[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41796-41801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20043]



[[Page 41796]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-7025-8]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a 
petition submitted by Tenneco Automotive (Tenneco) to exclude from 
hazardous waste control (or delist) a certain solid waste. This final 
rule responds to the petition submitted by Tenneco to delist F006 
stabilized sludge on a ``generator specific'' basis from the lists of 
hazardous waste.
    After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment 
Software, the EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not hazardous 
waste when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion applies 
to 1,800 cubic yards of excavated stabilized waste water treatment 
sludge currently stored in containment cells at Tenneco's Paragould, 
Arkansas facility. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned 
waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in 
Subtitle D landfills.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of 
Information Act review room on the 7th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 
665-6444 for appointments. The reference number for this docket is ``F-
00-ARDEL-TENNECO.'' The public may copy material from any regulatory 
docket at no cost for the first 100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per 
page for additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact Bill 
Gallagher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas at (214) 665-6775. For technical information concerning 
this notice, contact Michelle Peace, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The information in this section is organized as follows:

I. Overview Information
    A. What rule is EPA finalizing?
    B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
    C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
    D. How will Tenneco manage the waste if it is delisted?
    E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
    F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
    A. What is a delisting petition?
    B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
    C. What information must the generator supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
    A. What waste did Tenneco petition EPA to delist?
    B. How much waste did Tenneco propose to delist?
    C. How did Tenneco sample and analyze the waste data in this 
petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
    A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
    B. Response to Comments.

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

    After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on May 11, 2001 to 
exclude the Tenneco waste from the lists of hazardous wastes under 
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 66 FR 24085). The EPA is finalizing:
    (1) The decision to grant Tenneco's petition to have its wastewater 
treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a 
hazardous waste, subject to certain continued monitoring conditions; 
and
    (2) The decision to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software, 
which includes the EPACMTP fate and transport model, to evaluate the 
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the 
environment. The Agency used this model to predict the concentration of 
hazardous constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is 
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.

B. Why Is EPA Approving This Delisting?

    Tenneco's petition requests a delisting for listed hazardous 
wastes. Tenneco does not believe the petitioned waste meets the 
criteria for which EPA listed it as a hazardous waste. Tenneco also 
believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to 
be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of 
the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by 
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4). In 
making the final delisting determination, EPA also evaluated the 
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 
Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees 
with the petitioner the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the 
original listing criteria. If the EPA had found, based on this review, 
the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste 
was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition. 
The EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria 
to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such 
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA 
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the 
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to 
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from 
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned 
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. The 
EPA believes the petitioned waste does not meet these criteria. EPA's 
final decision to delist waste from Tenneco's facility is based on the 
information submitted by Tenneco in its petition, including 
descriptions of the stabilization techniques and analytical data from 
the Paragould, AR facility.

C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?

    This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only 
if the requirements described in Table 1 of part 261 and the conditions 
contained herein are satisfied. This is a one-time exclusion for 1,800 
cubic yards of stabilized waste water treatment sludge.

D. How Will Tenneco Manage the Waste It Is Delisted?

    Tenneco currently stores the petitioned waste (stabilized waste 
water treatment sludge) generated in containment vaults on-site at its 
facility. Tenneco will dispose of the sludge in a Subtitle D solid 
waste landfill in Arkansas.

E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?

    This rule is effective August 9, 2001. The Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to 
become effective in less than six months after the rule is published 
when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come 
into compliance. That is

[[Page 41797]]

the case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the 
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. This 
reduction in existing requirements also provides a basis for making 
this rule effective immediately, upon publication, under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?

    Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA 
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting 
provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of 
States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA 
requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received 
our authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
    Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA 
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under 
section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a 
provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking 
effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal 
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's 
waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to 
establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
    EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana, 
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a delisting program in place of the 
Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, 
this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If Tenneco 
transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State 
with delisting authorization, Tenneco must obtain delisting 
authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as 
nonhazardous in the State.

II. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

    A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or 
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the list of hazardous 
wastes, wastes the generator believes should not be considered 
hazardous under RCRA.

B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?

    Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to 
remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them 
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the 
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 
260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the 
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from 
the hazardous waste lists.

C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?

    Petitioners must provide sufficient information to the EPA to allow 
the EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded 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 
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional 
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could 
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not 
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What Waste Did Tenneco Petition EPA To Delist?

    On September 8, 2000, Tenneco petitioned the EPA to exclude from 
the lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32, a 
waste by-product (stabilized sludge from the wastewater treatment 
plant) which falls under the classification of listed waste because of 
the ``derived from'' rule in RCRA 40 CFR 261.3. Specifically, in its 
petition, Tenneco Automotive, located in Paragould, Arkansas, requested 
that EPA grant an exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized sludge 
from electroplating operations, excavated from the Finch Road Landfill 
and currently stored in containment cells. The resulting waste is 
listed, in accordance with Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the ``derived 
from'' rule). The waste code of the constituents of concern is EPA 
Hazardous Waste No. F006. The constituents of concern for F006 are 
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).

B. How Much Waste Did Tenneco Propose To Delist?

    Specifically, in its petition, Tenneco requested that EPA grant a 
one-time exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized sludge.

C. How Did Tenneco Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This Petition?

    To support its petition, Tenneco submitted:
    (1) Historical information on past waste generation and management 
practices;
    (2) Results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR part 264, 
Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals except pesticides, 
herbicides, and PCBs;
    (3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity 
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles, 
semivolatiles, and metals;
    (4) Results from total oil and grease analyses and pH measurements.

IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?

    The EPA received public comments on the May 11, 2001, proposal from 
General Motors (GM).

B. Response To Comments

General Motors (GM) comments the terms used in the DRAS should be more 
clearly defined. Does the term Cw for waste contamination account for 
the total mass of contamination in the waste or only that portion that 
may enter the aqueous phase?
    All terms and equations used in the Delisting Risk Assessment 
Software (DRAS) program are discussed in the Delisting Technical 
Support Document (DTSD). All abbreviations, acronyms, and variables are 
listed in Chapter 1, pages x-xx of the DTSD. The DTSD is updated to 
reflect revisions and modifications to risk algorithms and methodology. 
The Agency encourages all users and reviewers to comment on the 
technical support documentation and continues to improve the clarity 
and transparency of the DTSD. The term Cw is not used in the document. 
Without specific information to the page location/screen location of 
the term referenced in the question above, no further response can be 
provided.
GM comments that the definition of the criteria to be used to determine 
de minimis risk levels and risk estimates should be provided for a 
meaningful public review.
    Information on the Risk and Hazard Assessment can be found in 
Chapter 4 of the DTSD. Discussion of criteria and quantification of 
risk are discussed in this Chapter.
    The Delisting Program in its history has never focused on site-
specific conditions. It has since its inception

[[Page 41798]]

been a program specifically for waste generators. A review of the 40 
CFR 260.22 indicates that these are petitions to amend part 261 to 
exclude a waste produced at a particular facility. The Agency is not 
currently using the model to predict site-specific results. Since 
disposal of the delisted waste may occur at any Subtitle C or D 
landfill in the United States, site-specific considerations are not 
usually given. The DRAS model is based on national averages of the site 
specific factors and is intended to model a reasonable worst case 
scenario for disposal.
    The Agency continues to review chemical-specific parameter data. 
Where appropriate, these data will be incorporated into the DRAS 
analyses. However, as explained above, in delisting analyses, site 
specific characteristics (beyond waste constituent concentration and 
volume) are not incorporated into analyses. Default values are given 
for many parameters used in risk. The Agency can not fully evaluate how 
release mechanisms and exposure scenarios may be impacted because the 
final disposal location remains undefined.
GM comments that documentation of the sensitivity analysis should be 
provided for a meaningful public review.
    The DRAS provides the forward-calculated risk level and back-
calculated allowable waste concentration for each exposure pathway, 
thereby permitting the user to determine which pathway drives the risk 
for a given chemical. These analyses are currently provided for the 
user by the DRAS program on the Chemical-Specific Results screen.
GM comments that unlikely scenarios and assumptions which compound the 
release and risk estimates should be justified.
    The DRAS model is intended to model a reasonable worst case model 
and is based on national averages of these factors. This is the same 
assumption used for the EPACML.
    The DRAS employs standard risk assessment default parameters that 
are accepted throughout the Agency in risk analyses (i.e., residential 
exposure @ 350 days/yr, selection of the 90th percentile). These 
default standards are described and listed in Appendix A of the DTSD.
    The DRAS does employ a conservative approach to exposure assessment 
by assuming the receptor may be exposed to both the most sensitive 
groundwater pathway and the most sensitive surface exposure pathway. 
The Agency has no way of knowing that this situation will not occur and 
therefore deems it prudent to protect for this condition by adding 
risks. Again, the Agency has no way of knowing the direction of media 
flow and must assume that all media flow may move toward the receptor. 
The Agency has no data to indicate that the landfill volume data and 
other data from the 1987 landfill survey report is not valid. When 
updated data are available, they will be incorporated into the 
analyses.
    The groundwater fate and transport model used by the Agency to 
determine first order decay and other processes is the EPA's Composite 
Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). 
This model has been 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 comments to the contrary have been 
received.
The DRAS is complex and EPA must explain the models and risk processes 
used in establishing regulatory limits.
    Attached to the Delisting Risk Assessment Software is a Technical 
Support Document which explains the risk algorithms and documentation 
of the decisions made in development of the model. Publication costs 
prohibit the inclusion of all this information into the Federal 
Register notice but it is readily available in both the Technical 
Support Document and at the Region 6 Delisting page (www.epa.gov/earth1/r6/pd-o/pd-o.htm). However, the Agency believes that the 
Delisting Risk Assessment Software is no more complex than use of the 
EPACML for delisting, just because the calculations have been 
computerized make them no more difficult to understand than the EPACML. 
Similar regression models were developed for the DRAS. The risk 
pathways for surface water and air volatilization are evaluated by the 
same equations used previously in the delisting program. And finally, 
the pathways for showering and dermal contact are equations which are 
commonly used in risk assessments performed for cleanups and site 
assessments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) commonly known as Superfund and 
other programs.
GM comments that model should be peer reviewed and the public should 
have the formal opportunity to provide comments.
    The model has been peer reviewed by EPA risk assessors and EPA's 
Office of Research and Development scientists. The public has the 
opportunity to comment on the use of the DRAS model each time a 
delisting is proposed which is based on the DRAS model. The Agency is 
currently using the same level of public review used by the delisting 
program for use of the EPA Composite Model for Landfills in 1991. The 
model as modified for the delisting program was promulgated in 
conjunction with its use in evaluating the Reynolds Metals Delisting 
petition. See, 56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991). No challenge was made to 
procedures for promulgating the use of the EPACML in delisting 
evaluations.
Summary of GM Comments
    GM summarizes its comments on the DRAS by stating that (1) EPA is 
proposing significant changes to the methodology it uses to evaluate 
delisting petitions. It appears the changes would apply to all future 
delisting petitions. (2) The proposed changes are complex. (3) It 
appears the proposed changes would apply in all USEPA Regions. (4) The 
proposed changes may include elements of the still-draft, 
unpromulgated, and controversial HWIR waste model. It is inappropriate 
and contrary to law and the Administrative Procedures Act to use a 
model prior to public notice and comment. (5) No Federal Register 
notice has been given to clearly indicate the EPA plans to change the 
way it reviews and evaluates delisting petitions. Instead, references 
to the changes in the model have been made as part of proposals to 
delist specific waste streams. (6) If EPA is changing the model it uses 
to evaluate delisting petitions (from the EPACML to the DRAS model) 
USEPA should provide specific and clear public notification of this 
intent. The risk assessment methodology for delisting that has been 
used since 1991 should still apply until public review period is 
completed.
    The EPA is following the same notice provided for changing from the 
VHS model to the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML). See 56 FR 
32993, July 18, 1991. The public has the opportunity to comment on the 
DRAS model each time a delisting is proposed which is based on the DRAS 
model. General Motors has not stated any reason why the DRAS model is 
not appropriate for use in evaluating the risk associated with the 
Tenneco Delisting. EPA will consider use of alternatives model for 
assessing risk if the comments received show that another model is more 
appropriate under the circumstances.
    General Motors states that use of model with public review and 
comment

[[Page 41799]]

is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and law. 
Opportunity for public review and comment is provided for each 
delisting petition. Comments are requested for each delisting decision 
regarding the decision to delist the waste and use of a model to assess 
the risk posed to human health and the environment. Each time the model 
is used, just as with the use of the EPACML, the public and interested 
stakeholders can comment on the appropriateness of the use. In fact, 
each proposed rule for approving a delisting proposes the use of a 
model in the evaluation of risk and asks for comment. Examples can be 
seen in the Federal Register for the EPACML as well as the DRAS. See, 
56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991), 64 FR 44867 (August 18, 1999), and 65 FR 
75641 (December 4, 2000). Any petitioner or interested party may 
suggest more appropriate evaluation tools for predicting risk. Thus, 
EPA believes that adequate public notice has been provided and the APA 
has not been violated.

V. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of 
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory 
actions. The final to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its 
effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and 
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This 
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific 
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this 
facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous. There is no additional 
impact therefore, due to this final rule. Therefore, this proposal 
would not be a significant regulation and no cost/benefit assessment is 
required. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted 
this rule from the requirement for OMB review under section (6) of 
Executive Order 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which 
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required however if the 
Administrator or delegated representative certifies the rule will not 
have any impact on a small entities.
    This rule if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact 
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs 
of EPA's hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify 
that this regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
regulation therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility 
analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated 
with this final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 (P.L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB 
Control Number 2050-0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
EPA must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal mandates 
that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million 
or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA 
rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider 
alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA 
must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the 
final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law. 
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency 
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development 
of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance 
with the regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal 
mandate for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty 
upon State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA 
finds that this final delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and 
does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. In addition, the final delisting 
does not establish any regulatory requirements for small governments 
and so does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA 
section 203.

IX. Congressional Review Act

    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 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, the Comptroller General of the United States prior to 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become 
effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

X. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
This rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

XI. Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is 
economically

[[Page 41800]]

significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866.

XII. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is 
unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to meaningful and timely input'' in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This 
rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of 
Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

XIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) if the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 
Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires that Agency to provide 
Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using 
such standards.
    This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus, 
the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards in developing this final rule.

List 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: July 27, 2001.
Stephen Gilrein,
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 Table 1 of Appendix IX, part 261 add the following waste 
stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22.

            Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                  Address         Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
Tenneco Automotive............  Paragould, AR....  Stabilized sludge
                                                    from electroplating
                                                    operations,
                                                    excavated from the
                                                    Finch Road Landfill
                                                    and currently stored
                                                    in containment cells
                                                    by Tenneco (EPA
                                                    Hazardous Waste Nos.
                                                    F006). This is a one-
                                                    time exclusion for
                                                    1,800 cubic yards of
                                                    stabilized sludge
                                                    when it is disposed
                                                    of in a Subtitle D
                                                    landfill. This
                                                    exclusion was
                                                    published on August
                                                    9, 2001.
                                                   (1) Reopener
                                                    Language:
                                                   (A) If, anytime after
                                                    disposal of the
                                                    delisted waste,
                                                    Tenneco possesses or
                                                    is otherwise made
                                                    aware of any
                                                    environmental data
                                                    (including but not
                                                    limited to leachate
                                                    data or groundwater
                                                    monitoring data) or
                                                    any other data
                                                    relevant to the
                                                    delisted waste
                                                    indicating that any
                                                    constituent
                                                    identified for the
                                                    delisting
                                                    verification testing
                                                    is at level higher
                                                    than the delisting
                                                    level allowed by the
                                                    Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate in granting
                                                    the petition, then
                                                    the facility must
                                                    report the data, in
                                                    writing, to the
                                                    Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate within 10
                                                    days of first
                                                    possessing or being
                                                    made aware of that
                                                    data.
                                                   (B) If Tenneco fails
                                                    to submit the
                                                    information
                                                    described in (2)(A)
                                                    or if any other
                                                    information is
                                                    received from any
                                                    source, the Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate will make a
                                                    preliminary
                                                    determination as to
                                                    whether the reported
                                                    information requires
                                                    Agency action to
                                                    protect human health
                                                    or the environment.
                                                    Further action may
                                                    include suspending,
                                                    or revoking the
                                                    exclusion, or other
                                                    appropriate response
                                                    necessary to protect
                                                    human health and the
                                                    environment.

[[Page 41801]]

 
                                                   (C) If the Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate determines
                                                    the reported
                                                    information does
                                                    require Agency
                                                    action, the Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate will notify
                                                    the facility in
                                                    writing of the
                                                    actions the Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate believes
                                                    are necessary to
                                                    protect human health
                                                    and the environment.
                                                    The notice shall
                                                    include a statement
                                                    of the proposed
                                                    action and a
                                                    statement providing
                                                    the facility with an
                                                    opportunity to
                                                    present information
                                                    as to why the
                                                    proposed Agency
                                                    action is not
                                                    necessary. The
                                                    facility shall have
                                                    10 days from the
                                                    date of the Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate's notice to
                                                    present such
                                                    information.
                                                   (D) Following the
                                                    receipt of
                                                    information from the
                                                    facility described
                                                    in (1)(C) or (if no
                                                    information is
                                                    presented under
                                                    (1)(C)) the initial
                                                    receipt of
                                                    information
                                                    described in (1)(A),
                                                    the Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate will issue
                                                    a final written
                                                    determination
                                                    describing the
                                                    Agency actions that
                                                    are necessary to
                                                    protect human health
                                                    or the environment.
                                                    Any required action
                                                    described in the
                                                    Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate's
                                                    determination shall
                                                    become effective
                                                    immediately, unless
                                                    the Regional
                                                    Administrator or his
                                                    delegate provides
                                                    otherwise.
                                                   (2) Notification
                                                    Requirements:
                                                   Tenneco must do
                                                    following before
                                                    transporting the
                                                    delisted waste off-
                                                    site: Failure to
                                                    provide this
                                                    notification will
                                                    result in a
                                                    violation of the
                                                    delisting petition
                                                    and a possible
                                                    revocation of the
                                                    exclusion.
                                                   (A) Provide a one-
                                                    time written
                                                    notification to any
                                                    State Regulatory
                                                    Agency to which or
                                                    through which they
                                                    will transport the
                                                    delisted waste
                                                    described above for
                                                    disposal, 60 days
                                                    before beginning
                                                    such activities.
                                                   (B) Update the one-
                                                    time written
                                                    notification if
                                                    Tenneco ships the
                                                    delisted waste to a
                                                    different disposal
                                                    facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-20043 Filed 8-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P