60052 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

CALIFORNIA—PM–10 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

*******

Mono County 

Mammoth Lakes planning area ............................. November 4, 2015 ............ Attainment ........................ ........................

Includes the following sections: 

a. Sections 1–12, 17, and 18 of Township 

T4S, R28E; 

b. Sections 25–36 of Township T3S, R28E; 

c. Sections 25–36 of Township T3S, R27E; 

d. Sections 1–18 of Township T4S, R27E; 

and, 

e. Sections 25 and 36 of Township T3S, 

R26E. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–25165 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452; FRL–9934– 

78–Region 7] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Direct Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to revise delisting levels for the 

hazardous waste exclusion granted to 

John Deere Des Moines Works (John 

Deere) of Deere & Company, in Ankeny, 

Iowa to exclude or ‘‘delist’’ up to 600 

tons per calendar year of F006/F019 

wastewater treatment sludge. The 

wastewater treatment sludge is a filter 

cake generated by John Deere’s Ankeny, 

Iowa, facility wastewater treatment 

system was conditionally excluded from 

the list of hazardous wastes on 

November 25, 2014. This direct final 

rule responds to a request submitted by 

John Deere to increase certain delisting 

levels and eliminate certain delisting 

levels for the excluded waste. After 

careful analysis and use of the Delisting 

Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), EPA 

has concluded the request may be 

granted. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

on December 4, 2015, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 4, 2015. If EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in by contacting 

the further information contact below. 

The public may copy material from any 

regulatory docket at no cost for the first 

100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page 

for additional copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Herstowski, Waste 

Remediation and Permits Branch, Air 

and Waste Management Division, EPA 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number 

(913) 551–7631; email address: 

herstowski.ken@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

III. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

B. How did EPA act on John Deere’s 

delisting petition? 

C. What are the changes John Deere is 

requesting? 

D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere’s 

request? 

E. How does this final rule affect states? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? 

The EPA is publishing this rule 

without a prior proposed rule because 

we view this as a non-controversial 

amendment and anticipate no adverse 

comment. This action narrowly changes 

the delisting levels for the F006/F019 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

at the John Deere Des Moines facility in 

Ankeny, Iowa. If the EPA receives 

adverse comment, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. In 

that case, we may issue a proposed rule 

to propose the changes and would 

address public comments in any 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

This action only applies to the F006/ 

F019 wastewater treatment sludge 

generated at the John Deere Des Moines 

facility in Ankeny, Iowa. 

III. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA or to an authorized 

state to exclude or delist, from the 

RCRA list of hazardous wastes, waste 

the generator believes should not be 

considered hazardous under RCRA. 

B. How did EPA act on John Deere’s 

delisting petition? 

After evaluating the delisting petition 

submitted by John Deere, EPA proposed, 

on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49252), to 

exclude the waste from the lists of 

hazardous waste under § 261.31. EPA 

issued a final rule on November 25, 

2014 (79 FR 70108) granting John 

Deere’s delisting petition to have up to 

600 tons per year of the F006/F019 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 60053 

at the John Deere Des Moines, Ankney, 

Iowa, facility excluded, or delisted, from 

the definition of a hazardous waste, 

once it is disposed in a Subtitle D 

landfill. 

C. What are the changes John Deere is 

requesting? 

John Deere requests removal of Table 

1 item 1(C)—the requirement to conduct 

analysis of verification samples using 

EPA SW–846 Method 1313 Extraction at 

pH 2.88, 7 and 13 and the requirement 

not to exceed hexavalent chromium 

level in the resulting [Method 1313] 

extracts. 

John Deere requests increases in 

delisting levels in Table 1 item 1(D) as 

follows: Cadmium to 25.5 milligrams 

per kilogram (mg/kg), chromium (total) 

to 51,000 mg/kg, chromium (hexavalent) 

to 41 mg/kg, copper to 2877 mg/kg, 

nickel to 3030 mg/kg, zinc to 10,170, 

cyanide (total) to 9 mg/kg, and oil and 

grease to 64,500 mg/kg. 

John Deere requests the removal of 

delisting levels in Table 1 item 1(D) for 

antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, 

cobalt, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, 

thallium, tin, vanadium, acetone, and 

methyl ethyl ketone. 

To support the request, John Deere 

submitted analytical data from 

verification testing events conducted 

since the exclusion was finalized. John 

Deere generated the sampling data 

under a Sampling Plan and Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (June 2012 

Revision). 

D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere’s 

request? 

EPA evaluated the proposed increases 

in the delisting levels against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). EPA evaluated 

the proposed increases in the delisting 

levels with respect to other factors or 

criteria to assess whether there is a 

reasonable basis to believe that such 

additional factors could cause the 

wastes to be hazardous. EPA considered 

whether the waste is acutely toxic, the 

concentrations of the constituents in the 

waste, their tendency to migrate and to 

bioaccumulate, their persistence in the 

environment once released from the 

waste, plausible and specific types of 

management of the petitioned waste, the 

quantities of waste generated, and waste 

variability. 

For this delisting determination, we 

assumed that the waste would be 

disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we 

considered transport of waste 

constituents through groundwater, 

surface water and air. We evaluated 

John Deere’s petitioned waste using the 

Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 

58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR 

75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR 

28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the 

maximum allowable concentrations of 

hazardous constituents that may be 

released from the petitioned waste after 

disposal and determined the potential 

impact of the disposal of John Deere’s 

petitioned waste on human health and 

the environment. To predict the 

potential for release to groundwater 

from landfilled wastes and subsequent 

routes of exposure to a receptor, the 

DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors 

derived from EPA’s Composite Model 

for Leachate Migration and 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP). 

From a release to groundwater, the 

DRAS considers routes of exposure to a 

human receptor of ingestion of 

contaminated groundwater, inhalation 

from groundwater while showering and 

dermal contact from groundwater while 

bathing. 

From a release to surface water by 

erosion of waste from an open landfill 

into storm water run-off, DRAS 

evaluates the exposure to a human 

receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion 

of drinking water. From a release of 

waste particles and volatile emissions to 

air from the surface of an open landfill, 

DRAS considers routes of exposure of 

inhalation of volatile constituents, 

inhalation of particles, and air 

deposition of particles on residential 

soil and subsequent ingestion of the 

contaminated soil by a child. The 

technical support document and the 

user’s guide to DRAS are included in 

the docket. 

At a benchmark cancer risk of one in 

one hundred thousand (1×10¥5) and a 

benchmark hazard quotient of 1.0, the 

DRAS program determined maximum 

allowable concentrations for each 

constituent in both the waste and the 

leachate at an annual waste volume of 

1000 cubic yards disposed in a landfill 

for 20 years after which time the landfill 

is closed. We used the maximum 

reported total and TCLP leachate 

concentrations as inputs to estimate the 

constituent concentrations in the 

groundwater, soil, surface water and air. 

The maximum allowable total COC 

concentrations in the Filter Cake as 

determined by the DRAS are as follows: 

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) 

Barium—2.85 × 107; Copper—5.34 × 

106; Chromium (III)—4.56 × 1010; 

Hexavalent Chromium—1.36 × 104; 

Cyanide—2.99 × 106; Lead—1.09 × 107; 

Mercury—1.86 × 101; Nickel—4.76 × 

106; Vanadium—1.52 × 108; Zinc—1.38 

× 107; Acetone—3.63 × 108; and Methyl 

Ethyl Ketone—1.45 × 109. The 

maximum allowable leachate COC 

concentrations in the Filter Cake as 

determined by the DRAS are as follows: 

Milligrams per liter 

(mg/l) Copper—1.78 × 102; Hexavalent 

Chromium—1.38 × 101; Cyanide—2.27 × 

101; Lead—4.18 × 100; Nickel—9.78 × 

101; Vanadium—2.47 × 101; Zinc—1.48 

× 103; and Acetone—3.84 × 103. The 

maximum allowable leachate COC 

concentrations in the Filter Cake as 

determined by TCLP are as follows: 

Milligrams per liter (mg/l) Barium—100; 

Chromium (total)—5; Mercury—0.2; and 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone—200. 

The concentrations of all constituents 

in both the waste and the leachate are 

below the allowable concentrations. The 

requested changes in delisting levels are 

below the allowable concentrations. 

EPA’s decision to grant the requested 

changes by John Deere is based on the 

information submitted in support of this 

direct final rule, and other information 

in the docket. 

E. How does this final rule affect states? 

EPA is issuing this exclusion under 

the Federal RCRA delisting program. 

Thus, upon the exclusion being 

finalized, the wastes covered will be 

removed from Subtitle C control under 

the Federal RCRA program. This will 

mean, first, that the wastes will be 

delisted in any State or territory where 

the EPA is directly administering the 

RCRA program (e.g., Iowa, Indian 

Country). However, whether the wastes 

will be delisted in states which have 

been authorized to administer the RCRA 

program will vary depending upon the 

authorization status of the States and 

the particular requirements regarding 

delisted wastes in the various states. 

Some other generally authorized 

states have not received authorization 

for delisting. Thus, the EPA makes 

delisting determinations for such states. 

However, RCRA allows states to impose 

their own regulatory requirements that 

are more stringent than EPA’s, under 

Section 3009 of RCRA. These more 

stringent requirements may include a 

provision that prohibits a Federally 

issued exclusion from taking effect in 

the state, or that requires a state 

concurrence before the Federal 

exclusion takes effect, or that allows the 

state to add conditions to any Federal 

exclusion. We urge the petitioner to 

contact the state regulatory authority in 

each state to or through which it may 

wish to ship its wastes to establish the 

status of its wastes under the state’s 

laws. 

EPA has also authorized some states 

to administer a delisting program in 

place of the Federal program, that is, to 

make state delisting decisions. In such 

states, the state delisting requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

60054 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

operate in lieu of the Federal delisting 

requirements. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

states unless the state makes the rule 

part of its authorized program. If John 

Deere transports the federally excluded 

waste to or manages the waste in any 

state with delisting authorization, John 

Deere must obtain a delisting 

authorization from that state before it 

can manage the waste as non-hazardous 

in that state. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 

(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this rule 

is not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 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.) because it 

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to Sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

Section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

final rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. Similarly, because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rule. This rule 

also is not subject to Executive Order 

13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

children, to calculate the maximum 

allowable concentrations for this rule. 

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. This rule does 

not involve technical standards; 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, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (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. 

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. Section 804 

exempts from Section 801 the following 

types of rules (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under Section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Executive Order (EO) 

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. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The Agency’s risk 

assessment did not identify risks from 

management of this material in a 

Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA 

believes that any populations in 

proximity of the landfills used by this 

facility should not be adversely affected 

by common waste management 

practices for this delisted waste. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f). 

Dated: September 14, 2015. 

Mark Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 261 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, 6924(y) and 6938. 

■ 2. In the second Table 1 of Appendix 

IX to part 261, ‘‘Wastes Excluded From 

Non-Specific Sources’’, in the entry for 

‘‘John Deere Des Moines Works of Deere 

& Company, Ankeny, IA’’, revise entry 

‘‘1. Delisting Levels’’ to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 60055 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

John Deere Des Moines 

Works of Deere Company.

Ankeny, IA.

*******

1. Delisting Levels: (A) The WWTS Filter Cake shall not exhibit any of the ‘‘Characteristics of 

Hazardous Waste’’ in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C. (B) All TCLP leachable concentrations 

(40 CFR 261.24(a)) for the following constituents must not exceed the following levels 

(mg/L for TCLP): Nickel—32.4. (C) Reserved. (D) All total concentrations for the following 

constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Cadmium—25.5; Chromium 

(total)—51,000; Chromium (hexavalent)—41; Copper—2877; Nickel—3030; Zinc—10,170; 

Cyanide—9, Oil and Grease—64,500. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–24459 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 412 

[CMS–1632–CN] 

RIN 0938–AS41 

Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient 

Prospective Payment Systems for 

Acute Care Hospitals and the LongTerm Care Hospital Prospective 

Payment System Policy Changes and 

Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of 

Quality Reporting Requirements for 

Specific Providers, including Changes 

Related to the Electronic Health 

Record Incentive Program; Extensions 

of the Medicare-Dependent, Small 

Rural Hospital Program and the LowVolume Payment Adjustment for 

Hospitals; Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule and interim final rule 

with comment period; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical and typographical errors in 

the final rule and interim final rule with 

comment period that appeared in the 

Federal Register on August 17, 2015 

titled ‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital 

Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems 

for Acute Care Hospitals and the LongTerm Care Hospital Prospective 

Payment System Policy Changes and 

Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of 

Quality Reporting Requirements for 

Specific Providers, including Changes 

Related to the Electronic Health Record 

Incentive Program; Extensions of the 

Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural 

Hospital Program and the Low-Volume 

Payment Adjustment for Hospitals.’’ 

DATES: This document is effective 

October 1, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Thompson, (410) 786–4487. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2015–19049 which 

appeared in the August 17, 2015 

Federal Register, titled ‘‘Medicare 

Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective 

Payment Systems for Acute Care 

Hospitals and the Long-Term Care 

Hospital Prospective Payment System 

Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 

Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting 

Requirements for Specific Providers, 

including Changes Related to the 

Electronic Health Record Incentive 

Program; Extensions of the MedicareDependent, Small Rural Hospital 

Program and the Low-Volume Payment 

Adjustment for Hospitals’’ (hereinafter 

referred to as the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH 

PPS final rule), there were a number of 

technical and typographical errors that 

are identified and corrected in section 

IV. of this correcting document. The 

provisions in this correction document 

are effective as if they had been 

included in the document that appeared 

in the August 17, 2015 Federal Register. 

Accordingly, the corrections are 

effective October 1, 2015. 

II. Summary of Errors 

A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble 

On page 49412, we made a 

typographical error with regards to an 

MS–DRG code. We made inadvertent 

and technical errors related to the 

employment cost index (ECI) used in 

the wage index, the MS–DRG 

reclassification and recalibration budget 

neutrality adjustment factor (as 

discussed in section II.B. of this 

correcting document), and the MGCRB 

reclassification status of certain 

providers (as discussed in section II.B. 

of this correcting document), each of 

which resulted in additional conforming 

corrections. Specifically, on page 49492, 

we inadvertently miscalculated the 

estimated percentage change in the ECI 

for compensation for the 30-day 

increment after March 14, 2013 and 

before April 15, 2013 for private 

industry hospital workers from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS’) 

‘‘Compensation and Working 

Conditions.’’ The ECI is used to adjust 

a hospital’s wage data to calculate the 

wage index, and is based on the 

midpoint of a cost reporting period. 

On page 49498, we are making 

conforming changes to the number of 

hospitals in New Jersey that will be 

receiving the imputed rural floor and to 

the FY 2016 rural floor value for Nevada 

as a result of correcting the ECI error, 

the technical error in the calculation of 

the MS–DRG reclassification and 

recalibration budget neutrality 

adjustment factor (discussed in section 

II.B. of this correcting document), and 

the error in the reclassification status of 

50 providers (discussed in section II.B. 

of this correcting document). 

On page 49619, consistent with the 

conforming corrections to the IPPS 

outlier fixed-loss cost threshold for FY 

2016 discussed in section II.B. of this 

correcting document, we are making 

further conforming corrections to the FY 

2016 outlier fixed-loss amount for site 

neutral cases in the context of our 

discussion regarding LTCH PPS highcost outliers. 

B. Summary of Errors in the Addendum 

On page 49776, we are correcting the 

MS–DRG reclassification and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES