[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11200-11202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5558]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 264 and 265

[FRL-5973-4]


Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for OSi Specialties, Inc., 
Sistersville, WV

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is implementing a project under the Project XL program 
for the OSi Specialties, Inc. plant, a wholly owned subsidiary of Witco 
Corporation, located near Sistersville, West Virginia (the 
``Sistersville Plant''). The terms of the XL project are defined in a 
Final Project Agreement (``FPA'') which was made available for public 
review and comment. See 62 FR 34748, June 27, 1997. Following a review 
of the public comments, the FPA was signed by delegates from the EPA, 
the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (``WVDEP'') and 
Witco Corporation on October 17, 1997. The EPA is today proposing a 
site-specific rule, applicable only to the Sistersville Plant, to 
facilitate implementation of the XL project.
    Today's action proposes a site-specific regulatory deferral from 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) organic air emission 
standards, commonly known as RCRA Subpart CC. The applicability of this 
site-specific deferral is limited to two existing hazardous waste 
surface impoundments, and is conditioned on the Sistersville Plant's 
compliance with air emission and waste management requirements that 
have been developed under this XL project. Today's action proposes 
site-specific regulatory changes to implement this XL project. The 
agency expects this XL project to result in superior environmental 
performance at the Sistersville Plant, while deferring significant 
capital expenditures, and thus providing cost savings for the 
Sistersville Plant.

DATES: Comments. Public comments on this proposed rule will be accepted 
until March 27, 1998.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to 
provide interested persons an opportunity for verbal presentation of 
data, views, or arguments concerning this site-specific rule to 
implement the Sistersville Plant's XL project. If anyone contacts the 
EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by March 16, 1998, a public 
hearing will be held on March 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES:
    Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to make verbal 
presentations must contact Mr. Tad Radzinski at U.S. EPA Region 3. Mr. 
Tad Radzinski may be contacted at the following: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 3 (3WC11), 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, 
PA 19107-4431, (215) 566-2394.
    Comments. Written comments should be mailed to the RCRA Information 
Center Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Please send an original and two 
copies of all comments, and refer to Docket Number F-98-MCCP-FFFFF.
    Docket. A docket containing supporting information used in 
developing this rulemaking is available for public inspection and 
copying at the EPA's docket office located at Crystal Gateway, 1235 
Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia. The public 
is encouraged to phone in advance to review docket materials. 
Appointments can be scheduled by phoning the Docket Office at (703) 
603-9230. Refer to RCRA docket number F-98-MCCP-FFFFF.
    A duplicate copy of the docket is available for inspection and 
copying at

[[Page 11201]]

U.S. EPA, Region 3, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107-4431, 
during normal business hours. Persons wishing to view the duplicate 
docket at the Philadelphia location are encouraged to contact Mr. Tad 
Radzinski in advance, by telephoning (215) 566-2394.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tad Radzinski, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 3 (3WC11), Waste Chemical Management 
Division, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107-4431, (215) 566-
2394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air emission and waste management 
requirements proposed today are set forth in an associated direct final 
rule published in the Final Rules section of today's Federal Register. 
The EPA is publishing this action as a proposed rule, and concurrently 
as a direct final rule without prior proposal, because EPA views this 
as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no relevant adverse 
comments. In the event that no relevant adverse comments are received 
by the close of the twenty-one day public comment period, this action 
will become effective on April 1, 1998. This rule will become effective 
without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse 
comment within 21 days of today's action. Should the Agency receive 
such comments, it will publish a notice informing the public that the 
direct final rule did not take effect. If relevant adverse comments are 
received on this proposed rule or on the associated direct final rule, 
EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and address the comments 
received. The EPA would then publish responses to such comments when 
final action is taken, pursuant to this proposed rule. No additional 
opportunity for public comment will be provided. Unless the direct 
final rule is withdrawn, no further rulemakings will be published for 
this action.
    For additional information on today's proposed rulemaking, 
including the regulatory text of the proposed rule, see the associated 
direct final rule which is published in the Final Rules section of 
today's Federal Register.

Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity 
for interested persons to make verbal presentations regarding this 
proposed regulation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7004(b)(1); 40 
CFR part 25. Persons wishing to make a verbal presentation on the 
proposed rule to implement the OSi Sistersville Plant XL project should 
contact Mr. Tad Radzinski of the Region 3 EPA office, at the address 
given in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Any member of the 
public may file a written statement before the hearing, or after the 
hearing, to be received by EPA no later than March 27, 1998. Written 
statements should be sent in duplicate to the RCRA Information Center 
Docket Office, and to Mr. Tad Radzinski, at the addresses given in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. If a public hearing is held, a 
verbatim transcript of the hearing, and written statements provided at 
the hearing will be available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours at the EPA addresses for docket inspection given in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``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 affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety in 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 entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Because the annualized cost of this rule would be significantly 
less than $100 million and would not meet any of the other criteria 
specified in the Executive Order, it has been determined that this rule 
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive 
Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
    Executive Order 12866 also encourages agencies to provide a 
meaningful public comment period, and suggests that in most cases the 
comment period should be sixty days. However, in consideration of the 
very limited scope of today's site-specific rulemaking, and the 
previous opportunity for public comment (which included the details of 
today's rulemaking) that EPA provided with the proposed FPA (see 62 FR 
34748, June 27, 1997), the EPA considers twenty-one days to be 
sufficient in providing a meaningful public comment period for today's 
action.

Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it only affects one 
facility, the OSi Sistersville Plant in Sistersville, West Virginia. 
The Sistersville Plant is not a small entity. Therefore, EPA certifies 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action applies only to one company, and therefore requires no 
information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, and therefore no information collection request (ICR) will be 
submitted to OMB for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final

[[Page 11202]]

rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    As noted above, this rule is applicable only to the OSi 
Sistersville Plant, located near Sistersville, West Virginia. The EPA 
has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA has 
also determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that 
may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 
one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 264

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Control device, 
Hazardous waste, Monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Surface impoundment, Treatment storage and disposal facility, Waste 
determination.

40 CFR Part 265

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Control device, 
Hazardous waste, Monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Surface impoundment, Treatment storage and disposal facility, Waste 
determination.

    Dated: February 26, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-5558 Filed 3-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P