002043

41796 Federal Register I Vol. SG, No. 154/Thursday, August 9, 2001/ Rules and Regulation~

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-702~]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EnVironmental PTotcction Agency (l::.t'A) ie> granting a petition submitted by Tenneco Automotive (Tenneco) to exclude frum hazardous wastA control (or deli~;t) eccrt11in solid waste. This final role responl.l:s to the petitiun submitted by T11nMco to delist F006 stshilb:ed sludge on a ''gcuerator spedfic" basis from the !illts tlf h~tzardous waste.

Af\cr r.areful analysis wd use of the Delisting Risk /\ssesarnent Soft war~:~. the EPA Ms ~onduded the petitioned waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in SubtitiP. 0 landfills. Thill exclusion applies to 1 ,800 cubic yards of ~f:av~ttcd stabilized waste water treatmt~nt :;ludge cuttently stored in r.;outeinmet~t cells at TP.T&neco's l'aregould. Arkansas facility. ll.ccordiugly. thia i>nal rule mfdudAs the petitioned waste from the requirements of huard11us waste rcgulatiuns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposerl of in SubtitleD landfills. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9. Z001.

ADDResses: The public docket for this final role is located at the U.S. !::nv.i.ronmenral Protection Agency R~:~gion 6, 1445 Ross Avenur., Dalles, Texas 75204!, and i!l available for viewing in the EPA Yreedorn of !urormation Act review room on the 7th floor from 9:00 a.~1. to 4:00 p.m .. Monday through Friday, nchHiing Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The reference numb11r for this docket is "F-00-ARDEL­TENNJ::CO ... The public may copy material from any regulerory docket ar no cost fo.r the first 100 p~gea and at a cost of so. tS per page for additional copies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For· general information, cont11ct Bill · Gt!llaghcr. U.S. Environmental Protection .Agency. 1445 Ross II. venue. Dallas, TexAs at (211) 665-6775. For technical information concerning this notice, contact Michelle Peace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1445 Ross Avenue, Dall11s .• Texas, (214) 666-7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION! The information in this section is

organi%ed as follow:_.:

J. Ovu1'Vi.ew Information A. Wbal rule js EPA firulliZing! · 13. Why is EPA. i.lppro\1\ns this dalistingT c Whal are the li.mit.f ur thi., exeluaion? D. How will Tenneco menage the waste lf

ills delisted? E. When i& tbali.nal delis tins exclusion

effiM:IiV117 F. How d~ thi• final rule affvct states!

u.aaclr,grouncl. A. What is a delisting petition? B. Wh4t f"glllation~ allow fa~;ilitie$ to

deli$t a waste? C. Whallnformation must \he gen~~rator

supply7 lll. EPA's Eva!u:~tion of the Wesle Data

A.. Whill waste did Tennet:u petitinn EPA to delisl?

D. How much W'8lite ~lid Tann~'O P,...P~" tu deli:<t?

C. How diJ Tenn"" sample ;~nd an11lyze tha waste data in this petition?

IV. Public Co:mmenLS Recelvvd on the Proposed Exclusion 1\. Who s~o~l:rmit.ted COIIUflenls nn tbe

propOlied rule? B. ,R .. $ponse to Commflnts.

L Q,en-iew Infonnation

A Whot Action Is EPA Finalizingr /\fter evaluating the petition, EPA

proposed, on May 11, 200t to Axclude the Tenneco waste from the lists of ha~dous wastv.s under §§261.3' and 261.32 (see 66 ~ 24065). The EPA is finalizing:

(1) The decision tu grant Tenneco's petition to have its wastewater treatment sludge excludell. or delistcd. from the definition of a hazardous waste. subject to certain continued monitoring conditions; and

(2} The decision to use the Delishng Risk Assessment Software. which includes the EPACMTP fate and transport model, to evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned wilste on human health and the environment. The Agency used this model to predict the concentration nf hazardous constituents releued from the }Jetitioned waste, onCM it is disposed ii'I a Subtitle D landfill.

B. Why Is EPA Approv;ng ThJs n,.disting?

Tenneco's petition requests a delisting for li:lted ha%atdous waste!'. Tenneco does not believe the petitioned waste meets tht:r criteria for which EPA listed it as a hazardous waste, Tenneco also believes no ilddilional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be ha1.ardous. EPA's re"iew ofthia petition included consideration of the original listing criteria and the additional £actors requited by the Hazardous and Sulid Waste 1\rnendmenls of 1984 (HSWA).

See t;Cction 3001(£) of RCRA. 42 U.S.G. 6921(0. and 40 CFR Z60.ZZ (d)(1)-(4). In making thP. final deli~ti.ng dr.termination, k:P A also cvt~lua1Ad \he petitioned wasre against rhe listing criteria and factors cited in ~§ 261.11Ca)(2) and (a)(3). Bilsed on this review,the l.PA agreas with the petitioner thfl waste is nonl1azardous with respect to the originallistins criteria. If lhP. EPA had found. based on this review, the waste remained ha%8rdoua b<~sed on the factors for which the waste was originally. listed. EPA would havtl pro'('nsed to denv the petition. The EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other facton; or criteria to assest; wh~:~ther lhere is a rea,;onable basis tu believe that such adrlition&l factors could C".au:ae the waste to he ha:tardous. The I!PA consitlP.red whcther the w~:~stc is acutely toxic. thv. concenttation uf the collStituents in th~ waste. their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their pel'l'istenr.c in the environment once released from the wa:;te, plau:;ible and sp~cific \ypc:; of management of the patitioned waste. thA qvantities of waste gPnerAted. IUld waste variability. The EPA believe' the petitioned wasre does not meet tu~se criteria. EPA's final decision to delisf waste from Tenneco's facility is based on the information submitted by Tenneco in its ~tition, inchtcling desaiptions of the stabilization leC' .. hniques ancl anAlytical clat.'l from the Par"sould, AR facility.

C. Wllat Are che Limits of This /J;'{c}IJsion'f

This exdu11ion applies to the waste described in the petition only if the requirtmonts rlescrihad in Table 1 of part 261 and the conditions contained hvrein ere s\lfisfied. This is a one·time exclusion for 1,800 cuhic yards of ~tabilizec.l wa:ste water treatment sludge.

D. Hnw Will Tenneco Manaxe tilr: W(jste It Is Dclistcd?

Tenneco currently stores the pAtitioned waste (stabili2:ed waste w~tcr tte1:1tment sludge) gel'lero:~ted in containment vaults o.n·site at its facility. 'T'sweco will dlspos~:: of the sludse in a Subtitle D solid waste landfill II\ Arkansas.

E. When Is the Final nP.Iisting Exclusion E:ffectiv,:? ·

This rule is effective A\1gust 9. 2001. The HazardoliS and Solid Wast11 Amendments of 1984 ;amendeu :>ection :-1010 of RC.RA. to ttllow rul~s to become effective in less than six mnntl1s aft~r the rule is published when the reg\llated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliiltlce. That i~

158866 I IIIII ~11111111 ~lllllllllllllllll

002044

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 154/Thursday, August 9, 2001/RulAs :md Regulations 41797

the ct~sa here because thi'> rule reduces, rather than increases. the mcisting requirements for persons geiH!rating hazardous waste~. This-reduction in tt~Cisliug requirement11 also' provides a basis for making this rule effective immediately, uvon publication, under the Administrative Procedure t\cl, pursuant to:, U.S.C. S53(d).

F. How f)oes This Pinnl Rule A/feet States?

Decause .!;;t-'A is issuing thJs exclu~>iou undar the Federal RCRA delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude two C".ategories of States: States having a dual system rhat includes Federal RCRA requirement~ <~nd their own requiremt~nts. and States who have raceived our autlrori?:ithon to mttke their own deli sting decisions.

liere are the details: We allow states to impose their own non·RCRA rAsullltCJry requirements that ""' more ~ningent th:m £PA's, under section 300!:1 of RCRJ\. Thc$0 morv stringent requirements may include a provision ilia! prohibits a federally issued cxclusiM from takiAg effect in the State. Because a dual system (lhat is. hoth Federal (Rt:M) and State (non-RCRAl programs) mi:ly l'egulate a pelitioneT's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the Slate regulatory authority to estahlizili the status ofth0ir waste$ under th~ State law.

EPA has also authorh:ed some States (for ex8.ll'lple. Loui:~iana, Georgia. Ill inoisl to ttdminister il dclisting program in place of the Federal progr11m. that is. to make Stt1h1 delisting decisions. Therefore. this exclusiun doe' not apply hi those authorized States. If Tenneco transports the potitioned '-""Ste to or m~nRgf!s the waste in any State with Jelisting authorization. TE!nneco must nhtaln deli sting authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as nonhtt7.ardous in the State.

n. Background

A. Whac Is a DfJiisring Pr:lition'?

A rlP.listing petition is a request from a generator to EPA or another agency with jurisdiction lo cxchuia from the list of ha1.ardous wa~es. wastes the generator believes should not be · considered hazardous under RCRA.

B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To J.)e/ist a Waste?

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. facilities may petition the EPl\ to remove their wastes from hazerdous waste regulatiuu by exclllding them

from the lists of hazardo\ls wastes contained in§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically. § 260.20 t~llows any person to petition the Administratur lo modify or revoko any provisiol\ of parts 2150 through 265 and 266 of Title 40 of the Cmlc of Fedsral Regulations. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a "ganerator-specific" basis from the hazardous waste lists.

C. Whar Information Must the Generator Supply?

Petitioners must provide sufficient information to the EPA to allow the EPA to determine that the waste to be e;,c;cluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition. the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a reasont~ble basis to believe that factors (including additir.mnl f:onstitucuts) other th;m those for which the waste was listed could cau~e the wastP. to be a hullrrlous waste. that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste 11s a hazardous waste.

IlL EPA's Evaluation oftbe Waste Data

A. What Wo~re Did Tenneco Peliliuu EPA ToDelist?

On September 6. 2000. Tenneco petitioned the EPA to exclude frum the lists of hazardous waste contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, a waste by­product (stabilized sludge from the wastewater treatment plant) which falls \mdec the classification of listed waste because of the "derived from" rule in Rt:RI\ 40 CFR 261.3. Specifit::11lly. in its petition, Tenneco .Automotive, lor.ated iu Paragould. Arkensas, requested that F.PA grant en exclusion for 1.800 cubic yards of $L;sLilized l'iludge from electroplating operations, excavated from the finch Road Lendfill and currently stored in containmenr cells. The resulting waste is listed, in accordance with § 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.tl., rhe "derived from" rule). The waste codl'l of the constifllP.nts of concern is EPA Hazt~rdous Waste No. F006. The constituents of concem for F006 arc ct~dmium, hvlCavalent chromium, nickel. and 1.:y•ulide (complexed).

B. How Mudl Waste Did Tenneco Propose To Delist?

Specifically, in its petition. Tenueco requested thl'lt EPA grant a one-time exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized sludge.

C. How Did Ttmnec:u Somple and AnalpP. rite Waste Dura in Thi.~ Peritianr

To suppurt its petition, Tenneco ~ubmittecl:

(1) Historical information on past waste generAtion and m11uagement practices:

(2) R~S\1 h.~ of the total constituent list for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX vOI:ltiles. semivnl~tiiiiR, and metals ex~":e_pt pesticiclr.s. herbicides, and PCBs;

(3] Rc~ult9 ofthe cnn!ttituant list for Appendix IX on Toxicity Characteristic La.'1c:hing Procedure (TCLPJ f!xrrac:r for volatiles. semivolatiles, and metals:

(4) Res\llts from total oil ilud gTe:\!lf!

analyses end pH measurements.

IV. Public Comme:nts Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Commt:rtts on the Proposed Rulv?

The I:.'PA receiwd public comments on the May 11, 2001. proposal from CcnBral Motors (GM).

B. Respon,;e To Comments

General Motors (CM) comments the tP.rrns used in the DRI\S ~hnuld be morfl clearly rJt:~fined. Does the term Cw for waste t:Ontl!mination account fur the tote~ I mass of contamination in the wa~IP. or only that portion thrtt may enter thA aqueous phase·~

All terms and equations used in tlu; DcHsting Risk Assessment Su11warc (DRASl program are discussed in the Delisting Technical Support Document (DTSD). All abbreviations. ar.ronyms. and variables are listed in Chapter 1, pages x-xx of the OTSD. The 11TSD is updated to reflect rcvisiomtAntl modifications to risk algorithms and methol:lolngy. The Agency encourage11 all u:oers and reviewers to commem on the technic:\! support r:lor.uml!ntation and continues to improve the clarity ilnd transparency of the DTSn. The lerm Cw is not used in the doC\tmAnt. Without ~pscific information to the pag~t location/screen location of the term referenced in the quelltion <1bove, nu further response can be providerl.

CM comments that the definition of the criteriH rn hP. used to determine de minimis risk levels and risk estimares should be provided fer a mooningful public review.

informAtion on the Risk and lla;~-'lrd Assessment can be fo,md in Chapter 4 of the DTSU. Discussion of critelia and quantifiuation of risk are di~cu~sed in this Chapter.

The Dclisting Program in its history has never focused on sitc·specitic conditions. It has since its incepllon

002045

41798 Federal Register I Vol. 66, No. 154/ Thursday, .August 9, 20011 Rules and Regulations

been a program specifically for waste generators. A review of thP. 40 CFR 260.22 indicalBS that these are pP.ritions to 11mend part 261 to exclude a waste produced at o. portir.ular t'acility. The Agency is not currently using the model to predict site-speci!ic N~sults. SincP. d\sposal of the de listed waste may ocr.ur at any Sublille C or n landfill in tha Uniter.l States. site-specific con~iderations an:s not usually given. The DRAS model ill based on narional averages of the sirr. specific factors and is intended to model a reasonable worst case scenario for disposal.

The Agenr.y continues to review chemical-specitic parameter data. Where appropriatf!, these data will be incorporated into the DRAS .malyllAS. However. ns explainl:ld above, in delisting anAlyses. site specific chllracteristics (bAyond waste constituent concentration and volume) are no~ inc:nrpuratcd into enalysos. Default values are given for many !J:lr:lmaters used i'n risk. Th..: Agenc:y can not fully evaluate how release: mechanisms and exposure ~cP.narios mt~y be impactAd because the fiMl dispo$;.~1 I~X:ation remains undefinP.r!.

GM comments that documentation of the sensitivity analysis ~hould be provided for a meaningfu I public reviaw.

The DRAS provides the forwud­calculated rislc level and badc.·calC\Iletfld alluwablfl waste concl!ntration for ftllC:h

exposure pathway,theroby permitting the user to rlell:cmine whir::h pathway drives the risk for a given chemic" I. These analyses ara ~.:urre.ntly provided for the user by the DRAS progrt~m on the Chemical-Specific Reemlts screen.

GM comments that unlikely scenariol' and assumptions which compound the release and risk efltimate:; should be justified.

The U.KAS model is intended ro model a reasonable worst case modal and ls based on national averages of those factol'j;. This is the same asswn21ion used for rhe EPACML.

The DRAS employs srandard risk assessment default parameters that arc :ir.r.P.ptP.d throughour the Agency in risk analyses (i.a., roside.ntial exposure@ 350 days/yr. selcctinn nf Lhe 90th percantil~). The~a default standards are d~saribed and listatl in AppP.nrlix A of thHDTSD.

The L>RAS does ~mploy a umservative approach to exposure assessment by assuming the receptor may be exposed to both the most sensitive gruLludwater pathway ancl the most sensitive surface e;~tposurc patbway. The Agem:y hiis no wey of

knowing that this situation will not occur and therefore deem' it prudent to protect fc.n: this conclltion by adding risks. Again. the Ag11ncy has no wily of lmnwing the direction of media now and must as5ume that ell media flow may mnvP. toward the receptor. The Agency has no data to indicate that the landfill volume data and other dala from the 1987landfill survey report is not valid. When updated data are avail a hiP., they will be incorporated into the analyses.

The groundwater fate and transport model used by the Agency to dctennine first order decay ;and other rrocesscs is the EPA'~ Composite Mode for ~..each .. ,e Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). This model has Leen peer reviewed and received an excellent review from the Science Advisory Board (SAB). EPA has proposed use of this SAB-reviewed model and no convincing comment~; to the contrary have been received.

The DRAS is complex and F.T'I\ must explain the models and risk processes wsc::d in eatablishing regulatory limit~:.

Attached to the De listing Risk A:;sessment Software is a Technical Support Document which explains th~ risk algorithms and documentation of the decisions made in development of the model. Publication cost!! prohibit the inclusion of all this infonnation inln the Federal Register notice but it is readily .,vailable in both the Technical Support Document and at the Region 6 Delisti'ng pa.se (MVW.epa.sovlearth1/r61 pd-olpd-o.htm). However, the Agency believes that thP. Delisting Risk Assessment Software is no more complex than use oft he EPACML for deli5ting. just because the calculations have been computerized ma.lr.e them no more difficult to understand than the EPAGML. Similar regression mudcls were developed for the DRAS. The risk pathwilyll for surface Wilttr and 11ir volatilization are evaluated by the samP equations used previously in the delisting program. And rmally, the pathways for showering and dermal contact are equations which are commo'nly used in risk assessments perform11d for cleanups and site • as!lessments under the Comprehensive Environment11l Rasponse, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) commonly known a:o; Supetfl.lnd and other programs.

GM comments that model should be peer reviewed and the public should have the formal opportunity to provide comments.

Tha model has been peer reviewed by EPA risk asse!l~:~ora and E'l'A's Office l)f

Research and Development scientist5. The public hit:> the opportunity to comment on the me of lhe DRM; motl~:~l each time a deli sting is proposBd which is based on the DRAS model. Th~o: Agency i~ currently l•Sing the same level of public review used by the d~listing program for use of the EPA Composite Model for Landfill:> in 1991. Thu model as modified for the delisting program was promulgated in conjunr.hon with its use in ttvaluating the Reynolds Metals 0Glisting petition. SP.P., !i6 YR 32993 Uuly 18, 1991}. No challenge was "'"'de to procedures for promulgating thl!u.~ uf the EPACML in delisting evaluations.

Summary of GM Comments

CM $Ummarues it$ r.nmmants on the DRAS by stating !h;!t (1) EPA is prop<»ing sisnifie<~nt r.h3nges to th~ methodology it uset> to evaluate rlelisting petitions. It appear!! the changes would apply to all future de listing pclitiona. (2) The proposed changes are complex. (3) It appears the proposed changes would apply in all USEPA Regions. (4) The proposed ch11nges u1ay i11clude clement!! of the still-draft. unpromulgated. and controversial HWJR waste model. Tt is inappropriate and contrary to lew and the Administratlva Procedur~s Ac:t to use A model prior to public notice and comment. (fl) No Federal Register noli~.;.-. has been given to clearly indicate thB F.P A plans to cliange the way it reviews end evaluates delisting petitions. lnstead, references to the change~ in the model have bean made as part of propo:>als to delist specific wa~te stream~. (6) If EPA is changing U1e model it usBs to evaluate cfelisting petitions (from the EPAC:ML to the DRAS model) USEPA should provide specific anrl clear public.: notification of this intent. The risk assessment methodology fnr delisting that hR~ heen used since 1991 should still a.pply until public review period is r.ompiAtad.

The EPA i~ following tlut same notice provided for changing from the VHS model to the EPA Compo:tita Model for Landfills (EPACML). See 56 FR 321193, July 18, 1991. The public has tha opportunity lu cumment on the DRJ\S model each lime a delisting is proposed whit:h is based on tht~ DRJ\S modal. General Motors has not stated en y reason why the DRAS model is not appropriate for use in evaluating the risk associated with the Tenneco Delislins. EPA will consider use of alternatives model for allsAssing risk if the comments received shuw that another model is more appropriate nnder the circumstances.

General Motors states that use of mode:! with public review and cornmenr

002046

Federal Register I Vol. 66, No. 154/Thursday, August 9, 2001/ Rules and RPcgulations 41799

is a violation of the Admiuistrative Procsdnres Act and law. Opportunity for public review and co~m€nt i" provided for each rlelisting petition. Comments are requested for each delistins decision regarriing the decision to delist the wasta and use of a model to a!l~ess the ri3k. poeed to h11man health nnd the environment. Each time the model i:> u.sed. j\151 ilS wilh thG u~e of the EP ACML. 1h" public and interested stakeholders c.~ r.omment on th9 approprialanes:; of thA Wle. ln fat..'t, each proposed ruls fur approving :~ deli,.tiug propose.~ the use of a model in the cvalU<~.tion of risk and askl'i for commant. Examples can hG seen in the Federal Register for the EPACML 85 well as rhe DRAS. Sea, 56 FR 32993 Ouly 18. 1991). 64 FR 44867 (August 18, 1999), md 65 FR 75641 (DRcember4. 2000). Any petitioner or interested party m11y sugsQSt more 11ppropriate ~valuation tools for predicting risk. Thus. £PA hP-lieves that adequate public notice has been provided and the APA has not been viol~ted.

V. Regulatory Impact

Under F.xecutive Order 12866. EPA must r:nndu.;t an "assessment of the potential costs and benefits" tor ell "sienificant" regnlatol)' actions. The final to grant an exclusion i!'. not significant. ,;ince its effect, if promulgated, would be to rednce the overall co~ts and econc>mic impact of .EPA's hazardous waste mana,.~cment regulations. This TAduct ion would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a !!pccific bcility frnm EPA's lists of haz:ardous wastes. thereby enabling this f~tc.;llity to m~tru~gR its waste itS

nonhazardous. There is no addirional lmp<~t:t therefor~. due lo this final rule. TI1erefore, this proposal would not be a significant regulation and no cost/ benefit asses..;menl is required. The Office of Manag!Wlent And Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB n;\fiii'W under section (fi) of Executive Order 12866.

VI. Regulalory Flexibility Act

Pttrsuanr to tbc Re,;ulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 601-612. whenever an agency is required 10 publl:>h il generul notir:c of rulemaklng for any proposed or final rule, it rnWit prepare and mttk.c avail11ble for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which d.,.:cribe~ the impact of the rule on ttmall enlitie!l (i.e., ~>mall businAsses, small organi:tJ~tions, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required how11ver if the Administrator or delegated representative certifies the n1le will not have any impact on a small entities.

This rule if promlllgated, will nol have an 01dverse economic impact ou small t':ntities since its effect would bll to reduce rhe overall costs of :EPA's hazardou6 wash: regulatio.ns. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this regulation, if promulgmd, will not have a significant economic impact on a !lubstantial number of small entities. This regulanon thenfore, does not require a regulator)' fle.:dbility analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Ar:t

Information collection and recordkeeping req\1iremant..s associated with this final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB} under the pt"ovisions of the PapetWor.lc Reduction Act of 1960 (P.T.. 95-511. 4-l U.S.C. 3501 ct seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Numher 205()-()053.

VW. Unfunded Mandates RefunD Act

Under section Z02 of the Unfunded M:mdates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995. EPA must prepare a written !Otatement for rules with Feder"l mandates that may result in etttimated costs to State, loca1. and tribal govGl'nme11t" in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in ;tny onP. year. When such a statement is Nquired for EPA. rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EP 1\ m\lst identify and consider alternatives. including the least costly, mo10t cost­llffective or least lrurdensome alternative thtll achieves the objectives <~hhe rule. £PA. must select that alternative, unless tJ1e Awulo\strator explains in thP. final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law. Before EPI\ establishes regulatory requirements thAt may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal goverrunents, it must dewlap under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. Th11 plan m\lst provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving th\!u\ muningful and timely input in the development of EPA r9gulatory propn~11ls with significant Federal intergovernmental mandares. and informine. AdUC$ting, and 11dvising tAflm on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regul<.~rory purposes as one that impo,.es an enforceable duty upon State.loC<ll. m tribal gov~mmcnt~ or the private S('!t:tor. The EPA finds that this final delisting decision ts deTllgulatory in nature and does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local, or trii.Jal governmc.:ms or rhe private sector. In addition, the fmal d.Clillting does not estitblish any

regulatory rP.quirements for small goverrunents ancl so doc$ not rP.quire H

small government agency plan uuder UMRA section 203.

IX. Curagreaional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 801 er .t:eq., as added by the Small Business RP.gulatory Enforcement FaimeSll A.ct of 1996, generally provides th11t before a r\\le may take effect. the agency promulgating the rule must suhmit a rule report, whicl1 include!! II cnpy of the rule. to each House of Congret:$ and to !he Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will ,;ubmit a mport containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senttlo. the U.S. House of :NP.prssenratives, the Comptroller General of the United Slates prior to publication vf the final mle in the Federal Register. This rule is nut a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become eff~c:tive em the date of publle.1tion in the Federal Register.

X. E.xecutive Order 12875

Under P.xecutive Order 12875, EPA mt~y not issue a regulation that is not required by :~latute and that crl\ates a mandatP. upon a state, local. or tribal govetnmllnt, unless the Fedc;:ral governnumt provides the fundli ner;Assary to pay the du·ect complianr:e costs incurred by those govern men Is. lf rhe mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Buuget a description of the extent of l:.'PA '!> prior consul tal ion with representatives of affected state, local. 11nd tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies o! written communic:ations from the governments. and a stArement supporting the need to issu11 thP. reg\tlfllion. In addition. E.xecutivA Order 12875 requires EPA to d$Ve}op un effective prnr.ess permitting l:llecterl officials and or her repre:;entatiVOII of state. lnr.al. and tribol governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the d6Veloprncnt of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandatv$ ... This rule docs not create tt manuate on state. local or tribal goverrunent.s. The nd11 doe~ not impose auy enforce11blc duties on these enllties. Accordiugly. the requirements of section l (a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply lo this rule.

XI. Executive Order 13045

The Exer:utive Ord~r 1304~ is cntitlt.:J "Protection of Children from Environmental Healrh Ri:;ks and SafP.ty Rish" (~2 fR 10885, April 23, 1997). This orcler applie:; to any rulP. that E.!' I\ determine~ (1) is ec:onomically

002047

41800 Federal Jtegi'>ter I VoL GS, No. 154/Tbursday. Augulil 9, 2001/Rules and Regulations

significant as defined under ~et:utivc Ordu 1:2866, and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has A disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets bllth c:liti:I'ia, the .\gency must evaluate the environmental health or saff!ty atfects ufthc pl:inneu rule on children. and explain why !he planned reguh1tiun is preferaule tu other potentially affective nnd reasonably feasible alternatives considetP.d by tbe Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 1:~045 becau~;e this is not an economically significant regulatory al:tion as defintHl by Exer.utive Order 12866.

XU. Executive Order 13084

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the newel to issue the regulation. fn addition, ExC(:Utive Order 13084 requires EPA to devPlop an ~ffective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal govGTnment.s "to meaningful and timely input" in the development of regulatory policie~ on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their co:mmunitiQs of Iud..ian tribal governments. This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect th~ communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of •ection 3(b) of ExaC\Itive Order 13084 do not apply to this Nh:.

XU1. National Technology TriUlsfer and Advancement Act

explanation of the reasuns for not u:;ing such standards.

This rule cloe!; nor establish any new tecbnic:al standards and thus, the Agency hl\s no ne~d to con.sider the use of voluntary consensus standards in developing this finAl rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR. Part 261

Euvironmental protec:tion, Hazardous wa..'~te, Rel..)'Ciing, Reporting 1\Ud recorubeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001(0 KQ(A, 42 U.S.C.. 6!12l(O.

Dated: july 27. :1001. Steplu:n GUrein. .-.cfing Director, Mulrimf1dia Plo11nins and Pstmitting Di"Vi:iJort.

Under Ex~tive Orrler 130K4, EPA mav not issue a regvlation that is not required by stalute, that significantly Unde.r section 12(d) ifthe National ;tffel.;ts or uniquely affec:.1S the Technology Transfer and Advancement

Yur lht: reasons set out in the preamble. 40 CFR part 263 is amt!lldeu as follows:

•:ommunities of Iudian tribal Ac:t, the Agency i.s direct~:d to \le$ PART 261-IDENnFtCATION AND LISnNG OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

governments, and that imposes voluntary consensus standards in its subst~tntial direct cumpliance •:osts on Ngulatory activities unless to do so tho!;£ communities, unless the Federal would bo inconsistent with applicable government provides the funds lHw or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

1. The auth1>rity citation fnc part 261 coutinuoe to rP.ad as follows:

neces~ary to pay the direct compliance consensus standards are technical costs incurred by \he tribal standards (e.g., materials specificatio.ns, Authority: 42 u.s.c. 6905, 6912(a). Gnl.

6922, and 61:13!1. governments. !f the mandt~te is test methocls. samrling procedures. unfunded. EPA rnuS1 provide to thr husiness practices, etc.) developed ur Office of Management and Budget, in a adopted by voluntary consensus 2 · In Tab It' 1 of Appendix IX. part 261 separately identified section of the standard bodies. Where available anu add the following waste stream in prcamblP. to the rule, a description of potentially applicable voluntary t~lfJhtt~Lical oTder hy facility to read liS

the extent of gp A's prtor c;unsultatiul, con~ensus standards are not used by fo lows: with ropresP.ntatives ofaffec..-ted tribal EPA, the !H.1 requires that Agency to Appendix lX to Pari261-Waste gow~rrunent.~. a summary of the uaturP. provide Congress. through the OMB. au Jo.:XcludP.d UJ'Ider 1 260.20 and 260.Zl.

TABLE 1.-WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-5PECiriC SOURCES

Facility Address

Tenneco Automotive ....................... Paragould, AR ............................. .

-

--------------------------·~·~--·~-~·-·----~~~~ ' 0 ' ·~ I-.,. I

wasre description

Stabili2ed s1uage from electroolating operations. excavated from the Finch Road Landfill and c:ummtty storea in oontainment cells Dy Tenneco (EPA HOZ<lrdous Waste Nos .. F006). This is a one-time exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized "udge wheo it is dis· ~ •e<l of in a Subtitle 0 landfill. This exClusion was published on August 9. 2001.

(1) RfiO/JfiMr t.<tngv9ge: (A) If, anytime aftQ!' disposal of the delilsle'd Wllliite, Tenneco pos­

sessr.; or is otMrwise made aware of any environmental data (in­cluding but not limited to le!JC1'1ate data or groundwater monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisled waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher 11\an the delisting level allowe<J by the Regional Ad· ministrator or his delegate in granling the petition, then the facility must repo11 the data, in writing, to the Regional AdminiSIT"dtor or his delegate within 10 aays of first poss.~na or being made aware o( lh<~t data.

(8) If Tenneco fails to submit the lof;)rmatlon described in (2)(A) or if any other information is receivsd from any source, the Region.<~l Administrator or l'liS detsgate will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Ager.cy action to protect human health or thP. environment. Further aelion may in· elude suspending, or revoking the ~usion, or other arpropriate response necessary 10 protect human h~lth and the environment

002048

Federal Register I Vol. 66. No. 154/Thursday, August 9. 20011 Rules and Regulatiom: 41801

TABLF. 1.-WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON.SPECIF=IC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

--------------------r-------·--------------~-------------------- -----------(C) If the R.~onal Administrator or his delegate detarmines the re-ported infbrmatiOJ'\ does require Agency ~tion. lh~ Regional Ad· mlnistnJJor Of' his delegate will notify the facility in writing of the ac­tions the Regional Administrator or hl5 del~te believe5 are nec­essary 1o protect human health and the snvircnmenl. The nonce shall Include a s!atement of the proposed actiOI'l and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed AQancy ac:1ion is not necessary. The facility shall kave 10 days from the date of the Regional Admtnistr.ttor Of'

his delegate's notice to present such information. (0) Following the receipt of information from the facility desalbod in

(1){C) or (if no Information b presented under (1)(C)) the initial re­ceipt of information dasetibed in (1)(A). the Reg10na1 Adminia1tatnr or hiS delegate will issue a fiMf written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary 10 protoct human health or the environment. Any required actiO!'\ described il"' the Regional Ad­miniStrator or his delegate's determination shalf boc:ome effecti11e immediately, unle:;a the Regional Administrator or hiS delegate pro­vides otherwiSe.

(2) Notification Roquirements: Tenneco must do followi119 befor~ tran$porting the defiSted waste orr­

site: Failure to provide tl'lis notiflcation wiU result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revoc;ation of the exclusion.

(A) Provide a one-time written notificatiOn to eny State Regulatory Agency to which or through which ~Y IAI!II transport the deliste<l woste described above for disposal, 60 days bofOI'\' beginning :ouch activities.

(8) Update the one-time written notification if Tennecv :lhips thP. delisted waste 1o a dil'faret"'t disposal facility. ·-- --·-------- _......._. _________ --'-·-----------·-----------·-·-·-- ------

(f.R Due. 01-~0043 Filed 8-&-0l; 8:·15 ami BIUJMG CODE 5~

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 63

[CC Docket No. 01-150; FCC 01-205}

Implementation of Further Streamlining Measures for Domestic Section 214 Authorizations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Corn mission. ACTION: fo'inal rule: interpretation. ·-- ----------------SUMMARY: This document clacifie:; that nun-dominant r.arricrs are r~:~qllireu to file applicaUon.c; and obtain Cornrnis&ion approval beforfl coDsummllting a transaction involving an ~cquisilion uf corporate conttol. Connectii'g cutTiers, as defined in the Communications Act of 1934, a~ amended (J\r.t}, are not subject to section 214 whefl engaging iu acquisitions of curpornte control. OATES: Effective August 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1\aron N. Goldberger, hnorney-Advi!lor. Policy and Program Phmning Division. Common Can-ier Bureau, (202) 418-1591.

~ . ' ' " . ,.., .. ,

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tbi~; is a 'ummQry of the Commission's Declarotory Ruling. CC Dockel No. 01-160, l''CC 01-205, adopted July 12. 2001 and released July :zo. 200t. The complete l~t of this Declaratory Ruling is available for inspection and copyins during normal bulliness hours in the FCC Referenc~ lrtformation Center, Courtyard Level. 445 llth Street. SW., Washington, DC. and also may be purchased from the CClmmission's copy contractor. International Tratl.St;tiption Services, (ITS. Inc.:.). cY-R400, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.

Synopsis of Declaratory Rulin,;

1. tn tb.e Declaratory Ruling. the Commission clarifies its rules governing requests for authoriZiition pursuant to section 214 of the Art to transfer domestic interstate transmu,ion liMs thrDugh Rn acquisition of (;orporate control. Unclcr section 214, applic:'Ults. must obtairl ColTilltission authorization before r.onstructing, operating. ur acquiring domestic interstate transmission lines. The Commission. io §63.01, granted blanket authority to domastic interstate communications common carriers to provide domestic interstate services and to constrUct. acquire, and opero.te domestic transmit>sion lines. The blanket authority in § 63.01. however. expressly does not apply to acquisitions uf

corporate control. When an acquisition uf corporat~ control is involved, corricrs mu't file a section :Zli application with the Commissiuu and obtain Commission approval prior to consummating~ propotied trallSClction.

2. The Commission, ill tho !Jeclaratory Ruling. clarifies thl'lt non· dominant carriers are required to file applic.:ations and obtain Commi~sion 11.pproval before consummating " iremsaction involving an ucquisition of 1:orporatP. control. In particular, there is nothing either in the Commission's previous ordflrs or the plain language of § 63.01 to support the contention thcat acquisitions of corporate control involving non-dominant carriers arc covered under the blanket euthority of § 63.01. Connectii'Ig r.arriers, tts defined in the A~:t, arc not snbj~ to set.1ion 2J4 when engeging in acq\l.isitions of corporate control.

huti:U RegCllatocy Flelldbility Act Analysis

1. As req\1ired by the Re:;ulatory Flexibility Act, 5 ll.S.C. 60:~. th~ Commission h~ prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexioility Analysis (fRFAJ of the possible si.gniGeanl econmnic imp11ct on small entities by the policies ~tnd ntlcs proposed ln I hi!! DBclamtory Rulin8. Written puhlic comments are requested on this lKFf\. Comments rnust be identified a.c: responses to th11 IRFI\