[Federal Register: December 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 249)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69028-69035]
[DOCID:fr30de09-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R05-RCRA-2009-0908; SW-FRL-9096-7]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Exclusion for Identifying and
Listing Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
taking direct final action to grant a petition submitted by
Professional Plating, Inc. (PPI), in Brillion, Wisconsin to exclude (or
``delist'') up to 140 cubic yards of sludge per year generated by its
wastewater treatment plant from the list of hazardous wastes.

    The Agency has decided to grant the petition based on an evaluation
of waste-specific information provided by PPI. This decision
conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
    We conclude that PPI's petitioned waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous when disposed of in
a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 1, 2010 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 29, 2010. If EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
RCRA-2009-0908 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals Division, (Mail
Code: LR-8J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
     Hand Delivery: Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals Division,
EPA Region 5, 8th Floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Please contact Todd Ramaly at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-
2009-0908. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Records Center, EPA Region 5, 7th Floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604. The EPA Record Center is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend you telephone
Todd Ramaly at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the EPA Record Center.
The public may copy material from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per
page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals
Division, Mail Code LR-8J, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region
5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-
9317; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:

I. Overview Information
II. Background
    A. What Is a Listed Waste?
    B. What Is a Delisting Petition?
    C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
    A. What Waste Did PPI Petition EPA To Delist?
    B. How Does PPI Generate the Waste?
    C. How Did PPI Sample and Analyze the Waste?
    D. What Were the Results of PPI's Analysis of the Waste?
    E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?
    F. What Did EPA Conclude About PPI's Waste?
    G. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
    A. How Will PPI Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?
    B. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
    C. How Frequently Must PPI Test the Waste?
    D. What Data Must PPI Submit?
    E. What Happens If PPI Fails To Meet the Conditions of the
Exclusion?
    F. What Must PPI Do If the Process Changes?
V. How Would This Action Affect States?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted for the Professional Plating, Incorporated (PPI)
facility located in Brillion, Wisconsin to exclude or delist an annual
volume of 140 cubic yards of F019 wastewater treatment sludges from the
lists of hazardous waste set forth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR) 261.32 and 261.33. PPI claims that the petitioned
waste does not meet the criteria for which EPA listed it, and that
there are no additional constituents or factors which could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
    Based on our review described in section III, we agree with the
petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous. We reviewed the description
of the process which generates the waste and the analytical data
submitted by PPI. We believe that the petitioned waste does not meet
the criteria for which the waste was listed, and that there are no
other factors which might cause the waste to be hazardous.

II. Background

A. What Is a Listed Waste?

    The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its
final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has amended this
list several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
    We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) they typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in Sec. Sec.  261.11(a)(2) or (3).

B. What Is a Delisting Petition?

    Individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described
in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an
individual facility meeting the listing description may not be.
    A procedure to exclude or delist a waste is provided in 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22 which allows a person, or a facility to submit a
petition to the EPA or to an authorized State, demonstrating that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility is not hazardous.
    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that a waste does
not meet any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 CFR 261.11 and
that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity.
The petitioner must present sufficient information for us to decide
whether any factors in addition to those for which the waste was listed
warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See Sec.  260.22, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f) and the background documents for the listed wastes.)
    If a delisting petition is granted, the generator remains obligated
under RCRA to confirm that the waste remains nonhazardous.

C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?

    In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See sec. 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. Sec.
261.11(a)(2) and (3).
    Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), Sec. Sec.
261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background
documents for the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which we
listed the waste if these additional factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous.
    Our decision to delist waste from PPI's facility is based on our
evaluation of the waste for factors or criteria which could cause the
waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1) Whether the waste is
considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3) the
concentration of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of the
constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5) the persistence in
the environment of any constituents once released from the waste; (6)
plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste; (7)
the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste variability.
    EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Mixture and derived-from wastes are also eligible for
exclusion but remain hazardous until excluded.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What Waste Did PPI Petition EPA To Delist?

    On June 23, 2009, PPI petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume of
140 cubic yards of F019 wastewater treatment sludges generated at its
facility in Brillion, Wisconsin from the list of hazardous wastes
contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F019 is defined in Sec.  261.32 as
``Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when
such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.'' PPI
claims that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which
F019 was listed and that there are no other factors which would cause
the waste to be hazardous.

B. How Does PPI Generate the Waste?

    The F019 is generated from the rinse waters and overflows of two
zinc phosphating lines used for conversion coating aluminum parts. The
aluminum parts are spray cleaned, immersion cleaned, and cleaned with a
phosphoric acid prior to conversion coating. The rinse waters from
these steps do not contribute to the petitioned waste. Rinse waters and
overflows from the zinc phosphating step and the remaining steps in the
treatment line are the only wastewaters contributing to the petitioned
waste. Zinc phopshating includes several acids and nickel- and
manganese-compounds. The parts are sealed with compounds containing
fluorine, zirconium, and ammonium hydroxide. Lastly, epoxy-based and
acrylic paint films are cathodically electrodeposited on the aluminum
parts.
    The combined rinse waters and overflows from these process steps go
to an on-site wastewater treatment plant dedicated to the F019
wastewater. The pH of the wastewater is adjusted to 9.0 standard units
with either sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide. Coagulants containing
polymers, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride are added to assist
in precipitating wastewater contaminants. A polyacrylamide anionic
flocculant is added to gather the coagulum into clumps large enough to
settle at the bottom of a clarifier. The clarified water is discharged
to the sewer and the settled sludge is pumped to a sludge thickening
tank and then through a plate and frame filter press.
    Process vessels for both zinc phosphating lines (epoxy-coating and
acrylic-coating) are periodically cleaned out with the resulting
sludges also pressed by the plate and frame filter press dedicated to
the F019 water treatment process.

C. How Did PPI Sample and Analyze the Waste?

    Six sludge samples were collected each on a monthly basis from
April through October 2008. Sludge accumulated in a roll-off box and
was sampled representing sludge collected over a period of
approximately 4 weeks each. Two sludge samples representing clean-out
of the epoxy-coating line were collected on August 25 and on October
20, 2008 in order to characterize sludge generated from clean-out
activities. Sludge generated from the clean-out of the acrylic-coating
line was sampled on August 11, 2008. PPI collected one composite and
one grab sample of sludge from each roll-off box during each sampling
event. Composite samples consisted of four individual full-depth core
grab samples mixed together to form one sample.
    PPI analyzed all composite samples using the following methodology:
(1) Total constituent analysis and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) for metals in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 264, (Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods--SW-846--
Methods 6010B and 1311 \1\); (2) total constituent and TCLP analysis
for sulfide (SW-846 Methods 9030A and 1311); (3) total constituent and
TCLP analysis for cyanide (SW-846 Methods 9010 and 1311 \2\); (4) total
constituent and TCLP analysis for fluoride (SW-846 Methods 9056 and
1311); (5) flashpoint (SW-846 Method 1010); (6) pH (SW-846 Method
9040); and (7) oil & grease (SW-846 Method 9070).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Method 7471 was substituted for Method 6010 for mercury.
    \2\ Deionized water was used as the extraction fluid instead of
the fluid specified in the method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PPI screened the first two of the six monthly composite samples and
one each of the composite samples of clean-out sludges for: (1) Total
constituent and

TCLP analysis for 120 semi-volatile organic compounds (SW-846 Methods
8270 and 1311); (2) total constituent and TCLP analysis for
formaldehyde (SW-846 Methods 8315 and 1311); (3) total constituent and
TCLP analysis for acrylamide (SW-846 Methods 8032 and 1311); (4) TCLP
analysis for metals in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 264, substituting the
TCLP extraction fluid with deionized water in order to assess
leachability under pH-neutral conditions (SW-846 Methods 6010B and
1311); and (5) TCLP analysis for metals in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part
264, substituting the TCLP extraction fluid with a buffered alkaline
solution in order to assess leachability under alkaline conditions (SW-
846 Methods 6010B and 1311). PPI analyzed two of the six monthly full-
depth core grab samples and one each of the grab samples of clean-out
sludges for total constituent and TCLP analysis for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) (SW-846 Method 8260 and SW-846 Method 1311). This
screening analysis was performed to check for unexpected organic
compounds in the waste as well as identify pH-dependence of metals in
leachate in the event landfill leachates with neutral or alkaline pH
result in higher concentrations. Detections of organic compounds were
insignificant and the remainder of the sludge samples were not analyzed
for these parameters.
    Metals of concern were generally preferentially leached by the
acidic TCLP test. The exception, barium, leached more in some samples
under alkaline conditions. However, detections of all metals, including
barium, were so far below concentrations of concern that the remainder
of the samples were not tested at neutral and alkaline leaching
conditions.

D. What Were the Results of PPI's Analysis of the Waste?

    The table below presents the maximum observed total and leachate
concentrations for all detected constituents for which maximum
allowable total and/or TCLP concentration were available. Total
concentrations are expressed in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Leachate concentrations are expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
The table also includes the results of analysis for the constituents
for which F019 was listed, chromium and cyanide. PPI submitted a signed
a statement certifying accuracy and responsibility of the results. See
40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Maximum observed concentration          Maximum allowable
                               ----------------------------------          concentration
     Constituent detected                                        --------------------------------    GW (mg/L)
                                  Total (mg/kg)     TCLP (mg/L)    Total (mg/kg)    TCLP (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetone.......................        0.33             \V\ 0.113           NA          26,300           3.38
acrolein......................        0.277                 <0.5        6,850              NA           0.000504
benzene.......................        0.00142 \I\          <0.05      224,000           \1\ 0.05        0.00133
bromomethane..................        1.16                 <0.05      247,000              NA           0.0262
butanol.......................        0.510 \12\             <25           NA           2,920           3.75
carbon disulfide..............      <12              \IV\ 0.0039           NA           2,850           3.17
chloromethane.................        0.05 \I\             <0.05           NA             306           0.393
ethylbenzene..................       <1.2                 0.0034           NA             549           0.7
formaldehyde..................       86.1                  <10.0        4,150             631           0.811
methyl ethyl ketone...........        0.0365 \I\          0.0820           NA             200          22.5
methylene chloride............       <2.4                  0.028      882,000               4.0         0.005
methyl isobutyl ketone........        0.644                 <0.5           NA           2,340           3.0
trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-......        0.000652 \I\   \I\ 0.00530           NA              34.2         0.0448
xylenes.......................       <2.4             \I\ 0.0116           NA             484           0.617
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
benzyl alcohol................       27.7                  0.036           NA          14,600          18.8
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate....        2.82                 <0.02           NA              NA           0.00321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
barium........................      132                     0.26           NA         \1\ 100           2.0
boron.........................      114                     1.24           NA           6,570           7.5
chromium......................      153                    <1.25   \3\ 22,700           \1\ 5.0         0.1
cobalt........................      333                    <1.25       30,300              10.4         0.0113
copper........................      422                     0.49           NA           1,180           1.3
lead..........................       54.9                  <1.25           NA           \1\ 5.0         0.015
manganese.....................   15,100                     25.2           NA             815           0.9
mercury.......................        0.0182             <0.0002           98.1         \1\ 0.2         0.00145
nickel........................    7,380                     37.1           NA             638           0.75
strontium.....................   10,200                 \C\ 5.13           NA          19,700          22.5
zinc..........................   89,400                     30.2           NA          10,300          11.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Miscellaneous Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cyanide.......................       16.3                  <0.05           NA             156         200
sulfide.......................       85.1                     NR           NA              NA          NA
fluoride......................      740                     22.6           NA           1,980       2,250
pH (corrosivity)..............              5.9-8.11
                                          2 < pH < 12.5                    NA
flashpoint (ignitability).....            > 200 [deg]F
                                          < 140 [deg]F                     NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any sample and do not necessarily
  represent the concentrations found in a single sample.

\1\--Based on the toxicity characteristic in 40 CFR 261 subpart C.
\2\--Includes both n-butanol and t-butanol.
\3\--Based on a mixture at a ratio of 1:6 hexavalent to trivalent chromium.
\V\--Present in blank.
NA--Maximum allowable not calculated or much higher than expected to be present.
<--Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the quantitation level.
\I\--Estimated value, below practicable quantitation limit.
\C\--Calibration check verification or quality control sample exceeded upper control limit.
NR--Analysis not run.

E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?

    For this delisting determination, we assumed that the waste would
be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we considered transport of
waste constituents through ground water, surface water and air. We
evaluated PPI's petitioned waste using the Agency's Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict the concentration of hazardous
constituents that might be released from the petitioned waste and to
determine if the waste would pose a threat. To predict the potential
for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes and subsequent routes
of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors
(DAFs) derived from EPA's Composite Model for leachate migration with
Transformation Products (CMTP). From a release to groundwater, the DRAS
considers routes of exposure to a human receptor of ingestion of
contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater while showering
and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.
    From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open
landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a
human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From
a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the
surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of
the contaminated soil by a child.
    For a detailed description of the DRAS program and revisions see
the Delisting Technical Support Document, DRAS version 3.0 Update
Summary, and DRAS version 3.0 User's Guide available in the docket for
today's action.
    At a target cancer risk of 1x10-\6\ and a target hazard
quotient of one, the DRAS program determined maximum allowable
concentrations for each constituent in both the waste and the leachate
at an annual waste volume of 140 cubic yards. We used the maximum
estimated annual waste volume and the maximum reported total and
leachate concentrations as inputs for DRAS. If, using an appropriate
analytical method, a constituent was not detected in any sample nor in
the leachate of any sample, it was considered not to be present in the
waste.

F. What Did EPA Conclude About PPI's Waste?

    The maximum reported leachate concentrations and the maximum
reported total concentrations of the hazardous constituents found in
this waste are presented in the table above. The table also presents
the maximum allowable concentrations. The concentrations of all
constituents in both the waste and the leachate are below the allowable
levels of concern calculated by the DRAS program at the target risk
levels. We therefore conclude that PPI's wastewater treatment sludge is
not a substantial or potential hazard to human health and the
environment when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. Once the
exclusion becomes effective, PPI must dispose of this waste in a
Subtitle D landfill permitted or licensed by a State.

G. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?

    EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because
we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. The exclusion applies to a very small waste stream generated
at a single facility and rigorous chemical analysis of the waste
indicated that concentrations of chemicals and elements in the waste
were far below levels of concern. If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Conditions for Exclusion

A. How Will PPI Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?

    If the petitioned waste is delisted, PPI must dispose of it in a
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial waste.

B. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?

    The following parameters were selected for ongoing verification
because of their prevalence in the waste relative to the maximum
allowable concentrations. Concentrations measured in the TCLP (or OWEP,
where appropriate) extract of the waste of these constituents must not
exceed the following concentrations (mg/l): chromium--5, cobalt--10.4;
manganese--815; and nickel--638.

C. How Frequently Must PPI Test the Waste?

    PPI must analyze a representative sample of the wastewater
treatment sludges on an annual basis to demonstrate that leachate
concentrations do not exceed the levels of concern in Section IV.B.
above. PPI must use methods with appropriate detection levels with
appropriate quality control procedures. SW-846 Method 1311 must be used
for generation of the leachate extract used in the testing of the
delisting levels if oil and grease comprise less than 1% of the waste.
SW-846 Method 1330A must be used for generation of the leaching extract
if oil and grease comprise 1% or more of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B
must be used for determination of oil and grease. SW-846 Methods 1311,
1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.

D. What Data Must PPI Submit?

    PPI must submit the data obtained through annual verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,
upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. PPI must
compile, summarize, and maintain on site records of operating
conditions and analytical data. PPI must make these records available
for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

E. What Happens If PPI Fails To Meet the Conditions of the Exclusion?

    If PPI violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion,

the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
    If any testing of the waste does not meet the maximum allowable
concentrations described in section IV.B. above or other data
(including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring
data) relevant to the delisted waste indicates that any constituent is
at a level in the leachate higher than the specified maximum allowable
concentration, or is in groundwater at a concentration higher than the
groundwater concentrations used in the risk evaluation, PPI must notify
the Agency within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of
the data. Maximum allowable groundwater concentrations (mg/L) are as
follows: chromium--0.1; cobalt--0.0113; manganese--0.9; and nickel--
0.75.
    The exclusion will be suspended and the waste managed as hazardous
until PPI has received written approval from the Agency to continue the
exclusion. PPI may provide sampling results which support the
continuation of the delisting exclusion.
    The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 551 (1978) et seq. to reopen a delisting
decision if we receive new information indicating that the conditions
of this exclusion have been violated, or are otherwise not being met.

F. What Must PPI Do If the Process Changes?

    If PPI significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process
or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, PPI
may not handle the wastewater treatment sludge generated from the new
process under this exclusion until it has demonstrated to the EPA that
the waste meets the levels set in section IV.B. and that no new
hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have
been introduced. PPI must manage wastes generated after the process
change as hazardous waste until PPI has received written notice from
EPA that the delisting is reinstated.

V. How Would This Action Affect the States?

    Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in
States which have received our authorization to make their own
delisting decisions.
    EPA allows 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.
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 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 PPI manages the waste in any State with delisting
authorization, PPI must obtain delisting authorization from that State
before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that State.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: November 9, 2009.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Land and Chemicals Division.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as
follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part 261 is amended by adding the
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and
260.22

                               Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Facility                             Address                           Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Professional Plating, Incorporated  Brillion, Wisconsin...............  Wastewater treatment sludges, F019,
                                                                         which are generated at the Professional
                                                                         Plating, Incorporated (PPI) Brillion
                                                                         facility at a maximum annual rate of
                                                                         140 cubic yards per year. The sludge
                                                                         must be disposed of in a Subtitle D
                                                                         landfill which is licensed, permitted,
                                                                         or otherwise authorized by a State to
                                                                         accept the delisted wastewater
                                                                         treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes
                                                                         effective as of March 1, 2010.
                                                                        1. Delisting Levels: The constituent
                                                                         concentrations measured in a leachate
                                                                         extract may not exceed the following
                                                                         levels (mg/L): chromium--5, cobalt--
                                                                         10.4; manganese--815; and nickel--638.
                                                                        2. Annual Verification Testing: To
                                                                         verify that the waste does not exceed
                                                                         the specified delisting levels, PPI
                                                                         must collect and analyze, annually, one
                                                                         waste sample for the constituents in
                                                                         Section 1. using methods with
                                                                         appropriate detection levels and
                                                                         elements of quality control. SW-846
                                                                         Method 1311 must be used for generation
                                                                         of the leachate extract used in the
                                                                         testing of the delisting levels if oil
                                                                         and grease comprise less than 1% of the
                                                                         waste. SW-846 Method 1330A must be used
                                                                         for generation of the leaching extract
                                                                         if oil and grease comprise 1% or more
                                                                         of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B must
                                                                         be used for determination of oil and
                                                                         grease. SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and
                                                                         9071B are incorporated by reference in
                                                                         40 CFR 260.11.
                                                                        3. Changes in Operating Conditions: PPI
                                                                         must notify the EPA in writing if the
                                                                         manufacturing process, the chemicals
                                                                         used in the manufacturing process, the
                                                                         treatment process, or the chemicals
                                                                         used in the treatment process
                                                                         significantly change. PPI must handle
                                                                         wastes generated after the process
                                                                         change as hazardous until it has
                                                                         demonstrated that the wastes continue
                                                                         to meet the maximum allowable
                                                                         concentrations in Section 1. and that
                                                                         no new hazardous constituents listed in
                                                                         appendix VIII of part 261 have been
                                                                         introduced and it has received written
                                                                         approval from EPA.
                                                                        4. Reopener Language--(a) If, anytime
                                                                         after disposal of the delisted waste,
                                                                         PPI possesses or is otherwise made
                                                                         aware of any data (including but not
                                                                         limited to leachate data or groundwater
                                                                         monitoring data) relevant to the
                                                                         delisted waste indicating that any
                                                                         constituent is at a concentration in
                                                                         the waste or waste leachate higher than
                                                                         the maximum allowable concentrations in
                                                                         Section 1. above or is in the
                                                                         groundwater at a concentration higher
                                                                         than the maximum allowable groundwater
                                                                         concentrations in Paragraph (e), then
                                                                         PPI must report such data, in writing,
                                                                         to the Regional Administrator within 10
                                                                         days of first possessing or being made
                                                                         aware of that data.
                                                                        (b) Based on the information described
                                                                         in paragraph (a) and any other
                                                                         information received from any source,
                                                                         the Regional Administrator 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.
                                                                        (c) If the Regional Administrator
                                                                         determines that the reported
                                                                         information does require Agency action,
                                                                         the Regional Administrator will notify
                                                                         the facility in writing of the actions
                                                                         the Regional Administrator believes are
                                                                         necessary to protect human health and
                                                                         the environment. The notice shall
                                                                         include a statement of the proposed
                                                                         action and a statement providing PPI
                                                                         with an opportunity to present
                                                                         information as to why the proposed
                                                                         Agency action is not necessary or to
                                                                         suggest an alternative action. PPI
                                                                         shall have 30 days from the date of the
                                                                         Regional Administrator's notice to
                                                                         present the information.
                                                                        (d) If after 30 days PPI presents no
                                                                         further information, the Regional
                                                                         Administrator 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's determination shall
                                                                         become effective immediately, unless
                                                                         the Regional Administrator provides
                                                                         otherwise.
                                                                        (e) Maximum allowable groundwater
                                                                         concentrations (mg/L) are as follows:
                                                                         chromium--0.1; cobalt--0.0113;
                                                                         manganese--0.9; and nickel--0.75.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-30994 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20808-20810]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09336]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0309; FRL-9993-31-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Cement Kilns,
Revisions to Portland Cement Manufacturing Plant and Natural Gas
Compression Station Regulations, and Removal of Nitrogen Oxides
Reduction and Trading Program Replaced by Other Programs and
Regulations; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) rule language of the March 28, 2018 final rule
pertaining to oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT), submitted by the State of
Maryland.

DATES: This final correcting amendment is effective on May 13, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2308. Ms. Powers can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 28, 2018, (83 FR 13192), EPA
published a final rulemaking action announcing approval of several
amendments to the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) into the
Maryland SIP. The amendments included (but were not limited to): (1)
NOX RACT for cement kilns for the 2008 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS); (2) the removal of obsolete
provisions related to the NOX Budget Trading Program; and
(3) amendments to the requirements for Portland cement plants and
natural gas compressor stations.
    In the final rulemaking, EPA inadvertently omitted COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> from the regulations incorporated by reference into the
Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 52.1070. The intent of the rule
was to incorporate COMAR 26.11.29 in its entirety, consistent with
Maryland's November 24, 2015 submittal, as well as EPA's original
analysis of the submittal.\1\ This document corrects the erroneous
omission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Technical Support Document at 6, in the docket for the
original rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rulemaking document published in the Federal Register
on March 28, 2018 (83 FR 13192), on page 13195, in the second and third
columns, the revised rule language should have read--``d. Adding the
subheading ``26.11.29 Control of NOX Emissions from Natural
Gas Pipeline Stations'' and the entries ''<IP_ADDRESS>'' through
``<IP_ADDRESS>''.'' Additionally, the table in paragraph (c) of section
52.1070, under the newly-added heading ``26.11.29 Control of
NOX emissions from Natural Gas Pipeline Stations'' should
have included COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final rule failed to fully incorporate Maryland's
proposed SIP revision as it was submitted and as EPA intended to
approve. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that
there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal
and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting an
incorrect citation in a previous action which underwent notice and
comment rulemaking. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary.
EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

Corrections of Publication

    In this Final rule: Correction, EPA is amending 40 CFR 52.1070 to
incorporate COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> by reference, as was initially intended.

Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions
to Maryland regulations at COMAR 26.11.29 as discussed in this final
action, and EPA's original, May 28, 2018 final action (83 FR 13192).
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is not a significant regulatory action and is therefore not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Because the
agency has made a good cause finding that this action is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act
or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information
section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant
intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of May 13,
2019. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This correction to 40 CFR 52.1070 for
Maryland is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 25, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding
the entry ``<IP_ADDRESS>'' in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                Epa--Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Code of Maryland                                   State                                   Additional
 Administrative Regulations      Title/subject         effective      EPA approval date    explanation/ citation
      (COMAR) citation                                   date                                at 40 CFR 52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                      26.11.29 Control of NOX Emissions From Natural Gas Pipeline Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>................  Maintaining Records..       7/20/2015  3/28/2018, 83 FR       .....................
                                                                     13192.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-09336 Filed 5-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 239)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66230-66231]
[DOCID:fr15de09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0704; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-9]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Riverton, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will amend Class E airspace at Riverton Regional
Airport, Riverton, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to
accommodate aircraft using the VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range (VOR),
Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Riverton Regional Airport,
Riverton, WY. This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) aircraft executing the VOR (RNAV) GPS (SIAP) at Riverton Regional
Airport, Riverton, WY.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 11, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 2, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E controlled airspace at
Riverton Regional Airport, Riverton, WY (74 FR 50928). Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9T signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending the Class E airspace for the Riverton, WY, area,
adding additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate IFR aircraft executing VOR (RNAV)
(GPS) SIAPs at Riverton Regional Airport. This action is necessary for
the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends
controlled airspace at Riverton Regional Airport, Riverton, WY.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Riverton, WY [Modified]

Riverton Regional Airport, WY
    (Lat. 43[deg]03'51'' N., long. 108[deg]27'35'' W.)
Riverton VOR/DME
    (Lat. 43[deg]03'57'' N., long. 108[deg]27'20'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.7-mile radius of the Riverton Regional Airport and
within 4 miles each side of the Riverton VOR/DME 291[deg] radial
extending from the 8.7-mile radius to 16.6 miles west of the VOR/
DME, and within 3.1 miles each side of the Riverton VOR/DME 123[deg]
radial extending from the 8.7-mile radius to 10.5 miles southeast of
the VOR/DME; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface within a 21.8-mile radius of the Riverton VOR/DME within
8.7 miles east and 6.1 miles west of the Riverton VOR/DME 016[deg]
radial extending from the 21.8-mile radius to 33.1 miles north of
the VOR/DME, and within 6.1 miles northeast and 12.7 miles southwest
of the Riverton VOR/DME 301[deg] radial extending from the 21.8-mile
radius to 32.2 miles northwest of the VOR/DME, on the east within an
area bounded by a point beginning at lat. 42[deg]56'30'' N., long.
107[deg]59'45'' W.; to lat. 42[deg]54'53'' N., long. 107[deg]44'31''
W.; to lat. 42[deg]42'35'' N., long. 107[deg]53'00'' W.; to lat.
42[deg]49'00'' N., long. 108[deg]06'00'' W.; thence to the point of
beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 2, 2009.
H. Steve Karnes,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-29758 Filed 12-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59323-59325]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2053]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective,

will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of
those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2053, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Hampshire County, Massachusetts and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 17-01-0941S Preliminary Date: June 24, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Amherst........................  Town Hall, 4 Boltwood Avenue,
                                          Amherst, MA 01002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Webster County, West Virginia and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 19-03-0002S Preliminary Date: November 22, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Camden-On-Gauley...............  Water Works Office, 9580
                                          Webster Road, Camden-On-
                                          Gauley, WV 26208.
Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.  Webster County Office of
                                          Emergency Services Building,
                                          210 Back Fork Street, Webster
                                          Springs, WV 26288.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-20795 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75943-75945]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0190]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 14 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision requirement. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 5, 2011. The exemptions
expire on December 5, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On October 17, 2011, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (76 FR 64169). That notice listed 14 applicants' case
histories. The 14 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 14 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement, but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 14
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including retinal detachment, amblyopia, complete loss of
vision, prosthesis, central retinal vein occlusion, postenor ureal
malignant melanoma, cataract, and retinal scarring. In most cases,
their eye conditions were not recently developed. Nine of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood. The 5 individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging from 5 to 35
years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 14 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. With
their limited vision, they have driven CMVs for careers ranging from 3
to 33 years. In the past 3 years, none of the drivers was involved in
crashes and one was convicted of two moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 17, 2011,
notice (76 FR 64169).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of

single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data,
comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their
experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 14 applicants, none of the applicants was involved in crashes and
one applicant was convicted of two moving violations in a CMV for
speeding. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving
with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they
have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As
the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies
are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their
ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 14 applicants listed in the notice of October
17, 2011 (76 FR 64169).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 14 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
    Laura J. Krol of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is
in favor of granting David A. Rice an exemption.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 14 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Kevin G. Clem (SD), Richard A. Hackney (MS), Rocky J. Lachney
(LA), Herman Martinez (NM), Charles L. McClendon (FL), Gerald L. Pagan
(NC), Danny C Pope (IL), David A. Rice (PA), Levi A. Shelter (OH), Rick
E. Smith (IL), Juan E. Sotero (FL), Randell K. Tyler (AL), Steven R.
Wetlesen (AL) and Jeffrey K. Yockey (OH) from the vision requirement in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: November 28, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-31164 Filed 12-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P