[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 158 (Friday, August 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49611-49615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17180]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[EPA-R09-UST-2020-0258; FRL-10013-09-Region 9]


Hawaii: Proposed Authorization of Underground Storage Tank 
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Hawaii has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) for updated authorization of changes made to its underground 
storage tank (UST) program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (RCRA), as amended, since the previous authorization of Hawaii's 
UST program in September 2002. The EPA has reviewed Hawaii's 
application and has

[[Page 49612]]

tentatively determined that these changes satisfy all requirements 
needed to qualify for the requested updated authorization. Therefore, 
we are proposing to authorize the State's changes. The EPA seeks public 
comment prior to taking final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
UST-2020-0258 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
pallarino.bob@epa.gov. For comments submitted at https://www.regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
https://www.regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA 
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, 
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission 
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are 
available at https://www.regulations.gov. We encourage electronic 
submittals but if you are unable to submit electronically, need 
assistance in a language other than English, are a person with 
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, or 
need other assistance, please reach out to the person identified in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The federal www.regulations.gov website 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not 
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use 
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 
defects or viruses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pallarino, Project Officer, 
Underground Storage Tank Program Office, LND-4-3, U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, pallarino.bob@epa.gov, (415) 
947-4128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are State programs approved?

    Section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, authorizes the EPA to 
approve State UST programs to operate in the State in lieu of the 
federal UST program, subject to the authority retained by the EPA in 
accordance with RCRA. Program approval may be granted by the EPA 
pursuant to RCRA section 9004(b), if the EPA finds that the State 
program: (1) Is ``no less stringent'' than the federal program for the 
seven elements set forth at RCRA section 9004(a)(1) through (7); (2) 
includes the notification requirements of RCRA section 9004(a)(8); and 
(3) provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with UST standards 
of RCRA section 9004(a). Note that RCRA sections 9005 (on information-
gathering) and 9006 (on federal enforcement) by their terms apply even 
in states with programs approved by the EPA under RCRA section 9004. 
Thus, the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 9005 and 9006, 
42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and 
regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions 
in approved states. With respect to such an enforcement action, the EPA 
will rely on federal sanctions, federal inspection authorities, and 
federal procedures rather than the state authorized analogues to these 
provisions.

B. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States that have received final approval from the EPA under RCRA 
section 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), must maintain an UST 
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent 
than the Federal UST program. When the EPA makes revisions to the 
regulations that govern the UST program, states must revise their 
programs to comply with the updated regulations and submit these 
revisions to the EPA for approval. Changes to state UST 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 the EPA's regulations 
in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 280. States can also 
initiate changes on their own to their UST program and these changes 
must then be approved by the EPA.

C. What decisions has the EPA made in this proposed rule?

    On October 8, 2018, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Hawaii 
submitted a complete program revision application seeking approval for 
its UST program revisions corresponding to the EPA final rule published 
on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566), which finalized revisions to the 1988 
UST regulation and to the 1988 state program approval (SPA) regulation. 
As required by 40 CFR 281.20, the State submitted the following: A 
transmittal letter from the Governor requesting approval, a description 
of the program and operating procedures, a demonstration of the State's 
procedures to ensure adequate enforcement, a Memorandum of Agreement 
outlining the roles and responsibilities of the EPA and the 
implementing agency, a statement of certification from the Attorney 
General, and copies of all relevant State statutes and regulations. The 
EPA has reviewed the Hawaii application for updated UST Program 
authorization and has tentatively determined that the revisions to 
Hawaii's UST program are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less 
stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in Subpart C of 
40 CFR part 281, and that the Hawaii program provides for adequate 
enforcement of compliance (40 CFR 281.11(b)). Therefore, the EPA is 
proposing to grant Hawaii approval to operate its UST program with the 
changes described in the program revision application as outlined 
below.
    The EPA will consider all public comments on its proposed approval 
received in writing during the public comment period. Issues raised by 
those comments may be the basis for a decision to deny final approval 
to Hawaii's request for updated authorization. The EPA will make a 
final decision on whether to approve the subject changes to Hawaii's 
program

[[Page 49613]]

after the close of the public comment period and will give notice of it 
in the Federal Register. The document will include a summary of the 
reasons for the final determination and a response to all major 
comments.

D. What is the effect of this action?

    This action does not impose additional requirements on the 
regulated community because the requirements that are the subject of 
this proposed rule are already effective in the State of Hawaii, and 
they are not changed by this action. This action merely proposes 
approval of the existing State requirements as meeting the federal 
requirements and would thereby render them federally enforceable.

E. What happens if the EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

    If the EPA receives comments on this proposed action, we will 
address all such comments in a later final rule. You are unlikely to 
have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this 
proposed authorization, you should do so at this time.

F. What has Hawaii previously been authorized for?

    Hawaii initially received final authorization on September 25, 
2002, effective September 30, 2002 (67 FR 60161) to implement the UST 
program. On September 17, 2008, the EPA codified the approved Hawaii 
program that is subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement 
authorities under RCRA sections 9005 and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 
6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions (73 FR 
53742).

G. What changes are we proposing with today's action?

    In order to be approved, each state program application must meet 
the general requirements in 40 CFR 281.11, and specific requirements in 
40 CFR 281 Subpart B (Components of a Program Application); Subpart C 
(Criteria for No Less Stringent); and Subpart D (Adequate Enforcement 
of Compliance). This also is true for proposed revisions to approved 
state programs.
    As more fully described below, the State has made the changes to 
its approved UST program to reflect the 2015 Federal Revisions. The EPA 
is proposing to approve the State's changes because they are equivalent 
to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal UST program 
and because the EPA has confirmed that the Hawaii UST program will 
continue to provide for adequate enforcement of compliance, as required 
by 40 CFR 281.11(b) and part 281, Subpart D.
    The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) is the lead implementing 
agency for the UST program in Hawaii. The HDOH continues to have broad 
statutory authority to regulate the installation, operation, 
maintenance, and closure of USTs, as well as UST releases under Hawaii 
Revised Statutes (HRS) 342L-1 through 342L-53. The Hawaii UST Program 
gets its enforcement authority from the powers and duties of the HDOH 
Director (Director) found in HRS 342L-8. Under HRS 342L-7 the Director 
is authorized to require an owner to furnish records, conduct 
monitoring or testing, and provide access to tanks. Under the powers 
granted to the Director, the HDOH is authorized to issue installation 
and operating permits (HRS342L-31). Permits must be renewed every five 
years (HRS342L-4). Penalties for non-compliance with Hawaii's UST 
statutes may be assessed under HRS342L-10. HRS342L-32.5 allows the HDOH 
to place a delivery prohibition tag on a tank for failure to have, or 
act in accordance with, a permit, spill and overfill prevention, 
required tank and/or piping leak detection, corrosion protection, or 
maintain financial responsibility.
    Specific authorities to regulate the installation, operation, 
maintenance, and closure of USTs, as well as UST releases, are found 
under Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), effective July 15, 2018, 
section 11-280.1-1 through section 11-280.1-429 Underground Storage 
Tanks. Reporting and recordkeeping authorities and requirements are 
found under HRS section 342L-7, HRS section 342L-7.5, and HAR section 
11.280.1-34. The EPA has tentatively determined that the aforementioned 
statutory sections and regulations satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 
281.40 and 281.41.
    The State of Hawaii and the EPA have signed a Memorandum of 
Agreement (MOA), which will be effective at the time the EPA publishes 
its final decision to grant UST program approval to the changes to the 
State's UST program. This MOA provides that the State will continue to 
be the primary implementation agency for the UST Program in Hawaii and 
will continue to allow the EPA to conduct oversight and reviews of the 
State's efforts. The MOA also specifies how the EPA and the State will 
continue to share information.
    The State's changes to its UST program do not affect the continued 
compliance of the State's statutes and rules with the public 
participation provisions contained in 40 CFR 281.42. HRS section 342L-
12.5 provides that any person may intervene in any civil action to 
enforce the State's statutes and rules, if that person has an interest 
that is, or may be, adversely affected.
    To qualify for approval, revisions to a state's program must be 
``equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent'' than the 
federal program, in this case, the 2015 Federal Revisions. In the 2015 
Federal Revisions, EPA addressed UST systems deferred in the 1988 UST 
regulations and added, among other things: New operation and 
maintenance requirements; secondary containment requirements for new 
and replaced tanks and piping; operator training requirements; and a 
requirement to ensure UST system compatibility before storing certain 
biofuel blends. In addition, the EPA removed past deferrals for 
emergency generator tanks, field constructed tanks, and airport hydrant 
systems. The EPA analyzes revisions to approved state programs pursuant 
to the criteria found in 40 CFR 281.30 through 281.39.
    The HDOH has revised its regulations to help ensure that the 
State's UST program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and 
no less stringent than the 2015 Federal Revisions. The HDOH has 
repealed its previous UST rules, chapter 11-281, Hawaii Administrative 
Rules (HAR), and adopted a new chapter 11-280.1, HAR, effective July 
15, 2018. The EPA has tentatively determined that the revised HAR 
addresses all the requirements of 40 CFR 281.30-281.39 and are at least 
as stringent, but in some cases more stringent or broader in scope, 
than the federal UST regulations. Hawaii rules that are broader in 
scope than the federal UST rules are discussed in more detail in 
Section I.H. of this document.
    As part of the State Application, the Hawaii Attorney General 
certified that the State revisions meet the requirements ``equivalent 
to, consistent with, and no less stringent'' criteria in 40 CFR 281.30 
through 281.39. The EPA is relying on this certification, the analysis 
submitted by the State and our own review in making this decision to 
propose approval of the State's updated authorization application.

H. Where are the State's revised rules different from the Federal 
rules?

Broader in Scope Provisions

    Where an approved state program has a greater scope of coverage 
than required by federal law, the additional coverage is not part of 
the federally approved program and is not federally enforceable (40 CFR 
281.12(a)(3)(ii)). The following paragraphs describe the

[[Page 49614]]

State rules that are considered broader in coverage than the federal 
program, as these State-only regulations are not required by federal 
regulation and are implemented by the State in addition to the 
federally approved program.
    Hawaii's definitions of ``regulated substance'' at HRS section 
342L-1 and section 11-280.1-12 are broader in scope than the federal 
definitions of ``regulated substance.'' For the most part, the 
definitions in the State and federal statutes and regulations are the 
same except that the State includes in its definitions ``any other 
substance designated by the department that, when released into the 
environment, may present substantial danger to human health, welfare, 
or the environment.'' These definitions are broader in scope to the 
extent that Hawaii includes substances that are designated as regulated 
substances by the HDOH, pursuant to subsection (3) of Hawaii's 
definition of the term, which are neither (a) ``any substance defined 
in section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (but not including any 
substance regulated as a hazardous waste under subtitle C [of RCRA]'' 
or (b) ``[p]etroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof that 
is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (60 
degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute).''
    HAR section 11-280.1-21 requires that all UST systems be upgraded 
to secondary containment by a firm fixed date, July 15, 2028, except 
for field constructed tanks and airport hydrant systems, which must be 
provided with secondary containment by July 15, 2038. This aspect of 
Hawaii's program is broader in scope than the federal program since the 
federal UST program does not require all UST systems to be upgraded to 
provide secondary containment, only newly (after the effective date of 
the federal UST rule) installed or repaired tanks or piping.
    HAR section 11-280.1-23 and HAR section 11-280.1-42 require 
hazardous substance USTs to use interstitial monitoring and be 
secondarily contained with no exceptions. As long as the implementing 
agency approves, the federal program allows hazardous substance USTs 
installed prior to October 13, 2015 to use alternative release 
detection methods if specific conditions are met. This aspect of 
Hawaii's program, mandating the use of interstitial monitoring as the 
only release detection method for all hazardous substance UST systems, 
is broader in scope than the federal program to the extent it applies 
to hazardous substance USTs installed prior to October 13, 2015, where 
the specific conditions referenced in 40 CFR 280.42(e) of the federal 
rules are met.
    HAR section 11-280.1-34(a) requires notifications to the HDOH when 
changes are made to the UST system, which is broader in scope than the 
federal requirements. Federal UST rules only require notification of 
existing or newly installed UST systems or when UST systems are 
switched to storing certain regulated substances.
    HAR section11-280.1-53(b)(2) and section 11-451-6(b)(4) establish a 
``reportable quantity'' threshold for trichloropropane of 10 lbs. Since 
the federal program does not require reporting of releases of 
trichloropropane, this requirement of the State's program is broader in 
scope than the federal program to this limited extent.
    HAR section 11-280.1-61.1 requires owners and operators to post 
signs around the perimeter of a site where contamination poses an 
immediate health risk or where contaminated media is exposed to the 
surface, if the Department determines that the posting of such signs is 
appropriate. This requirement is broader in scope than the federal UST 
program, which does not include an analogous provision.
    HAR section 11-280.1-67 requires public notification in the event 
of a confirmed release. This requirement is broader in scope than the 
federal UST program, which only requires public notification when an 
implementing agency requires a corrective action plan.
    HAR 11-280.1-300 through 11-280.1-335 require permits for the 
installation and operation of USTs. Permits must be renewed regularly. 
There is no federal requirement for USTs to be permitted either at 
installation or during operation. This aspect of Hawaii's program is 
broader in scope than the federal program since the federal UST program 
does not include analogous permitting requirements.
    HRS 342L-14 allows the Director of the Department to establish fees 
for department services. HAR 11-280.1-335 specifies the amounts for 
various fees for permit and variance applications. This provision of 
Hawaii's UST program is broader in scope because there are no federal 
requirements which address the establishment of fees for services.
    Hawaii's UST program contains provisions that allow the State to 
grant variances. The Hawaii Attorney General's Office has indicated 
that such variances may be granted where State rules are broader in 
scope than the federal regulations. To the extent that such variances 
are granted, and the resulting requirements imposed pursuant to such 
variances are broader in scope than the federal UST requirements, the 
requirements imposed by such variances will not be federally 
enforceable as part of the authorized State program. However, to the 
extent that any variances are issued for aspects of the State's program 
that result in the imposition of requirements which are merely more 
stringent than the federal UST requirements, as opposed to broader in 
scope, the resulting requirements of such variances will be federally 
enforceable as part of the authorized State program. The following 
provisions pertain to Hawaii's variance requirements: HRS section 342L-
1 (definition of ``variance''); HRS section 342L-5 (variance allowed); 
HRS section 342L-6 (procedures for variances); HAR 11-280.1-12 
(definition of ``variance''); HAR 11-280.1-332 (variance allowed); and 
HAR 11-280.1-333 (variance applications).

II. Codification

A. What is codification, and will EPA codify Hawaii's UST program as 
proposed in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing citations and references to 
the state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's 
authorized UST program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does 
this by adding those citations and references to the authorized state 
rules in 40 CFR part 282. EPA is not proposing to codify the 
authorization of Hawaii's changes at this time. However, EPA intends to 
amend 40 CFR part 282, subpart B for any updated authorization of 
Hawaii's program changes at a later date.

III. Statutory and Executive Order (E.O.) Reviews

    This action only applies to Hawaii's UST Program requirements 
pursuant to RCRA Section 9004 and imposes no requirements other than 
those imposed by state law. It complies with applicable EOs and 
statutory provisions as follows:

A. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action 
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 
1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011). This action proposes to 
approve state requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 9004 and 
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by

[[Page 49615]]

state law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 
3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as this proposed 
approval of Hawaii's revised underground storage tank program under 
RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. 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.).

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 13175: Consultation 
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Because this action proposes to approve and codify 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, and because there are no 
federally recognized Tribes within the State, this proposed 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).

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed 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, Aug. 10, 1999), because it merely proposes approval of state 
requirements as part of the State RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program 
without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by RCRA.

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    This proposed action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
(62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant, and it does not make decisions based on environmental 
health or safety risks.

F. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under RCRA section 9004(b), the EPA grants a state's application 
for approval as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. 
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it 
reviews a state approval 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.

H. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, the EPA has taken the 
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct.

I. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, Mar. 
15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the proposed 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.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would 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).

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 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 proposed rule would 
approve pre-existing state rules which are at least equivalent to, 
consistent with, and no less stringent than existing federal 
requirements, and would impose no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law, and there would be no anticipated significant 
adverse human health or environmental effects, the proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 12898.

L. Congressional Review Act

    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. The EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action on 
this proposal. The proposed rule will not become effective until the 
EPA makes a final decision on whether or not to approve the subject 
changes to Hawaii's program and gives notice of that final decision in 
the Federal Register. At that time, the EPA will submit a report 
containing the final decision 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 proposed rule is issued under the authority of 
Sections 2002(a), 7004(b), and 9004, 9005 and 9006 of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), and 
6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, State 
program approval, Program revisions update, and Underground storage 
tanks.

    Dated: July 30, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2020-17180 Filed 8-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


