2010-24925. Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Correction

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

On July 31, 2009, EPA published a direct final action granting a petition submitted by WRB Refining, LLC Company to exclude (or delist) the thermal desorber residual solids with Hazardous Waste Numbers: F037, F038, K048, K049, K050, and K051. In the July 31, 2009 rule, EPA inadvertently recorded the arsenic delisting level as 0.0129 mg/l. The arsenic delisting limit should be 1.29 mg/l. We are making this correction in this document.

DATES:

This action is effective October 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Peace [phone], or e-mail her at [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

EPA published an approval for 5,000 cubic yards of thermal desorber residual solids. The arsenic delisting exclusion limit in the direct final rule is incorrect. Therefore, in this correction notice we are correcting the arsenic value limit and correcting it in Table 1 of appendix IX to part 261—Waste Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is such good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting the error which was included in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers health and safety risks to infants and children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. As stated previously, we made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore and established an effective date of October 5, 2010. This correction to the WRB Refining, LLC, located in Borger, TX exclusion is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 et seq (2).

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

• Environmental protection
• Hazardous waste
• Recycling
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

Dated: September 23, 2010.

Bill Luthans,

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

2. In Tables 1 of Appendix IX to Part 261 revise paragraph (1) of the entry for “WRB Refining LLC” the following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22

Table 1—Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources

Facility	Address	Waste description
*         *         *         *         *         *         *
WRB Refining, LLC	Borger, TX	(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph. Thermal Desorber Residual Solid Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—0.165; Arsenic—1.29; Barium—54.8; Beryllium—0.119; Cadmium—0.139; Chromium—3.23; Chromium, Hexavalent—3.23; Cobalt—20.7; Copper—38.6; Cyanide—4.69; Lead—1.07; Mercury—0.104; Nickel—20.6; Selenium—1.0; Silver—5.0; Tin—3790.00; Vanadium—1.46; Zinc—320.0.
*         *         *         *         *         *         *