Regulatory Sprint is 

focused on identifying regulatory 

requirements or prohibitions that may 

act as barriers to coordinated care, 

assessing whether those regulatory 

provisions are unnecessary obstacles to 

coordinated care, and issuing guidance 

or revising regulations to address such 

obstacles and, as appropriate, 

encouraging and incentivizing 

coordinated care. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) has made facilitating 

coordinated care a top priority and 

seeks to identify ways in which its 

regulations may impose undue burdens 

on the healthcare industry and serve as 

obstacles to coordinated care and its 

efforts to deliver better value and care 

for patients. Through internal 

discussion and input from external 

stakeholders, CMS has identified some 

aspects of the physician self-referral law 

as a potential barrier to coordinated 

care. Addressing unnecessary obstacles 

to coordinated care, real or perceived, 

caused by the physician self-referral law 

is one of CMS’s goals in this Regulatory 

Sprint. To inform our efforts to assess 

and address the impact and burden of 

the physician self-referral law, 

including whether and, if so, how it 

may prevent or inhibit care 

coordination, we welcome public 

comment on the physician self-referral 

law and, in particular, comment on the 

questions presented in this Request for 

Information (RFI). 

II. Background 

When enacted in 1989, the physician 

self-referral law (section 1877 of the 

Social Security Act), also known as the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1