52194 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

postpone the effectiveness of such 

future rule or action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 18, 2015. 

Mark Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52. 1320 amend the table in 

paragraph (c) by revising the entry for 

Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 and the 

table in paragraph (d) by adding entry 

(29) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of 

Missouri 

*******

10–6.120 ........................ Restriction of Emissions 

of Lead from Specific 

Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations.

3/30/09 8/28/15 and [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

Paragraph (3)(B)1 and Table, Provision Pertaining to Limitations of Lead Emissions from 

Specific Installations, have not been approved as a part of the SIP. 

The requirement to limit main stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 gr/dscf lead in 

Paragraph (3)(B)2 has not been approved as 

a part of the SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS

Name of source Order/permit number State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

(29) Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility.Consent Judgment 13IR–CC00016 7/29/13 8/28/15 [Insert Federal Register 

citation] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–21199 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R05–RCRA–2014–0689; FRL–9933– 

29—Region 5] 

Michigan: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Michigan 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 (RCRA). On March 31, 

2015, EPA published a proposed rule to 

authorize the changes and opened a 

public comment period under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2014–0689. The 

comment period closed on June 1, 2015. 

EPA received no comments on the 

proposed rule. EPA has decided that the 

changes to Michigan’s program satisfy 

all requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization, and EPA is 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 52195 

1Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to 

federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal 

Register notice; EPA publishes these checklists as 

Continued 

authorizing those changes to Michigan’s 

authorized hazardous waste program in 

this final rule. 

DATES: Final authorization for the 

changes to the hazardous waste program 

in Michigan will be effective at 1 p.m. 

EST on August 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

regulations.gov index under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–2014–R05– 

RCRA–2014–0689. Although listed in 

the index, some of the information is 

not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at the following addresses, 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. 

to 4:00 p.m.: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 

contact: Judith Greenberg, telephone 

(312) 886–4179; or Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan 

Street, Lansing, Michigan, contact: 

Ronda Blayer, telephone (517) 284– 

6555. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith Greenberg, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 

Land and Chemicals Division, 77 West 

Jackson Blvd., Mail Code LR–8J, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, email: 

greenberg.judith@epa.gov, phone 

number (312) 886–4179. 

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 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

B. What decisions have we made in this 

rule? 

EPA has made a final determination 

that Michigan’s revisions to its 

authorized hazardous waste 

management program meet all of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

established by RCRA for authorization. 

Therefore, EPA is authorizing the 

revised State of Michigan hazardous 

waste management program, as 

described in the Attorney General’s 

Statement in the June 2014 

authorization revision application, and 

as discussed in section E of this rule. 

Michigan has responsibility for 

permitting treatment, storage and 

disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its 

borders (except in Indian Country) and 

for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program covered by its revised program 

application, subject to the limitations of 

RCRA, including the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA). New federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA take effect in 

authorized states before they are 

authorized for the requirements. Thus, 

EPA will implement those requirements 

and prohibitions in Michigan, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What has Michigan previously been 

authorized for? 

Michigan’s hazardous waste 

management program received final 

authorization effective on October 16, 

1986 (51 FR 36804–36805, October 16, 

1986). Subsequently, EPA authorized 

revisions to the State’s program effective 

January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608, 

November 24, 1989); January 24, 1991 

(56 FR 18517, January 24, 1991); 

November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244, 

October 1, 1993); January 13, 1995 (60 

FR 3095, January 13, 1995); April 8, 

1996 (61 FR 4742, February 8, 1996); 

November 14, 1997 (62 FR 61775, 

November 14, 1997); June 1, 1999 (64 

FR 10111, March 2, 1999); July 31, 2002 

(67 FR 49617, July 31, 2002); March 9, 

2006 (71 FR 12141, March 9, 2006); 

January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077, January 7, 

2008); and March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345, 

March 2, 2010). 

D. What is the effect of this 

authorization decision? 

The effect of this decision is that a 

facility in Michigan subject to RCRA has 

to comply with the authorized state 

requirements in lieu of the 

corresponding federal requirements in 

order to comply with RCRA, and those 

authorized requirements will be 

federally enforceable. Additionally, 

such persons must comply with any 

applicable federal requirements, such 

as, for example, HSWA requirements 

issued by EPA for which the state has 

not received authorization, and RCRA 

requirements that are not supplanted by 

authorized state-issued requirements. 

Michigan continues to have 

enforcement responsibilities under its 

state hazardous waste program for 

violations of such program, but EPA 

retains its authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 

and any other applicable statutory and 

regulatory provisions, which include, 

among others, authority to: 

• Perform inspections; require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements; 

suspend, terminate, modify or revoke 

permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the State has taken its own 

actions. 

This final action approving these 

revisions does not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations for 

which Michigan is authorized are 

already effective under state law and are 

not changed by EPA’s final action. 

E. What changes are we authorizing 

with today’s action? 

This final rule addresses a program 

revision application that Michigan 

submitted to EPA in June 2014, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, seeking 

authorization of changes to the state 

program. On March 31, 2015, EPA 

published a proposed rule (80 FR 

17021) stating the Agency’s intent to 

grant final authorization for revisions to 

Michigan’s hazardous waste 

management program. The public 

comment period on this proposed rule 

ended on June 1, 2015. EPA received no 

comments during the public comment 

period. 

EPA has determined that Michigan’s 

changes to its program satisfy all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization. With this final 

action, EPA authorizes Michigan for the 

following federal rules (a table with a 

list of the State analogs is provided in 

the March 31, 2015, proposed rule) and 

the following state-initiated changes: 

• NESHAP: Final Standards for 

Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I 

Final Replacement Standards and Phase 

II) Amendments, 73 FR 18970, April 8, 

2008, Checklist 217.1


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52196 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

aids to states to use for development of their 

authorization revision application. See EPA’s RCRA 

State Authorization Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm. 

• F019 Exemption for Wastewater 

Treatment Sludges from Auto 

Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating 

Processes, June 4, 2008, 73 FR 31756, 

Checklist 218. 

• Academic Laboratories Generator 

Standards, December 1, 2008, 73 FR 

72912, Checklist 220. 

• OECD Requirements: Export 

Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, 

January 8, 2010, 75 FR 1236, Checklist 

222. 

• Hazardous Waste Technical 

Corrections and Clarifications Rule, as 

amended, March 16, 2010, 75 FR 12989; 

and June 4, 2010, 75 FR 31716, 

Checklist 223. 

• Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts, 

December 17, 2010, 75 FR 78918, 

Checklist 225. 

• Corrections to the Academic 

Generator Standards, December 20, 

2010, 75 FR 79304, Checklist 226. 

• Revisions of the Treatment 

Standards for Carbamate Wastes, June 

13, 2011, 75 FR 34147, Checklist 227. 

• Hazardous Waste Technical 

Corrections and Clarifications, April 13, 

2012, 77 FR 22229, Checklist 228. 

• Equivalent state-initiated changes: 

Michigan administrative rules R 

299.9102 (definition of ‘‘construction 

permit’’ removed), R 299.9106(e) 

(definition of ‘‘operating license’’ 

modified), R 299.9224, R 299.9225, R 

299.9304(2)(b), R 299.9409(4), R 

299.9501 (except second sentence only 

of paragraph (3)(d)), R 299.9505, R 

299.9524, R 299.9603, R 299.9604(2), R 

299.9605, R 299.9609, R 299.9610(3), R 

299.9612, R 299.9615, R 299.9616, R 

299.9623, R 299.9629, R 299.9640, R 

299.9707, R 299.9708, R 299.9808, and 

R 299.9821, effective November 5, 2013. 

F. Which revised state rules are 

different from the federal rules? 

The most significant differences 

between the state rules we are 

authorizing and their analogous federal 

rules are summarized below. It should 

be noted that this summary does not 

describe every difference or every detail 

regarding the differences that are 

described. Members of the regulated 

community are advised to read the 

complete rules to ensure that they 

understand the requirements with 

which they will need to comply. 

EPA has found that aspects of the 

Michigan program are more stringent 

than the federal program. All of these 

more stringent requirements are part of 

the federally enforceable RCRA program 

authorized by the EPA and must be 

complied with in addition to the state 

requirements which track the minimum 

federal requirements. These more 

stringent requirements are found at: 

Michigan’s rules at (references are to 

the Michigan Administrative Code): 

R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), 

(f), (g), (h) and (i); R 299.9608(1), (6) and 

(8); R 299.9615; and R 299.9702(1) are 

more stringent than the federal analogs 

at 40 CFR §§ 265.56(b), 265.71, 265.72, 

265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a), 

265.193, 265.194, 265.197, 265.201, and 

265.340(b)(1) since the State rules 

include provisions that require 

compliance with standards equivalent 

to 40 CFR part 264 rather than 40 CFR 

part 265. 

Michigan’s rules at R 299.9601(2)(a) 

and R 299.9602 are more stringent since 

the rules impose requirements regarding 

environmental and human health 

standards generally. 

Michigan’s rules at R 299.9615(4) are 

more stringent since the State rules 

require tank systems to also comply 

with Michigan 1941 Act 207 standards 

(which govern above-ground storage 

tanks). 

Michigan’s rules at R 299.9623(9) are 

more stringent since the State rules 

require incinerators to comply with 

Michigan Part 55 standards (which 

address air pollution). 

Michigan does not allow containment 

buildings, making the state 

requirements more stringent than the 

federal requirements at 40 CFR 

262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d); 

262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part 264 

subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD; 

and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I, Tables 

1 and 2. 

Michigan’s rules at R 299.9629(7)– 

(7)(c) are more stringent, since the State 

rules require (1) timely notification of 

an exceedance of a groundwater/surface 

water interface standard based on acute 

toxicity and established pursuant to part 

201 and part 31 of Act 451; and (2) 

implementation of interim measures to 

prevent exceedance at the monitoring 

wells along with a proposal and 

schedule for completing corrective 

action to prevent a discharge that 

exceeds the standard. 

Michigan’s rules at R 299.11002(1) 

and (2) are more stringent than the 

federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and 

(d)(1) since the State adopts updated 

versions of the ‘‘Flammable and 

Combustible Liquids Code.’’ 

EPA has also found that aspects of 

Michigan’s revised program are broader 

in scope than the federal program. State 

provisions that EPA determines are 

broader in scope are not part of the 

federally authorized program and are 

not federally enforceable. Michigan’s 

program revisions include the following 

rules that are broader in scope than the 

federal program (references are to the 

Michigan Administrative Code): R 

299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second 

sentence only) and R 299.9507, as 

amended effective November 5, 2013. 

The following Michigan 

administrative rules that were broader 

in scope than the federal program were 

rescinded effective November 5, 2013: R 

299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223 

(Table 204b), R 299.9904, R 299.9905, R 

299.9906, and R 299.11101, R 

299.11102, R 299.11103, R 299.11104, R 

299.11105, R 299.11106, and R 

299.11107. 

EPA does not authorize States to 

administer federal import and export 

functions in any section of the RCRA 

hazardous waste regulations. Although 

states do not receive authorization to 

administer the federal government’s 

import and export functions, found in 

40 CFR part 262, subparts E, F and H, 

state programs are still required to adopt 

the federal import and export provisions 

to maintain their equivalency with the 

federal program. The State amended the 

following state import and export rules 

to include the federal rule on 

Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development (OECD) 

Requirements; Export Shipments of 

Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 1236, 

January 8, 2010): R 299.9301(7); R 

299.9309(1), (3) and (4); R 299.9312(1) 

and (2); R 299.9401(5); R 299.9601(2)(c), 

(3) and (9); R 299.9605(1) and (4); R 

299.9608(1), (4) and (8); R 299.9804(7) 

and (8); and R 299.11003(1)(k), (m), (n) 

and (p) and (2). 

G. Who handles permits after final 

authorization takes effect? 

Michigan will issue permits for all the 

provisions for which it is authorized 

and will administer the permits it 

issues. EPA will continue to administer 

any RCRA hazardous waste permits or 

portions of permits which EPA issued 

prior to the effective date of the final 

authorization until they expire or are 

terminated. EPA will not issue any more 

new permits or new portions of permits 

for the provisions listed above after the 

effective date of the final authorization. 

EPA will continue to implement and 

issue permits for HSWA requirements 

for which Michigan is not yet 

authorized. 

H. How does today’s action affect 

Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 

Michigan? 

Michigan is not authorized to carry 

out its hazardous waste program in 

Indian Country within the State, as 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 52197 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This 

includes: 

1. All lands within the exterior 

boundaries of Indian reservations 

within the State of Michigan; 

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. 

for an Indian tribe; and 

3. Any other land, whether on or off 

an Indian reservation that qualifies as 

Indian Country. 

Therefore, authorizing Michigan for 

these revisions does not affect Indian 

Country in Michigan. EPA continues to 

implement and administer the RCRA 

program in Indian Country. It is EPA’s 

long-standing position that the term 

‘‘Indian lands’’ used in past Michigan 

hazardous waste approvals is 

synonymous with the term ‘‘Indian 

Country.’’ Washington Dep’t of Ecology 

v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1467, n.1 

(9th Cir. 1985). See 40 CFR 144.3 and 

258.2. 

I. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying Michigan’s hazardous waste 

program as authorized in this rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

a state’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise a state’s authorized hazardous 

waste program into the Code of Federal 

Regulations. We do this by referencing 

the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 

272. Michigan’s rules, up to and 

including those revised October 19, 

1991, have previously been codified 

through incorporation-by-reference 

effective April 24, 1989 (54 FR 7421, 

February 21, 1989); as amended 

effective March 31, 1992 (57 FR 3724, 

January 31, 1992). We reserve the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

X, for the codification of Michigan’s 

program changes until a later date. 

J. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule only authorizes 

hazardous waste requirements pursuant 

to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no 

requirements other than those imposed 

by state law (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION, Section A. Why Are 

Revisions to State Programs Necessary?). 

Therefore, this rule complies with 

applicable executive orders and 

statutory provisions as follows: 

1. Executive Order 18266: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulations 

and Regulatory Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has exempted this rule from its review 

under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 

2011). 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule authorizes state 

requirements for the purpose of RCRA 

3006 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those required by 

state law. Accordingly, I certify that this 

rule 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.). 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) does not apply to this 

rule because it will not have federalism 

implications (i.e., 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). 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) does not apply to 

this rule because it will not have tribal 

implications (i.e., substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, or 

on the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes). 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866 and because the EPA does 

not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

EPA approves state programs as long 

as they meet criteria required by RCRA, 

so it would be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, in its review of 

a state program, to require the use of any 

particular voluntary consensus standard 

in place of another standard that meets 

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 to this rule. 

10. Executive Order 12988 

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. 

11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation 

of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings 

EPA has complied with Executive 

Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 

1988) by examining the takings 

implications of the rule in accordance 

with the Attorney General’s 

Supplemental Guidelines for the 

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings issued under the 

executive order. 

12. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Because this rule proposes 

authorization of pre-existing state rules 

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 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

13. Congressional Review Act 

EPA will submit a report containing 

this rule and other information required 

by the Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to the publication in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection; 

Administrative practice and procedure; 

Confidential business information; 

Hazardous materials transportation; 

Hazardous waste; Indians—lands; 

Intergovernmental relations; Penalties; 

Reporting, and Recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). 

Dated: August 10, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–21385 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 150121066–5717–02] 

RIN 0648–BE81 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of adjusted 

2015 Purse Seine and Reserve category 

quotas. 

SUMMARY: NMFS hereby modifies the 

baseline annual U.S. quota and 

subquotas for Atlantic bluefin tuna 

(BFT). Specifically for 2015, NMFS 

augments the Reserve category quota 

with available underharvest of the 2014 

adjusted U.S. BFT quota and also 

recalculates the Purse Seine and Reserve 

category quotas that were announced 

earlier this year (consistent with the 

Amendment 7 annual reallocation 

process) to reflect the increased U.S. 

quota. Furthermore, NMFS makes minor 

modifications to the regulations 

regarding Atlantic tunas purse seine 

auxiliary vessel activity under the 

‘‘transfer at sea’’ provisions. This action 

is necessary to implement binding 

recommendations of the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by 

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 

(ATCA), and to achieve domestic 

management objectives under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Effective September 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Supporting documents such 

as the Environmental Assessments and 

Fishery Management Plans described 

below may be downloaded from the 

HMS Web site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

sfa/hms/. These documents also are 

available upon request from Sarah 

McLaughlin or Brad McHale at the 

telephone number below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 

978–281–9260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, 

yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Atlantic 

tunas’’) are managed under the dual 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and ATCA. As an active member of 

ICCAT, the United States implements 

binding ICCAT recommendations. 

ATCA authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate 

regulations, as may be necessary and 

appropriate to carry out ICCAT 

recommendations. The authority to 

issue regulations under the MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA has been 

delegated from the Secretary to the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NMFS. 

Background 

Background information about the 

need to modify the U.S. BFT base quota 

and the subquotas for all domestic 

fishing categories, as well as the 

regulatory text regarding Atlantic tunas 

purse seine auxiliary vessel activity 

under the ‘‘transfer at sea’’ provisions, 

were provided in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (80 FR 33467, June 12, 

2015) and most of that information is 

not repeated here. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

In this final rule, NMFS is changing 

text at § 635.27(a)(4)(ii), to reflect the 

equal allocation of the baseline Purse 

Seine category quota that is finalized in 

this action among the five individual 

Purse Seine category participants. 

NMFS inadvertently omitted this 

calculation in the regulatory text for the 

proposed rule. Specifically, in the 

proposed rule, NMFS proposed 

updating the baseline Purse Seine quota 

to 184.3 mt (§ 635.27(a)(4)(i)) to reflect 

the increased U.S. quota. However, 

NMFS did not carry this change through 

to the codified text in § 635.27(a)(4)(ii) 

to reflect the division of that Purse 

Seine category quota equally among the 

five individual Purse Seine fishery 

participants. The existing regulatory text 

specifies that annually, NMFS will 

make equal allocations of the baseline 

Purse Seine category quota described 

under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of the section 

to individual Purse Seine participants. 

To reflect the increase in the baseline 

Purse Seine category quota to 184.3 mt 

for each Purse Seine category 

participant, NMFS is updating the 

amount in the regulatory text at 

§ 635.27(a)(4)(ii) to 36.9 mt (i.e., 184.3 

mt/5 = 36.9 mt each). Because the 

change in the final rule simply reflects 

a mathematical function of the amount 

in § 635.27(a)(4)(i) and corrects the nowoutdated number for the individual 

Purse Seine participants in 

§ 635.27(a)(4)(ii) and does not alter the 

formula used or substance of the 

proposed rule, NMFS has determined 

that it is appropriate to make this 

change in this final rule. 

2014 ICCAT Recommendation 

At its November 2014 meeting, ICCAT 

adopted a western Atlantic BFT TAC of 

2,000 mt annually for 2015 and 2016 

after considering the results of the 2014 

BFT stock assessment and following 

negotiations among Contracting Parties 

(ICCAT Recommendation 14–05). This 

TAC, which is an increase from the 

1,750-mt TAC that has applied annually 

since 2011, is consistent with scientific 

advice from the 2014 stock assessment, 

which indicated that annual catches of 

less than 2,250 mt would have a 50- 

percent probability of allowing the 

spawning stock biomass to be at or 

above its 2013 level by 2019 under 

either recruitment scenario, and that 

annual catches of 2,000 mt or less 

would continue to allow stock growth 

under both the low and high 

recruitment scenarios for the remainder 

of the rebuilding program. All TAC, 

quota, and weight information 

discussed in this notice are whole 

weight amounts. 

For 2015 and 2016, the ICCAT 

Recommendation also makes the 

following allocations from the western 

BFT 2,000-mt TAC for bycatch related to 

directed longline fisheries in the 

Northeast Distant gear restricted area 

(NED): 15 mt for Canada and 25 mt for 

the United States. Following subtraction 

of these allocations from the TAC, the 

recommendation allocates the 

remainder to the United States (54.02 

percent), Canada (22.32 percent) Japan 

(17.64 percent), Mexico (5.56 percent), 

UK (0.23 percent), and France (0.23 

percent). For the United States, 54.02 

percent of the remaining 1,960 mt is 

1,058.79 mt annually for 2015 and 2016. 

This represents an increase of 

approximately 135 mt (approximately 

14 percent) from the U.S. baseline BFT 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES