13644 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerances in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This action directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does 

this action alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or Tribal Governments, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States or Tribal 

Governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

Tribes. Thus, the Agency has 

determined that Executive Order 13132, 

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 

13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In 

addition, this action does not impose 

any enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule 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 of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 4, 2022. 

Marietta Echeverria, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

chapter I as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.511, amend paragraph (a) 

by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text. 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order to the 

table the entries ‘‘Bean, asparagus, 

edible podded’’; ‘‘Bean, catjang, edible 

podded’’; ‘‘Bean, french, edible 

podded’’; ‘‘Bean, garden, edible 

podded’’; ‘‘Bean, goa, edible podded’’; 

‘‘Bean, green, edible podded’’; ‘‘Bean, 

guar, edible podded’’; ‘‘Bean, kidney, 

edible podded’’; ‘‘Bean, lablab, edible 

podded’’; ‘‘Bean, moth, edible podded’’; 

‘‘Bean, mung, edible podded’’; ‘‘Bean, 

navy, edible podded’’; ‘‘Bean, rice, 

edible podded’’; ‘‘Bean, scarlet runner, 

edible podded’’; and ‘‘Bean, snap, edible 

podded’’. 

■ c. Removing the entry from the table 

for ‘‘Bean, snap, succulent’’. 

■ d. Adding in alphabetical order to the 

table the entries ‘‘Bean, sword, edible 

podded’’; ‘‘Bean, urd, edible podded’’; 

‘‘Bean, wax, edible podded’’; ‘‘Bean, 

yardlong, edible podded’’; ‘‘Bushberry 

subgroup 13–07B’’; ‘‘Cowpea, edible 

podded’’; ‘‘Jackbean, edible podded’’; 

‘‘Longbean, chinese, edible podded’’; 

‘‘Pea, winged, edible podded’’; 

‘‘Soybean, vegetable, edible podded’’; 

and ‘‘Velvetbean, edible podded’’. 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of buprofezin, 

including its metabolites and degradates 

in or on the commodities in the table in 

this paragraph (a). Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified in the table in 

this paragraph (a) is to be determined by 

measuring only the buprofezin, 2-[(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3-(1- 

methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5- 

thiadiazin-4-one, in the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Bean, asparagus, edible podded .......... 0.02 

Bean, catjang, edible podded ............... 0.02 

Bean, french, edible podded ................. 0.02 

Bean, garden, edible podded ................ 0.02 

Bean, goa, edible podded ..................... 0.02 

Bean, green, edible podded .................. 0.02 

Bean, guar, edible podded .................... 0.02 

Bean, kidney, edible podded ................. 0.02 

Bean, lablab, edible podded ................. 0.02 

Bean, moth, edible podded ................... 0.02 

Bean, mung, edible podded .................. 0.02 

Bean, navy, edible podded ................... 0.02 

Bean, rice, edible podded ..................... 0.02 

Bean, scarlet runner, edible podded ..... 0.02 

Bean, snap, edible podded ................... 0.02 

* * * * * 

Bean, sword, edible podded ................. 0.02 

Bean, urd, edible podded ...................... 0.02 

Bean, wax, edible podded ..................... 0.02 

Bean, yardlong, edible podded ............. 0.02 

* * * * * 

Bushberry subgroup 13–07B ................ 0.08 

* * * * * 

Cowpea, edible podded ........................ 0.02 

* * * * * 

Jackbean, edible podded ...................... 0.02 

* * * * * 

Longbean, chinese, edible podded ....... 0.02 

* * * * * 

Pea, winged, edible podded .................. 0.02 

* * * * * 

Soybean, vegetable, edible podded ...... 0.02 

* * * * * 

Velvetbean, edible podded .................... 0.02 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–05065 Filed 3–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2021–0439; FRL–8853– 

02–R10] 

Oregon: Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final authorization. 

SUMMARY: Oregon 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), as amended. EPA has 

reviewed Oregon’s application and has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 13645 

authorization. EPA sought public 

comment under Docket #EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2021–0439 from October 5, 2021, 

to November 4, 2021, prior to taking this 

final action to authorize these changes. 

EPA received five comments, only one 

of which was adverse. EPA’s response to 

the comment and rationale for this final 

action are provided below. 

DATES: This final authorization is 

effective April 11, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Olson, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Oregon 

Operations Office, 805 SW Broadway, 

Suite 500, Portland, Oregon 97205, 

phone number: (503) 326–5874, email: 

olson.margaret@epa.gov. 

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. 

Oregon State’s hazardous waste 

management program received final 

authorization on January 30, 1986 (51 

FR 3779), to implement the RCRA 

hazardous waste management program. 

As explained in section E of this 

document, Oregon’s program has been 

revised and reauthorized numerous 

times since then. On October 16, 2020, 

Oregon submitted a complete program 

revision application seeking 

authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program that 

correspond to certain Federal rules 

promulgated between October 22, 1998, 

and April 17, 2015. The below rules 

have been adopted by Oregon as of July 

12, 2017. The Federal rules adopted by 

Oregon include the Hazardous Waste 

Manifest Printing Specifications 

Correction Rule (76 FR 36363, June 22, 

2011), Standards Applicable to Owners 

and Operators of Closed and Closing 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Facilities: Post-Closure Permit 

Requirement; Closure Process (63 FR 

56710, October 22, 1998), Used Oil 

Management Standards (75 FR 76633, 

September 8, 2005), Standardized 

Permit for RCRA HW Management 

Facilities (70 FR 53420, September 8, 

2005), NESHAP: Standards for RCRA 

HW Management Facilities (73 FR 

18970, April 8, 2008), Amendment to 

Hazardous Waste Code F019 (73 FR 

31756, June, 4, 2008), Academic 

Laboratories Generator Standards (73 FR 

72911, December 1, 2008), Export 

Shipments of Lead-Acid Batteries (75 

FR 1236, January 9, 2010), Hazardous 

Waste Technical Corrections and 

Clarifications Rule (75 FR 12989, March 

18, 2010), Withdrawal of the Emissions 

Comparable Fuel Exclusion (75 FR 

33712, June 5, 2010), Removal of 

Saccharin and its Salt from the Lists of 

Hazardous Constituents (75 FR 78918, 

December 17, 2010), Academic 

Laboratories Generator Standards 

Technical Corrections (75 FR 79304, 

December 20, 2010), Revision of the 

Treatment Standards for Carbamate 

Wastes (76 FR 34147, June 13, 2011), 

Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections 

and Clarifications Rule (77 FR 22229, 

July 31, 2013), Conditional Exclusions 

for Solvent-Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 

46447, July 31, 2013), Modifications of 

Hazardous Waste Manifest System: 

Electronic Manifest (79 FR 7518, 

February 7, 2014), Revisions to the 

Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray 

Tube (78 FR 36220, June 26, 2014), 

Vacatur of the Comparable Fuels Rule 

and the Gasification Rule (80 FR 18777, 

April 8, 2015), and Disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residues from Electric 

Utilities (80 FR 21301, April 17, 2015). 

Of the 19 rules being authorized by this 

action, some State rules contain more 

stringent and/or broader in scope 

provisions. For identification of these 

provisions refer to the authorization 

revision application’s Attorney General 

Statement and Checklists found in the 

docket for this action. 

The EPA is authorizing Oregon’s 

revised hazardous waste program in its 

entirety through July 12, 2017, as 

described above. 

B. What decisions has EPA made in this 

action? 

EPA has reviewed Oregon’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program and has determined that it 

meets the statutory and regulatory 

requirements established by RCRA. 

Therefore, EPA is granting Oregon final 

authorization to operate its hazardous 

waste management program with the 

changes described in the authorization 

revision application and supporting 

materials. Oregon will continue to have 

responsibility for permitting Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) 

within its borders (except in Indian 

country (18 U.S.C. 1151)) and for 

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

program application, subject to the 

limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA, and which are 

not less stringent than existing 

requirements, take effect in authorized 

States before the States are authorized 

for the requirements. Thus, EPA will 

implement those requirements and 

prohibitions in Oregon, including 

issuing permits, until Oregon is granted 

authorization to do so. 

C. What is the effect of this final 

authorization decision? 

A person in Oregon subject to RCRA 

must comply with the authorized State 

requirements in lieu of the 

corresponding Federal requirements. 

Additionally, such persons will have to 

comply with any applicable Federal 

requirements, such as HSWA 

regulations issued by EPA for which the 

State has not received authorization and 

RCRA requirements that are not 

supplanted by the authorized State 

requirements. Oregon will continue to 

have primary enforcement authority and 

responsibility for its State hazardous 

waste program. EPA will maintain its 

authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 

3008, 3013, and 7003, including its 

authority to: 

• Conduct inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses and reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements, 

including authorized State program 

requirements; 

• Suspend or revoke permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the State has taken its own 

actions. 

This action will not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations 

which EPA is proposing to authorize in 

Oregon are already effective under state 

law and are not changed by the act of 

authorization. 

D. What were the comments received 

on this authorization action? 

The EPA received five comments 

during the public comment period of 

this action (86 FR 54894, October 5, 

2021), four of which were supportive, 

and one of which was opposed to this 

action. All the comments received are 

included in the docket for this action. 

The adverse commenter questioned 

EPA’s authorization of Oregon’s rule 

conditionally excluding solventcontaminated wipes from RCRA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
13646 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements, stating: ‘‘why is Oregon 

proposing a more stringent ruling on 

solvent-contaminated wipes when they 

can easily be excluded using broad 

language under the EPA?’’ The 

commenter also raised questions about 

how solvent-contaminated wipes would 

be managed under Oregon’s rule. 

According to the commenter, ‘‘[t]he plan 

for how the wipes will be taken care of 

now that they are classified as 

hazardous waste should be addressed 

before the approval is completed for this 

proposal.’’ 

RCRA Section 3006 sets forth three 

criteria EPA must evaluate in 

determining whether to authorize a 

State program: Whether the State 

program is equivalent to the Federal 

program; whether the State program is 

consistent with Federal or State 

programs applicable in other States; 

and, whether the State program 

provides adequate enforcement of 

compliance with RCRA requirements. In 

addition, under RCRA Section 3009, 

states may adopt RCRA programs that 

are more stringent than Federal 

regulations, and EPA may authorize and 

enforce such more-stringent regulations. 

See 40 CFR 271.1(i)(1). 

As noted in EPA’s proposed action 

and in this final authorization, EPA has 

determined that Oregon’s changes to its 

hazardous waste program—including 

the State’s adoption of the conditional 

exclusion for solvent-contaminated 

wipes—meet the statutory criteria for 

authorization under RCRA Sections 

3006 and 3009. EPA’s exclusion for 

solvent-contaminated wipes is codified 

at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(18), and Oregon 

adopts by reference that provision at 

OAR 340–100–0002(1), with the 

exception of changes to the Federal rule 

identified at OAR 340–101–0004(3) 

through (5), which eliminate certain 

disposal options from the exclusion. In 

other words, Oregon’s rules are 

consistent with EPA’s rules with regard 

to management of excluded solventcontaminated wipes and are more 

stringent with regard to their disposal. 

Thus, EPA has determined that Oregon’s 

requested changes to its hazardous 

waste program are consistent with 

RCRA requirements and is finalizing 

authorization of those changes in this 

action. 

E. What has Oregon previously been 

authorized for? 

Oregon initially received final 

authorization on January 30, 1986, 

effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3779), 

to implement the RCRA hazardous 

waste management program. EPA 

granted authorization for changes to 

Oregon’s program on March 30, 1990, 

effective on May 29, 1990 (55 FR 

11909); August 5, 1994, effective 

October 4, 1994 (59 FR 39967); June 16, 

1995, effective August 15, 1995 (60 FR 

31642); October 10, 1995, effective 

December 7, 1995 (60 FR 52629); 

September 10, 2002, effective September 

10, 2002 (67 FR 57337); June 26, 2006 

effective June 26, 2006 (71 FR 36216); 

and January 7, 2010, effective January 7, 

2010 (75 FR 918). 

F. What changes is the EPA authorizing 

with this action? 

EPA is authorizing revisions to 

Oregon’s authorized RCRA program as 

described in Oregon’s official program 

revision application, submitted to EPA 

on October 16, 2020, and deemed 

complete by EPA on November 19, 

2020. EPA has determined that Oregon’s 

hazardous waste management program 

revisions as described in the October 16, 

2020 State’s authorization revision 

application satisfy the requirements 

necessary to quality for final 

authorization. Oregon’s authorized 

hazardous waste management program, 

as amended by these provisions remains 

equivalent to, consistent with, and is no 

less stringent than the Federal RCRA 

program. Therefore, EPA is granting 

Oregon’s request for RCRA program 

authorization revision for the program 

changes as noted in Section A of this 

document. 

G. Where are the revised State rules 

different from the Federal rules? 

Under RCRA Section 3009, the EPA 

may not authorize State rules that are 

less stringent than the Federal program. 

Any State rules that are less stringent do 

not supplant the Federal regulations. 

State rules that are broader in scope 

than the Federal program requirements 

are allowed but are not authorized. State 

rules that are equivalent to, determined 

functionally equivalent, and State rules 

that are more stringent than the Federal 

program may be authorized, in which 

case those provisions are federally 

enforceable. 

The following Oregon provisions 

documented in this authorization action 

are more stringent than the Federal 

program: 

• Oregon is more stringent than the 

Federal program at OAR 340–102– 

0041(2) by requiring annual reporting 

rather than biennial reporting. 

• Oregon is more stringent than the 

Federal program at OAR 340–102– 

0200(4) which requires when opting-in 

to Subpart K, an eligible academic entity 

is required to submit their completed 

Laboratory Management Plan as defined 

in 40 CFR 262.214. 

• Oregon is more stringent than the 

Federal program at OAR 340–102– 

0200(2) which requires container labels 

be affixed or attached to the container 

and eliminates the possibility of these 

labels being associated with the wrong 

container. 

• Oregon is more stringent than the 

Federal program at OAR 340–101– 

0004(4) and (5) by requiring containers 

of solvent contaminated wipes be either 

laundered or disposed as hazardous 

waste. Oregon does not allow disposal 

of solvent contaminated wipes in a 

municipal landfill or non-hazardous 

waste incinerator. 

Oregon is broader in scope than the 

Federal program documented in this 

authorization action by requiring 

academic laboratories that opt into 

subpart K to obtain an EPA 

identification number. 

H. Who handles permits after the final 

authorization takes effect? 

Oregon will continue to issue permits 

for all the provisions for which it is 

authorized and will administer the 

permits it issues. Permits issued by EPA 

prior to authorizing Oregon for these 

revisions would continue in force until 

the effective date of the State’s issuance 

or denial of a State hazardous waste 

management permit, at which time, EPA 

would modify the existing EPA permit 

to expire at an earlier date, terminate the 

existing EPA permit, or allow the 

existing EPA permit to otherwise expire 

by its terms, except for those facilities 

located in Indian Country. EPA will not 

issue new permits or new portions of 

permits for provisions for which Oregon 

is authorized after the effective date of 

this authorization. EPA will continue to 

implement and issue permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Oregon is not 

yet authorized. 

I. How does this action affect Indian 

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

Oregon is not authorized to carry out 

its hazardous waste program in Indian 

country within the State, which 

includes: 

• All lands within the exterior 

boundaries of Indian reservations 

within or abutting the State of Oregon. 

• Any land held in trust by the U.S. 

for an Indian tribe; and 

• Any other land, whether on or off 

an Indian reservation, that qualifies as 

Indian country. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 13647 

J. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this action from 

the requirements of Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). This action will authorize State 

requirements for the purpose of RCRA 

section 3006 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to review by OMB. Accordingly, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

authorizes pre-existing requirements 

under State law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by State law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(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 action 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), the EPA 

grants a state’s application for 

authorization as long as the state meets 

the criteria required by RCRA. It would 

thus be inconsistent with applicable law 

for 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 

authorizing Oregon’s updated RCRA 

program, 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 this action 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 action 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 action authorizes preexisting 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, this action 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). 

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 4, 2022. 

Michelle Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05012 Filed 3–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES