54178 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

consistent with applicable requirements 

for maintenance: The 2009, 2017 and 

2025 budgets are less than the on-road 

mobile source inventory for 2007 that 

was shown to be consistent with 

attainment of the standards. The 

applicable state implementation plan 

demonstrates that the 2017 and 2025 

budgets are consistent with 

maintenance when considered with all 

other sources for each respective year. 

The 2009 budgets were developed with 

all the information for the year 2009, 

including on-road activity in 2009. 

Because New York demonstrated 

attainment in this year to the applicable 

air quality standards, the 2009 budgets 

are therefore consistent with 

maintenance of the respective 

standards. 

(v) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) is consistent with and clearly 

related to the emissions inventory and 

the control measures in the submitted 

control strategy implementation plan 

revision or maintenance plan: The 

budgets were developed from the onroad mobile source inventories, 

including all applicable state and 

Federal control measures. Inputs related 

to inspection and maintenance and fuels 

are consistent with New York State’s 

Federally-approved control programs. 

(vi) Revisions to previously submitted 

control strategy implementation plans 

or maintenance plans explain and 

document any changes to previously 

submitted budgets and control 

measures; impacts on point and area 

source emissions; any changes to 

established safety margins (see § 93.101 

for definition); and reasons for the 

changes (including the basis for any 

changes related to emission factors or 

estimates of vehicle miles traveled): The 

submitted maintenance plan establishes 

new 2009, 2017 and 2025 budgets to 

ensure continued maintenance of the 

standards; therefore, this is not 

applicable. 

Adequacy Finding 

Today’s action is simply an 

announcement of a finding that we have 

already made. EPA Region 2 sent a letter 

to New York on August 19, 2013, stating 

that the 2009, 2017 and 2025 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in New 

York’s SIP for the New York PM2.5

nonattainment areas are adequate 

because they are consistent with the 

required maintenance demonstration. In 

our letter we noted that there are 

existing approved and adequate budgets 

for 2009, but that the 2009 budgets 

contained in the submitted maintenance 

plans will be the most recent budgets in 

place to satisfy the latest Clean Air Act 

requirement and therefore will be the 

applicable 2009 budgets to be used in 

future transportation conformity 

determinations for analysis years prior 

to 2017. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR NEW YORK

[Tons per year] 

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council & Orange County Transportation Council Direct PM2.5 NOX

2009 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget ................................................................................................................... 5,516.75 106,020.09 

2017 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget ................................................................................................................... 3,897.71 68,362.66 

2025 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget ................................................................................................................... 3,291.09 51,260.81 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 q. 

Dated: August 19, 2013. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21266 Filed 8–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R03–RCRA–2012–0294; FRL– 9900– 

47–Region 3] 

Virginia: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Immediate final rule. 

SUMMARY: Virginia has applied to EPA 

for final authorization of revisions to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that 

these revisions satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for final authorization 

and is authorizing Virginia’s revisions 

through this immediate final action. 

EPA is publishing this rule to authorize 

the revisions without a prior proposal 

because we believe this action is not 

controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose it. Unless we 

receive written comments that oppose 

this authorization during the comment 

period, the decision to authorize 

Virginia’s revisions to its hazardous 

waste program will take effect. If we 

receive comments that oppose this 

action we will publish a document in 

the Federal Register withdrawing the 

relevant portions of this rule, before 

they take effect, and a separate 

document in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register will serve as a 

proposal to authorize revisions to 

Virginia’s program that were the subject 

of adverse comments. 

DATES: This final authorization will 

become effective on November 4, 2013, 

unless EPA receives adverse written 

comments by October 3, 2013. If EPA 

receives any such comment, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

immediate final rule in the Federal 

Register and inform the public that this 

authorization will not take effect as 

scheduled. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

RCRA–2012–0294, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: barbieri.andrea@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Andrea Barbieri, Mailcode 

3LC50, Office of State Programs, U.S. 

EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

4. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

You may inspect and copy Virginia’s 

application from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday at the following 

locations: Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, (VADEQ), 

Office of Regulatory Affairs, 629 East 

Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219, 

Phone number: (804) 698–4426, and 

EPA Region III Library, 2nd Floor, 1650 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 54179 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103– 

2029, Phone number: (215) 814–5254. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–RCRA–2012– 

0294. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

file without change and may be made 

available on line at http://

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 http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

Federal http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means that 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 http://www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public file 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 disk or CD–ROM 

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 and any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Barbieri, Mailcode 3LC50, 

Office of State Programs, U.S. EPA 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, Phone 

number: (215) 814–3374; email address: 

barbieri.andrea@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 is 

revised to become more stringent or 

broader in scope, States must revise 

their programs and apply to EPA to 

authorize the revisions. Authorization of 

revisions to State programs may be 

necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other 

revisions occur. Most commonly, States 

must revise their programs because of 

revisions to EPA’s regulations in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

124, 260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

B. What decisions have we made in this 

rule? 

EPA concludes that Virginia’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Virginia final 

authorization to operate its hazardous 

waste program with the revisions 

described in its application for program 

revisions, subject to the procedures 

described in section E, below. Virginia 

has responsibility for permitting 

treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and 

for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its 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 HSWA requirements 

and prohibitions for which Virginia has 

not been authorized, including issuing 

HSWA permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What is the effect of this 

authorization decision? 

This decision serves to authorize 

revisions to Virginia’s authorized 

hazardous waste program. This action 

does not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations for 

which Virginia is being authorized by 

this action are already effective and are 

not changed by this action. Virginia has 

enforcement responsibilities under its 

state hazardous waste program for 

violations of its program, but EPA 

retains its authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 

which include, among others, authority 

to: 

Æ Perform inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; 

Æ Enforce RCRA requirements and 

suspend or revoke permits; and 

Æ Take enforcement actions 

regardless of whether Virginia has taken 

its own actions. 

D. Why wasn’t there a proposed rule 

before this rule? 

EPA did not publish a proposal before 

this rule because we view this as a 

routine program change and do not 

expect comments that oppose this 

approval. We are providing an 

opportunity for public comment now. In 

addition to this rule, in the proposed 

rules section of today’s Federal Register 

we are publishing a separate document 

that proposes to authorize Virginia’s 

program revisions. If EPA receives 

comments that oppose this 

authorization, that document will serve 

as a proposal to authorize the revisions 

to Virginia’s program that were the 

subject of adverse comment. 

E. What happens if EPA receives 

comments that oppose this action? 

If EPA receives comments that oppose 

this authorization, we will withdraw 

this rule by publishing a document in 

the Federal Register before the rule 

would become effective. EPA will base 

any further decision on the 

authorization of Virginia’s program 

revisions on the proposal mentioned in 

the previous section. We will then 

address all public comments in a later 

final rule. You may not have another 

opportunity to comment. If you want to 

comment on this authorization, you 

must do so at this time. If we receive 

comments that oppose the authorization 

of a particular revision to Virginia’s 

hazardous waste program, we will 

withdraw that part of this rule, but the 

authorization of the program revisions 

that the comments do not oppose will 

become effective on the date specified 

above. The Federal Register withdrawal 

document will specify which part of the 

authorization will become effective, and 

which part is being withdrawn. 

F. What has Virginia previously been 

authorized for? 

Initially, Virginia received final 

authorization to implement its 

hazardous waste management program 

effective December 18, 1984 (49 FR 

47391). EPA granted authorization for 

revisions to Virginia’s regulatory 

program effective August 13, 1993 (58 

FR 32855); September 29, 2000 (65 FR 

46607); June 20, 2003 (68 FR 36925); 

July 10, 2006 (71 FR 27204); and July 

30, 2008 (73 FR 44168). 

G. What revisions are we authorizing 

with this action? 

On December 18, 2012, Virginia 

submitted a final complete program 

revision application, seeking 

authorization of additional revisions to 

its program in accordance with 40 CFR 

271.21. Virginia’s revision application 

includes various regulations that are 

equivalent to, and no less stringent than, 

revisions to the Federal hazardous waste 

program, as published in the Code of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
54180 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal Regulations as of December 31, 

2010. 

We now make an immediate final 

decision subject to receipt of written 

comments that oppose this action that 

Virginia’s hazardous waste program 

revisions satisfies all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization. Therefore, EPA 

grants Virginia’s final authorization for 

the following program revisions: 

1. Program Revision Changes for Federal 

Rules 

Virginia seeks authority to administer 

the Federal requirements that are listed 

in Table 1. Virginia incorporates by 

reference these Federal provisions, in 

accordance with the dates specified in 

Title 9, Virginia Administrative Code 

(9VAC 20–60–18). This Table lists the 

Virginia analogs that are being 

recognized as no less stringent than the 

analogous Federal requirements. The 

Virginia Waste Management Act 

(VWMA), enacted by the 1986 session of 

Virginia’s General Assembly and 

recodifed in 1988 as Chapter 14, Title 

10.1, Code of Virginia, forms the basis 

of the Virginia program. These 

regulatory references are to Title 9, 

Virginia Administrative Code (9 VAC) 

effective March 2, 2011. 

TABLE 1—VIRGINIA’S ANALOGS TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

Description of Federal requirement 

(revision checklists 1) Federal Register Analogous Virginia authority 

RCRA Cluster XVII 

Hazardous Waste and Used Oil; Correction to the Errors 

in the Code of Federal Regulations, Revision Checklist 214.

71 FR 40254, July 14, 2006 9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–260 A, 20–60–261 A, 20– 

60–262 A, 20–60–264 A, 20–60–264 A, 20–60–265 

A, 20–60–266 A, 20–60–268 A, 20–60–270 A, 20– 

60–273 A, 20–60–279 A. 

Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of 

the Hazardous Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes, 

Revision Checklist 215.

71 FR 42928, July 28, 2006 9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–260 A, 20–60–261 A. 

RCRA Cluster XVIII 

Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary Materials From the Petroleum Refining Industry Processed 

in a Gasification System to Produce Synthetic Gas, 

Revision Checklist 216.

73 FR 57, January 2, 2008 9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–260 A, 20–60–261 A. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Waste Air 

Pollutants; Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors; Amendments, Revision Checklist 217.

73 FR 18970, April 8, 2008 9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–264 A, 20–60–266 A. 

Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification 

and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Amendment to Hazardous Waste Code F019, Revision Checklist 218.

73 FR 31756, June 4, 2008 9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261 A. 

RCRA Cluster XIX 

Academic Laboratories Generator Standards, Revision 

Checklist 220.

73 FR 72912, December 1, 

2008.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261 A, 20–60–262 A. 

Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion, Revision Checklist 221 2.73 FR 77954, December 

19, 2008.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261. 

RCRA Cluster XX 

OECD Requirements; Export Shipments of Spend LeadAcid Batteries, Revision Checklist 222.75 FR 1236, January 8, 

2010.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–262 A, 20–60–263 A, 20– 

60–264 A, 20–60–265 A, 20–60–266 A. 

Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarification, Revision Checklist 223.75 FR 12989, March 18, 

2010; as amended 75 FR 

31716, June 4, 2010.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–260 A, 20–60–261 A, 20–60–262 A, 

20–60–263 A, 20–60–264 A, 20–60–265 A, 20–60– 

266 A, 20–60–268 A, 20–60–270 A. 

RCRA Cluster XXI 

Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts from the List of Hazardous Constituents, Revision Checklist 225.75 FR 78918, December 

17, 2010.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261 A, 20–60–268 A. 

Academic Laboratories Generator Standards Technical 

Corrections, Revision Checklist 226.

75 FR 79304, December 

20, 2010.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–262 A. 

Other 

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification 

and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Removal of Final 

Rule.

71 FR 35395, June 20, 

2006.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261 A. 

Extension of Site-Specific Regulations for University 

Laboratories XL Projects.

71 FR 35547, June 21, 

2006.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–262 A. 

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification 

and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion.

71 FR 43067, July 31, 2006 9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261 A. 

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification 

and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion.

72 FR 43, January 3, 2007 9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261 A. 

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification 

and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion.

72 FR 4645, February 1, 

2007.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261 A. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 54181 

TABLE 1—VIRGINIA’S ANALOGS TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Description of Federal requirement 

(revision checklists 1) Federal Register Analogous Virginia authority 

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification 

and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion.

72 FR 31185 June 6, 2007 9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–261 A. 

Standards for Universal Waste Management; CFR Correction.72 FR 35666, June 29, 

2007.

9 VAC §§ 20–60–18, 20–60–273 A. 

1A Revision Checklist is a document that addresses the specific revisions made to the Federal regulations by one or more related final rules 

published in the Federal Register. EPA develops these checklists as tools to assist States in developing their authorization applications and in 

documenting specific State analogs to the Federal Regulations. For more information see EPA’s RCRA State Authorization Web page at http://

www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/state/index.htm. 2Adopted changes to comparable fuel provisions amended on this date, not the emissions comparable fuel provisions that were subsequently 

withdrawn. 

H. Where are the revised Virginia rules 

different from the Federal rules? 

1. Virginia’s Adoption of EPA’s SiteSpecific Delisting and Variance 

Decisions 

In its regulations, Virginia has 

adopted EPA’s decisions relative to the 

site-specific delistings published 

between June 20, 2006 and June 6, 2007 

(71 FR 35395, 71 FR 35547, 71 FR 

43067, 72 FR 43, 72 FR 4645, 72 FR 

31185). EPA today is not authorizing 

Virginia to delist wastes. With regard to 

waste delisted as a hazardous waste by 

EPA, the authority of the Department of 

Environmental Quality is limited to 

recognition of the waste as a delisted 

waste in Virginia, and the supervision of 

waste management activities for the 

delisted waste when the activities occur 

within the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Virginia is not authorized to delist 

wastes on behalf of the EPA, or to 

otherwise administer any case decision 

to issue, revoke, or continue a delisting 

of a waste by EPA. 

2. Rules for Which Virginia Is Not 

Seeking Authorization 

Virginia is not seeking authorization 

for the following RCRA revisions that 

are found in 40 CFR as of December 31, 

2010: 

(a) Virginia is not seeking 

authorization for the Revision to the 

Definition of Solid Waste rule (October 

30, 2008, 73 FR 64668) 

(b) Virginia is not seeking 

authorization for the Withdrawl of the 

Emission Comparable Fuel Exclusion 

(June 15, 2010, 75 FR 33712) because 

Virginia adopted the Expansion of the 

RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion 

(December 19, 2008, 73 FR 77954) 

without the emission comparable fuel 

exclusion provisions that were 

subsequently withdrawn in this rule. 

I. Who handles permits after this 

authorization takes effect? 

After this authorization, Virginia 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 that we issued prior to the 

effective date of this authorization. Until 

such time as formal transfer of EPA 

permit responsibility to Virginia occurs 

and EPA terminates its permit, EPA and 

Virginia agree to coordinate the 

administration of permits in order to 

maintain consistency. We will not issue 

any more new permits or new portions 

of permits for the provisions listed in 

Section G after the effective date of this 

authorization. EPA will continue to 

implement and issue permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Virginia is not 

yet authorized. 

J. How does this action affect Indian 

country (18 U.S.C. 115) in Virginia? 

Virginia is not seeking authorization 

to operate the program on Indian lands, 

since there are no Federally-recognized 

Indian lands in Virginia. 

K. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying Virginia’s hazardous waste 

program as authorized in this rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste program into the Code 

of Federal Regulations. We do this by 

referencing the authorized State rules in 

40 CFR part 272. We reserve the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

VV, for this authorization of Virginia’s 

program revisions until a later date. 

L. Administrative Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has exempted this action from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 

therefore this action is not subject to 

review by OMB. This action authorizes 

State requirements for the purpose of 

RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small 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 (Pub. L. 104–4). For 

the same reason, this action would not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of Tribal governments, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In any 

case, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule since there are no 

Federally recognized tribes in the State 

of Virginia. 

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 that may 

disproportionately affect children. This 

rule is not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a 

State’s application for authorization as 

long as the State meets the criteria 

required by RCRA. It would thus be 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
54182 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

3701, et seq.) do not apply. As required 

by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 

(61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in 

issuing this rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 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. 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.). 

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. 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); this 

action will be effective November 4, 

2013. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Indian lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

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

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

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21378 Filed 8–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 593 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0092] 

List of Nonconforming Vehicles 

Decided To Be Eligible for Importation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document revises the list 

of vehicles not originally manufactured 

to conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards (FMVSS) that NHTSA 

has decided to be eligible for 

importation. This list is published in an 

appendix to the agency’s regulations 

that prescribe procedures for import 

eligibility decisions. The list has been 

revised to add all vehicles that NHTSA 

has decided to be eligible for 

importation since October 1, 2012, and 

to remove all previously listed vehicles 

that are now more than 25 years old and 

need no longer comply with all 

applicable FMVSS to be lawfully 

imported. NHTSA is required by statute 

to publish this list annually in the 

Federal Register. 

DATES: The revised list of import eligible 

vehicles is effective on September 3, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366–5308. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 

U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle 

that was not originally manufactured to 

conform to all applicable FMVSS shall 

be refused admission into the United 

States unless NHTSA has decided that 

the motor vehicle is substantially 

similar to a motor vehicle originally 

manufactured for importation into and 

sale in the United States, certified under 

49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model 

year as the model of the motor vehicle 

to be compared, and is capable of being 

readily altered to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS. Where there is no 

substantially similar U.S.-certified 

motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) 

permits a nonconforming motor vehicle 

to be admitted into the United States if 

its safety features comply with, or are 

capable of being altered to comply with, 

all applicable FMVSS based on 

destructive test data or such other 

evidence as the Secretary of 

Transportation decides to be adequate. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1), import 

eligibility decisions may be made ‘‘on 

the initiative of the Secretary of 

Transportation or on petition of a 

manufacturer or importer registered 

under [49 U.S.C. 30141(c)].’’ The 

Secretary’s authority to make these 

decisions has been delegated to NHTSA. 

The agency publishes notices of 

eligibility decisions as they are made. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2), a list of 

all vehicles for which import eligibility 

decisions have been made must be 

published annually in the Federal 

Register. On October 1, 1996, NHTSA 

added the list as an appendix to 49 CFR 

Part 593, the regulations that establish 

procedures for import eligibility 

decisions (61 FR 51242). As described 

in the notice, NHTSA took that action 

to ensure that the list is more widely 

disseminated to government personnel 

who oversee vehicle imports and to 

interested members of the public. See 61 

FR 51242–43. In the notice, NHTSA 

expressed its intention to annually 

revise the list as published in the 

appendix to include any additional 

vehicles decided by the agency to be 

eligible for importation since the list 

was last published. See 61 FR 51243. 

The agency stated that issuance of the 

document announcing these revisions 

will fulfill the annual publication 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2). 

Ibid. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations about whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review 

and to the requirements of the Executive 

Order. The Executive Order defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affects in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES