Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17021 

Dated: March 24, 2015. 

Rebecca M. Clark, 

Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07375 Filed 3–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R05–RCRA–2014–0689; FRL–9925– 

55–Region 5] 

Michigan: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Michigan has applied to EPA 

for final authorization of the revisions to 

its hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed 

Michigan’s application with regards to 

federal requirements and is proposing to 

authorize the State’s program revisions. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received on or before June 1, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

RCRA–2014–0689, by one of the 

following methods: 

Web site: www.regulations.gov: 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

Email: greenberg.judith@epa.gov. 

Mail: Judith Greenberg, Michigan 

Regulatory Specialist, RCRA/TSCA 

Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land 

and Chemicals Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

LR–8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–R05–RCRA– 

2014–0689. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any CD–ROM or 

other electronic media you submit. If 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epagov/epahome/dockets/. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some of the information is not publicly 

available; e.g., CBI or other information 

for which 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 in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. 

You may view and copy Michigan’s 

application from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

at the following addresses: 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, Michigan Regulatory 

Specialist, RCRA/TSCA Programs 

Section, RCRA Branch, Land and 

Chemicals Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, LR–8J, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Judith Greenberg can be 

reached by telephone at (312) 886–4179 

or via email at greenberg.judith@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to state programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

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

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the federal 

program. As the federal program 

changes, states must change their 

programs and request 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? 

We have made a tentative decision 

that Michigan’s application to revise its 

authorized program meets all of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

established by RCRA. Therefore, we 

propose to grant Michigan final 

authorization to operate its hazardous 

waste program with the revisions 

described in the authorization 

application. Michigan will have 

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 described 

in its program revision application, 

subject to the limitations of 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 is the effect of this 

authorization decision? 

The effect of this tentative decision, 

once finalized, is that a facility in 

Michigan subject to RCRA would have 

to comply with the authorized state 

requirements instead of the equivalent 

federal requirements in order to comply 

with RCRA. Michigan has 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, which include 

among others, authority to: 

1. Perform inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; 

2. Enforce RCRA requirements and 

suspend or revoke permits; and 

3. Take enforcement actions 

regardless of whether the State has 

taken its own actions. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17022 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

This action will not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations for 

which Michigan will be authorized are 

already effective, and will not be 

changed by EPA’s final action. 

D. What happens if EPA receives 

adverse comments on this action? 

If EPA receives adverse comments on 

this authorization, we will address all 

public comments in a later Federal 

Register. You may not have another 

opportunity to comment. If you want to 

comment on this authorization, you 

must do so at this time. 

E. What has Michigan previously been 

authorized for? 

Michigan initially received final 

authorization on October 16, 1986, 

effective October 30, 1986 (51 FR 

36804–36805), to implement the RCRA 

hazardous waste management program. 

We granted authorization for changes to 

Michigan’s program on November 24, 

1989, effective January 23, 1990 (54 FR 

48608); on January 24, 1991, effective 

June 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517); on October 

1, 1993, effective November 30, 1993 (58 

FR 51244); on January 13, 1995, 

effective January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095); 

on February 8, 1996, effective April 8, 

1996 (61 FR 4742); on November 14, 

1997, effective November 14, 1997 (62 

FR 61775); on March 2, 1999, effective 

June 1, 1999 (64 FR 10111); on July 31, 

2002, effective July 31, 2002 (67 FR 

49617); on March 9, 2006, effective 

March 9, 2006 (71 FR 12141); on 

January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077), effective 

January 7, 2008; and on March 2, 2010, 

effective March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345). 

F. What changes are we proposing with 

today’s action? 

On June 9, 2014, Michigan submitted 

its final application seeking 

authorization of hazardous waste 

program revisions in accordance with 

40 CFR 271.21. We have determined, 

subject to receipt of written comments 

that oppose this action, that Michigan’s 

program revisions satisfy all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization. Therefore, we 

propose to grant Michigan final 

authorization for the following program 

changes: 

Description of federal requirement and 

revision checklist number 1

Federal Register 

date and page 

(and/or RCRA 

statutory authority) 

Analogous state authority 

NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous 

Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) 

Amendments, Checklist 217.

April 8, 2008, 73 

FR 18970.

R 299.9623, effective November 5, 2013. 

F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto Manufacturing 

Zinc Phosphating Processes, Checklist 

218.

June 4, 2008, 73 

FR 31756.

R 299.9220, R 299.9307(6) and (7), effective November 5, 2013. 

Academic Laboratories Generator Standards, Checklist 220.December 1, 2008, 

73 FR 72912.

R 299.9205(5)(j), R 299.9301(9), R 299.9313 and R 299.11003(1)(k) and (2), 

effective November 5, 2013. 

OECD Requirements: Export Shipments 

of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, Checklist 

222.

January 8, 2010, 

75 FR 1236.

R 299.9601(2)(c), (3) and (9), effective December 16, 2004. 

R 299.9401(5), effective March 17, 2008. 

R 299.9301(7), R 299.9309(1), (3) and (4), R 299.9312(1) and (2), 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), effective November 5, 2013. 

Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections 

and Clarifications Rule, as amended, 

Checklist 223.

March 16, 2010, 75 

FR 12989; and 

June 4, 2010, 75 

FR 31716.

R 299.9302(2), effective June 21, 1994. 

R 299.9209(7), R 299.9311, R 299.9413 and R 299.9803(4), effective September 11, 2000. 

R 299.9619(1) and (8), R 299.9627 and R 299.9635(5) and (12), effective December 16, 2004. 

R 299.9222, R 299.9310(2) and R 299.9404(1)(b), effective March 17, 2008. 

R 299.9105(l), R 299.9106(t), R 299.9202(2)(c), R 299.9204(1)(v)(vi), R 

299.9205(1)(b), (1)(b)(ii), (2), (3)(a) and (b), R 299.9206(1)(b) and (d), (2), 

(2)(b) and (3), R 299.9207(1), (2), (3) and (5), R 299.9212(3)(h), R 

299.9213(2) and (3), R 299.9220, R 299.9225, R 299.9304(1)(b), (2)(d) and 

(6), R 299.9306(1) and (1)(b) and (d), (2), (3), (3)(b), (4)(c), (6) and (7), R 

299.9308(1), (3) and (6), R 299.9503(1)(c), R 299.9516(5), R 299.9607(1) 

and (4), R 299.9608(3), (6) and (8), R 299.9801(3) and (7), R 299.9804(3), 

R 299.9808(3)(c), (7) and (8), R 299.11003(1)(j), (k), (m), (n) and (u) and 

(2), effective November 5, 2013. 

Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts, 

Checklist 225.

December 17, 

2010, 75 FR 

78918.

R 299.9311, R 299.9413, effective September 11, 2000. 

R 299.9627, effective December 16, 2004. 

R 299.11003(1)(n) and (2), effective November 5, 2013. 

Corrections to the Academic Generator 

Standards, Checklist 226.

December 20, 

2010, 75 FR 

79304.

R 299.9313(2) and (3), R 299.11003(1)(k) and (2), effective November 5, 

2013. 

Revisions of the Treatment Standards for 

Carbamate Wastes, Checklist 227.

June 13, 2011, 75 

FR 34147.

R 299.9311 and R 299.9413, effective September 11, 2000. 

R 299.9627, effective September 11, 2004. 

R 299.11003(1)(u) and (2), effective November 5, 2013. 

Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections 

and Clarifications, Checklist 228.

April 13, 2012, 77 

FR 22229.

R 299.9222, effective March 17, 2008. 

R 299.9801(3), effective November 5, 2013. 

1 Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice; EPA publishes these 

checklists as 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17023 

EQUIVALENT STATE-INITIATED CHANGES

Michigan administrative rules 

Effective date of 

amended State 

requirement 

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.

November 5, 2013. 

G. Which revised state rules are 

different from the federal rules? 

The most significant differences 

between the state rules we are proposing 

to authorize and 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. 

There are aspects of the Michigan 

program which are more stringent than 

the federal program. All of these more 

stringent requirements are or will 

become part of the federally enforceable 

RCRA program when 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 (references 

are to the Michigan Administrative 

Code): 

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 299.9220 are 

more stringent than the federal analog at 

40 CFR 261.31 since the State’s listing 

of F019 includes recordkeeping 

requirements as a condition of the 

exemption of wastewater treatment 

sludge generated from zinc phosphating, 

when zinc phosphating is used in the 

automobile assembly process, while the 

federal analog at 40 CFR 261.31 has 

separate recordkeeping requirements for 

generators claiming the exemption, 

rather than having the recordkeeping 

requirements as a condition of the 

exemption. 

Michigan’s rules at 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 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’s rules at R 299.9629(7)– 

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

rules require 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 

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.’’ 

There are also aspects of Michigan’s 

revised program which 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 

(references are to the Michigan 

Administrative Code): 

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. 

H. 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 

proposed authorization until they expire 

or are terminated. We will not issue any 

more new permits or new portions of 

permits for the provisions listed in the 

Table above after the effective date of 

the authorization. EPA will continue to 

implement and issue permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Michigan is not 

yet authorized. 

I. 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 

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 would not affect Indian 

Country in Michigan. EPA would 

continue 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

258.2. 

J. 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. 

K. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule only authorizes 

hazardous waste requirements pursuant 

to RCRA 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). 

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: January 15, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07347 Filed 3–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS