15440 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) Including a statement, with the 

material that is submitted to PBGC, that 

the filer will file the unavailable 

information by the alternative due date 

specified in § 4010.10(b), and 

(ii) Filing such information (along 

with a certification by an enrolled 

actuary under paragraph (a)(12) of this 

section) with PBGC by that alternative 

due date. 

* * * * * 

(h) Plans subject to special funding 

rules. Instead of the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(11) of this section: 

(1) In the case of a plan year for which 

a plan is subject to section 402(b) of the 

Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public 

Law 109–280, dealing with certain 

frozen plans of commercial passenger 

airlines and airline caterers, the plan 

must meet the requirements in 

connection with the actuarial valuation 

report in accordance with instructions 

on PBGC’s Web site, http://

www.pbgc.gov. 

(2) In the case of a plan year for which 

the application of new funding rules is 

deferred for a plan under section 104 of 

the Pension Protection Act of 2006, 

Public Law 109–280, as amended by the 

Preservation of Access to Care for 

Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension 

Relief Act of 2010, Public Law 111–192, 

dealing with eligible charity plans and 

plans of certain rural cooperatives, the 

plan must meet the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(5) of this section (in 

connection with the actuarial valuation 

report) in effect as of December 31, 

2007. 

(3) In the case of a plan year for which 

a plan is subject to the Cooperative and 

Small Employer Charity Pension 

Flexibility Act, Public Law 113–97, 

dealing with certain defined benefit 

pension plans maintained by more than 

one employer, the plan must meet the 

requirements in connection with the 

actuarial valuation report in accordance 

with instructions on PBGC’s Web site, 

http://www.pbgc.gov. 

■ 5. Section 4010.11 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 4010.11 Waivers. 

(a) Aggregate funding shortfall not in 

excess of $15 million waiver. Unless 

reporting is required by § 4010.4(a)(2) or 

(3), reporting is waived for a person 

(that would be a filer if not for the 

waiver) for an information year if, for 

the plan year ending within the 

information year, the aggregate 4010 

funding shortfall for all plans (including 

any exempt plans) maintained by the 

person’s controlled group (disregarding 

those plans with no 4010 funding 

shortfall) does not exceed $15 million, 

as determined under paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) 4010 funding shortfall; in general. 

A plan’s 4010 funding shortfall for a 

plan year equals the funding shortfall 

for the plan year as provided under 

ERISA section 303(c)(4) and Code 

section 430(c)(4), with the following 

exceptions: 

(i) The funding target used to 

calculate the 4010 funding shortfall is 

determined without regard to the 

interest rate stabilization provisions of 

ERISA section 303(h)(2)(C)(iv) and Code 

section 430(h)(2)(C)(iv). 

(ii) The value of plan assets used to 

calculate the 4010 funding shortfall is 

determined without regard to the 

reduction under ERISA section 

303(f)(4)(B) and Code section 

430(f)(4)(B) (dealing with reduction of 

assets by the amount of prefunding and 

funding standard carryover balances). 

(2) Multiple employer plans. For 

purposes of § 4010.8(c) and paragraph 

(a) of this section, the entire 4010 

funding shortfall of any multiple 

employer plan of which the filer or any 

member of the filer’s controlled group is 

a contributing sponsor is included. 

(b) Smaller plans waiver—(1) General. 

Unless reporting is required by 

§ 4010.4(a)(2) or (a)(3), reporting is 

waived for a person (that would be a 

filer if not for the waiver) for an 

information year if, for the plan year 

ending within the information year, the 

aggregate number of participants in all 

plans (including any exempt plans) 

maintained by the person’s controlled 

group is fewer than 500. For this 

purpose, the number of participants in 

any plan may be determined either as of 

the end of the plan year ending within 

the information year or as of the 

valuation date for that plan year. 

(2) Multiple employer plans. For 

purposes of this paragraph (b), the 

aggregate number of participants in all 

plans maintained by a person’s 

controlled group includes any 

participants covered by a multiple 

employer plan in which the person 

participates (including participants 

covered by the multiple employer plan 

who are not or were not employed by 

the person). 

(c) Missed contributions resulting in a 

lien or outstanding minimum funding 

waivers. Reporting is waived for a 

person (that would be a filer if not for 

the waiver) for an information year if, 

for the plan year ending within the 

information year, reporting would have 

been required solely under 

§ 4010.4(a)(2) or (3), provided that the 

missed contributions or applications for 

minimum funding waivers (as 

applicable) were reported to PBGC 

under part 4043 of this chapter by the 

due date for the 4010 filing. 

(d) Other waiver authority. PBGC may 

waive the requirement to submit 

information with respect to one or more 

filers or plans or may extend the 

applicable due date or dates specified in 

§ 4010.10. PBGC will exercise this 

discretion in appropriate cases where it 

finds convincing evidence supporting a 

waiver or extension; any waiver or 

extension may be subject to conditions. 

A request for a waiver or extension must 

be filed in writing with PBGC at the 

address provided in § 4010.10(c) no 

later than 15 days before the applicable 

due date specified in § 4010.10, and 

must state the facts and circumstances 

on which the request is based. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

March, 2016. 

W. Thomas Reeder, 

Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2016–06470 Filed 3–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0822; FRL–9943–

99–Region 9] 

Nevada: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Nevada has applied to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for final authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that 

these changes satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for final authorization, 

and is authorizing the State’s changes 

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 changes. 

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 

Nevada’s changes 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 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 15441 

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 changes. 

DATES: This final authorization will 

become effective on June 6, 2016 unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by May 9, 2016. If EPA receives such 

comment, 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–R09– 

RCRA–2015–0822 at www.regulations.

govorviaemailtoAmaro.Laurie@epa.gov. 

For comments submitted at 

Regulations.gov, follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

For either manner of submission, 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, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For 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. 

Instructions: EPA must receive your 

comments by May 9, 2016. Direct your 

comments to Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–RCRA–2015–0822. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov, 

or in hard copy. 

You can view and copy Nevada’s 

application and associated publicly 

available materials at the EPA Region 9 

Library-Information Center, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105, Phone: 415–947–4406, during 

business hours from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through 

Thursday; or at the Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Division of Environmental Protection, 

901 So. Stewart Street, Ste. 4001, Carson 

City, NV 89701, Phone number: 775– 

687–4670, during business hours from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. 

Interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the relevant office at 

least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Amaro, amaro.laurie@epa.gov, 

415–972–3364, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street (LND–1–1), San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

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 

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. 

New federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates 

pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) 

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 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 below in Section G of this 

document, 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, subject to the 

limitations of HSWA, as discussed 

above. 

C. 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. 

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 changes. EPA did not publish 

a proposal before today’s rule because 

EPA views this as a routine program 

change and does not expect comments 

that oppose this 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 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
15442 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

this rule becomes effective. EPA will 

base any further decision on the 

authorization of the state program 

changes 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 

change to the state hazardous waste 

program, EPA will withdraw that part of 

this rule but the authorization of the 

program changes 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 Nevada previously been 

authorized for? 

Nevada initially received final 

authorization on August 19, 1985, 

effective November 1, 1985 (50 FR 

42181) to implement the RCRA 

hazardous waste management program. 

Nevada has since received authorization 

for all revisions except for 40 CFR 

260.22 and the final rule published on 

April 12, 1989 (61 FR 16289) addressing 

Imports and Exports of Hazardous 

Waste. EPA granted authorization for 

changes to Nevada’s program on the 

following dates: April 29, 1992, effective 

June 29, 1992 (57 FR 18083); May 27, 

1994 and June 23, 1994 (corrections), 

effective July 26, 1994 (59 FR 27472 and 

59 FR 32489); April 11, 1995, effective 

June 12, 1995 (60 FR 18358); June 24, 

1996, effective August 23, 1996 (61 FR 

32345); January 29, 1999, effective 

March 30, 1999 (64 FR 4596), June 12, 

2002, effective August 12, 2002 (67 FR 

40229); and February 26, 2009, effective 

April 27, 2009 (74 FR 8757). 

G. What changes is EPA authorizing 

with today’s action? 

On November 25 and December 28, 

2015, Nevada submitted final complete 

program revision applications, seeking 

authorization of those changes in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA 

now makes an immediate final decision, 

subject to receipt of written comments 

that oppose this action, that Nevada’s 

hazardous waste program revisions are 

equivalent to, consistent with, and no 

less stringent than the federal program, 

and therefore satisfy all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization. Accordingly, EPA 

grants Nevada final authorization for the 

following program changes: 

1. Program Revision Changes for Federal 

Rules 

Nevada adopts by reference the 

federal RCRA regulations in effect as of 

July 1, 2008, at Nevada Administrative 

Code (NAC) 444.8632, as modified by 

NAC 444.86325, 444.8633, and 

444.8634, as adopted in LCB File R137– 

07, effective January 30, 2008, LCB File 

R015–08, effective April 17, 2008, and 

LCB File R153–08, effective April 23, 

2009. The federal requirements for 

which the State is being authorized are 

as follows: 

RCRA Cluster XVI (Federal Rules 

Published From July 1, 2005, to June 30, 

2006) 

• Adopted by Nevada as Indicated in 

LCB File R137–07, Effective January 

30, 2008 

• Mercury Containing Equipment Final 

Rule (70 FR 45508, August 5, 2005) 

(Checklist 209) 

• Standardized Permit Final Rule (70 

FR 53420, September 8, 2005) 

(Checklist 210) 

• Revision of Wastewater Treatment 

Exemptions for Hazardous Waste 

Mixtures (Headworks Exemption) 

Final Rule (70 FR 57769, October 4, 

2005) (Checklist 211) 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Final 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Hazardous Waste 

Combustors (Phase I Final 

Replacement Standards and Phase II) 

Final Rule (70 FR 59402, October 12, 

2005) (Checklist 212) 

• Burden Reduction Initiative Final 

Rule (71 FR 16862, April 4, 2006) 

(Checklist 213) 

RCRA Cluster XVII (Federal Rules 

Published From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 

2007) 

• Adopted by Nevada as indicated in 

LCB File R15–08, effective April 17, 

2008 

• Corrections to Errors in the CFR Final 

Rule (71 FR 40254, July 14, 2006) 

(Checklist 214) 

• Cathode Ray Tubes Final Rule (71 FR 

42928, July 28, 2006) (Checklist 215) 

RCRA Cluster XVIII (Federal Rules 

Published From July 1, 2007, to June 30, 

2008) 

• Adopted by Nevada as Indicated in 

LCB File R153–08, Effective April 23, 

2009 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Standards 

for Hazardous Waste Combustors 

Amendments (73 FR 18970, April 8, 

2008) (Checklist 217) 

• Amendment to Hazardous Waste 

Code F019 Final Rule (73 FR 31756, 

June 4, 2008) (Checklist 218) 

2. Miscellaneous Changes 

During the review of Nevada’s 

regulations, EPA identified several 

changes that Nevada had made to 

provisions EPA had previously 

authorized, as well as a number of state 

provisions that have never been 

authorized. In its program revision 

applications described in Section G., 

Nevada also addressed state-initiated 

changes. These miscellaneous changes, 

which are listed following this 

paragraph, generally (1) update the CFR 

reference dates to conform to the State’s 

adoption of the federal regulations and 

(2) update addresses. EPA has evaluated 

the changes addressed in this section 

and has determined that the State’s 

authorized hazardous waste program, as 

amended by these provisions, remains 

equivalent to, consistent with, and no 

less stringent than the federal RCRA 

program for which the State is 

authorized. 

NAC, as amended effective April 23, 

2009, sections 444.8427, 444.84275, 

444.850, 444.86325, 444.8633, 444.8688, 

444.8741, and 444.980. 

Additionally, EPA is authorizing 

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 459.501 

and NRS 459.502. While these statutes 

are not new, EPA had not previously 

approved these sections as part of the 

State’s authorized program because the 

sections require soil and water sample 

analyses and hazardous waste 

characterizations to be performed by a 

certified laboratory, but previously there 

were no regulations governing 

certification of laboratories. Nevada 

submitted LCB File R061–04, effective 

October 7, 2004, in its final complete 

program application, in which Nevada 

adopted regulations at NAC 459.96902– 

.9699 governing certification of 

laboratories. Because these regulations 

are now in place, EPA is authorizing 

NRS 459.501 and NRS 459.502. 

H. Where are the revised state rules 

different from the federal rules? 

One of the changes made to federal 

rules was for 40 CFR 279.10(b)(2), made 

by the July 14, 2006, final rule for 

Corrections to Errors in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (71 FR 40254; 

Checklist 214). As specified in NAC 

444.86325(1)(k), Nevada has not 

adopted or incorporated by reference 

the provisions in 40 CFR 279.10(b)(2), 

which specify the applicability of the 40 

CFR part 279 used oil requirements to 

mixtures of used oil and characteristic 

hazardous waste, and therefore no 

changes needed to be made to Nevada’s 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 15443 

regulations to correct the errors in 40 

CFR 279.10(b)(2). NAC 444.8681 

codifies the Nevada regulations for 

mixing of used oil with hazardous waste 

or products, which are more stringent 

than those found in the federal 

regulations in 40 CFR 279.10(b). 

As discussed in Section G.2. above, 

NAC 459.96902–.9699 are new 

regulations governing certification of 

laboratories that analyze soil and water 

samples and characterize hazardous 

waste, adopted by LCB File R061–04, 

effective October 7, 2004. The 

regulations were promulgated pursuant 

to NRS 459.500, which is already a part 

of the State’s authorized program. The 

regulations themselves are broader in 

scope than the federal RCRA program 

because the federal program does not 

regulate certification of laboratories, and 

therefore the regulations are not 

federally enforceable. However, because 

Nevada has now put these regulations in 

place, EPA is authorizing NRS 459.501 

and NRS 459.502. These provisions 

require soil and water sample analyses 

and hazardous waste characterizations 

to be performed by a certified 

laboratory. Because the federal program 

does not address where to send samples 

for analysis, Nevada’s provisions are 

more stringent than the federal RCRA 

program for which the State is 

authorized. 

NAC 444.84555, which was 

previously identified as broader in 

scope and therefore not part of the 

authorized program, has been updated 

to reflect an address change. NAC 

444.9452, which is part of the State’s 

regulations governing facilities that 

manage waste containing 

polychlorinated biphenyls, a program 

previously identified as broader in 

scope due to the requirement to obtain 

a RCRA permit prior to the 

commencement of construction, has 

been updated to reflect a date change. 

These provisions continue to be broader 

in scope and EPA is not authorizing 

them in this revision package. 

EPA cannot delegate the federal 

requirements in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5) and 

261.41 contained in the Cathode Ray 

Tubes Rule set forth in 71 FR 42928, 

July 28, 2006. While Nevada adopted 

these requirements by reference in NAC 

444.8632, EPA will continue to 

implement these requirements. 

There is an outstanding issue in the 

revised Nevada program that will not be 

authorized at this time. Nevada’s 

program revisions include bringing its 

spent antifreeze recycling program up to 

date. As discussed in greater detail in 

the February 26, 2009, Federal Register 

(74 FR 8759), EPA is not authorizing the 

spent antifreeze recycling program 

because it may be less stringent than the 

federal program. 

After Nevada adopted the ‘‘Regulation 

of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary 

Materials From the Petroleum Refining 

Industry Processed in a Gasification 

System to Produce Synthesis Gas’’ Final 

Rule (73 FR 57, January 2, 2008) 

(‘‘Gasification Rule’’) at NAC 444.8632, 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (‘‘D.C. 

Circuit’’) vacated the Gasification Rule 

in Sierra Club v. EPA, 755 F.3d 968 

(D.C. Cir. 2014). EPA gave notice of the 

vacatur of the Gasification Rule at 80 FR 

18777 (April 8, 2015) and explained that 

it amended 40 CFR 260.10 by removing 

the definition of ‘‘Gasification,’’ and 

revised 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i) by 

removing gasification from the list of 

specific petroleum refining processes 

into which oil-bearing hazardous 

secondary materials may be inserted. 

The vacatur of the Gasification Rule and 

amendment of the federal regulations 

make Nevada’s program less stringent 

than the federal program, and therefore 

EPA is not authorizing Nevada’s 

program with respect to the Gasification 

Rule (Checklist 216). 

EPA also gave notice at 80 FR 18777 

of the removal of the provisions at 40 

CFR 261.4(a)(16) and 40 CFR 261.38 

related to comparable fuels due to the 

D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of the ‘‘Hazardous 

Waste Combustors Revised Standards’’ 

Final Rule (63 FR 33782, June 19, 1998) 

in Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 755 

F.3d 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2014). This rule was 

previously adopted and approved as 

part of Nevada’s authorized program, 

but in light of the vacatur, EPA no 

longer considers these provisions to be 

part of Nevada’s federally authorized 

program. 

Other than the differences discussed 

above, Nevada incorporates by reference 

the remaining federal rules listed in 

Section G; therefore, there are no 

significant differences between the 

remaining federal rules and the revised 

state rules being authorized today. 

I. Who handles permits after the 

authorization takes effect? 

Nevada will 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 Nevada for the new or 

revised HSWA standards until Nevada 

has received final authorization for such 

new or revised HSWA standards. EPA 

and Nevada have agreed to a joint 

permitting process for facilities covered 

by both the authorized program and 

standards under HSWA for which the 

State is not yet authorized, and for 

handling existing EPA permits after the 

State receives authorization. 

J. How does today’s action affect Indian 

country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Nevada? 

Nevada is not authorized to carry out 

its hazardous waste program in Indian 

country within the State, which 

includes the Confederated Tribes of the 

Goshute Reservation; Duckwater 

Shoshone Tribe; Ely Shoshone Tribe; 

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone 

Tribes; Fort Mohave Indian Tribe; Las 

Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians; Lovelock 

Paiute Tribe; Moapa Band of Paiute 

Indians; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the 

Fallon Reservation and Colony; Pyramid 

Lake Paiute Tribe; Reno-Sparks Indian 

Colony; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck 

Valley Reservation; Summit Lake Paiute 

Tribe; Te-Moak Tribes of Western 

Shoshone Indians; Walker River Paiute 

Tribe; Washoe Tribe; Winnemucca 

Indian Colony; Yerington Paiute Tribe; 

and the Yomba Shoshone Tribe. 

Therefore, this action has no effect on 

Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction 

over Indian country and will continue 

to implement and administer the RCRA 

program on these lands. 

K. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying Nevada’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 Nevada’s changes at 

this time. However, EPA reserves the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

DD for this authorization of Nevada’s 

program changes until a later date. 

L. 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 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
15444 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

will be effective June 6, 2016 because it 

is a direct final rule. 

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). 

Dated: March 9, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2016–06434 Filed 3–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No.: 160204080–6080–01] 

RIN 0648–BF73 

Enhanced Document Requirements 

and Captain Training Requirements To 

Support Use of the Dolphin Safe Label 

on Tuna Products 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this interim 

final rule to revise regulations 

implementing the Dolphin Protection 

Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) to 

enhance the requirements for 

documentation that demonstrates the 

accuracy of dolphin-safe labels on tuna 

products. This interim final rule: 

Modifies the regulations (referred to 

hereafter as the ‘‘determination 

provisions’’) under which the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator (Assistant 

Administrator) may require proof of an 

observer certification if the Assistant 

Administrator determines that a fishery 

has a regular and significant association 

between dolphins and tuna and/or has 

a regular and significant mortality or 

serious injury of dolphins, to apply 

equally to purse seine and other geartype tuna fisheries; provides that a 

government certificate validating the 

catch documentation, segregation, and 

chain of custody may be required for 

tuna produced from a fishery about 

which the Assistant Administrator has 

made a determination under the 

determination provisions; restructures 

NOAA regulations such that they now 

provide for one straightforward 

certification regarding intentional 

deployment and mortality/serious 

injury for all fisheries that produce tuna 

that is potentially eligible for the 

dolphin-safe label; modifies the 

Fisheries Certificate of Origin (FCO) to 

require captains to complete a training 

for certifications that must accompany 

the FCO; enhances chain of custody 

tracking requirements for tuna and tuna 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES