[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49533-49539]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23239]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0153; SW-FRL-9969-73-Region 6]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted by ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Beaumont Refinery
(ExxonMobil) to exclude from hazardous waste control (or delist) a
certain solid waste. This final rule responds to the petition submitted
by ExxonMobil to have the secondary impoundment basin (SIB) solids
excluded, or delisted from the definition of a hazardous waste. The SIB
solids are listed as F037 (primary oil/water/solids separation sludge);
and F038 (secondary oil/water/solids separation sludge).
    After careful analysis and evaluation of comments submitted by the
public, the EPA has concluded that the petitioned wastes are not
hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This
exclusion applies to the surface impoundment solids generated at
ExxonMobil's Beaumont, Texas 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 but imposes testing conditions
to ensure that the future-generated wastes remain qualified for
delisting.

DATES: Effective October 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0153. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information regarding
the ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery petition, contact Michelle Peace at
214-665-7430 or by email at [email protected].

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

I. Overview Information
    A. What action is EPA finalizing?
    B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
    C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
    D. How will Beaumont Refinery 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''?
    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 and how much did Beaumont Refinery petition EPA to
delist?
    B. How did Beaumont Refinery 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. Comments and Responses
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA finalizing?

    The EPA is finalizing:
    (1) The decision to grant ExxonMobil's Beaumont Refinery's petition
to have its surface impoundment basin solids excluded, or delisted,
from the definition of a hazardous waste, subject to certain continued
verification and monitoring conditions; and
    (2) to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software 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.
    After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed rule, on May 31, 2017,
to exclude the ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery waste from the lists of
hazardous wastes under Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 261.32. The comments
received on this rulemaking will be addressed as part of this decision.

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?

    ExxonMobil's petition requests an exclusion from the F037 and F038
waste listings pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. ExxonMobil does
not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA
listed it. ExxonMobil 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) (hereinafter, all sectional
references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). In making the
initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. Sec.
261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with the
petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original
listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on this review, that the
waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was
originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition. 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. 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. EPA believes that
the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus should
not be a listed waste. EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from
ExxonMobil is based on the information submitted in support of this
rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data from the
Beaumont, Texas 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, Appendix IX, and
the conditions contained herein are satisfied. The one-time exclusion
applies to 400,000 cubic yards of surface impoundment basin solids.

D. How will Beaumont Refinery manage the waste if it is delisted?

    Storage containers with SIB solids will be transported to an
authorized solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill,
commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.) for disposal.

E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?

    This rule is effective October 26, 2017. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These
reasons also provide 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 Beaumont
Refinery transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any
State with delisting authorization, Beaumont Refinery 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?

    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 does not consider 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 control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec.  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
266, 268 and 273 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 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 and how much did Beaumont Refinery petition EPA to
delist?

    In August 2016, ExxonMobil petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 261.32, SIB
solids (F037, F038) generated from its facility located in Beaumont,
Texas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its
petition, ExxonMobil requested that EPA grant a one-time exclusion for
400,000 cubic yards of SIB solids.
    The 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VII hazardous constituents which are
the basis for listing can be found in Table 1.

  Table 1--EPA Waste Codes for Surface Impoundment Basin Solids and the
                            Basis for Listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Waste code                       Basis for listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F037...............................  Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
                                      lead, chromium.
F038...............................  Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
                                      lead, chromium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How did Beaumont Refinery sample and analyze the waste data in this
petition?

    To support its petition, ExxonMobil submitted:
    (1) Historical information on waste generation and management
practices; and
    (2) analytical results from thirty-nine samples for total and TCLP
concentrations of compounds of concern (COC)s;

                      Table 2--Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration
            [Secondary Impoundment Basin (SIB) Solids ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery, Beaumont, Texas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum total     Maximum TCLP     Maximum TCLP
                         Constituent                            concentration    concentration   delisting level
                                                                   (mg/kg)           (mg/L)           (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.....................................................             4.84            0.023             .109
Arsenic......................................................             33.6            0.077             .424
Barium.......................................................              455             1.47               36
Beryllium....................................................             1.38           <0.002              2.0
Cadmium......................................................             2.05           <0.002             0.09
Chromium.....................................................              697            0.205             2.27
Cobalt.......................................................             19.4           0.0371            0.214
Lead.........................................................              400            0.656            0.702
Mercury......................................................             3.61         0.000049            0.068
Nickel.......................................................             68.2            0.152             13.5
Selenium.....................................................             28.7           0.0177            0.890
Silver.......................................................             1.23            0.002              5.0
Vanadium.....................................................             90.7           0.0815             3.77
Zinc.........................................................            2,470             5.43              197
2,4 Dimethylphenol...........................................             0.97           0.0018             11.3
2-Methylphenol...............................................            <0.71         <.000033             28.9
3-Methylphenol...............................................            <0.64            0.002             28.9
4-Methylphenol...............................................            <0.64          0.00047             2.89
Acenaphthene.................................................              1.7          0.00091             10.6
Anthracene...................................................              2.9          0.00019             25.9
Benz(a)anthracene............................................              7.2         0.000034             0.07
Benz(a)pyrene................................................                5         <0.00003             26.3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate...................................               34           0.0002          106,000
Chrysene.....................................................               19         0.000048             7.01
Di-n-butyl phthalate.........................................             0.66           0.0013             24.6
Fluoranthene.................................................              2.1         0.000078             2.46
Fluorene.....................................................              4.9           0.0016             4.91
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.......................................              2.6        <0.000051               73
Naphthalene..................................................               26             0.02           0.0327
Phenol.......................................................            <0.71          0.00025              173
Pyrene.......................................................              N/A          0.00019             4.45
Benzene......................................................              1.1           <0.004            0.077
Xylenes, total...............................................               53             0.18             9.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not
  necessarily represent the specific level found in one sample.

IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?

    The EPA received four anonymous public comments on the May 31,
2017, proposed rule via regulations.gov. EPA also received comments
from the facility regarding the conditions and nomenclature on Table 1.
The comments and responses are addressed below.

B. Comments and Responses

    Comment 1. ``Exxon Mobil requests that language found on Pages
24929, 24931, and 24932 be revised to reflect that the SIB solids are
delisted upon final publication in the Federal Register. The text in
Section IV (Next Steps), Items A.(2) and A.(3) is currently structured
such that additional testing would have to be performed to verify that
delisting limits are met. Items (2), (3), and (4) of Table 1 (Pages
24931 and 34932) also reflect these requirements. This language appears
to be a ``holdover'' associated with another delisting petition
request. Our sampling program included collection of over 30 samples to
support the delisting petition request. As such, we believe we have
already completed a rigorous sampling program in support of this
request. Also, we would note in several locations that the petition
volume is listed as ``400,000 wet'' cubic yards. The SIB solids will
contain water upon removal from the pond. However, they will be
dewatered (e.g. filtration, addition of cement, etc.) to pass the paint
filter test prior to disposal. As such, we suggest removing the word
wet in reference to the delisted volume.''
    Response 1. The language found in Table 1 of the exclusion has been
revised to remove all conditional exclusion language. The request for
the delisting is a one-time exclusion which is conditioned on proper
disposal of up to 400,000 cubic yards of SIB solids and contains the
data submittals, reopener and disposal notification clauses for all
delisting exclusions. The conditions were included in the proposed rule
in error. All references regarding the wet solids have been removed
because the waste will not be disposed of in this manner. The reference
to wet solids was in regards to the volume of solids as generated
during the removal.
    Comment 2. ``Excuse me? ExxonMobile wants to dump their waste into
the landfills where it can pollute our ground water? NO. Absolutely
NOT. These waste products are toxic to the environment and need to stay
listed as hazardous. We don't want this stuff seeping into our
groundwater for our kids to drink. ExxonMobile needs to spend the money
on research to break down this waste sludge into something that doesn't
hurt the environment. They must not be allowed to put it in dumps or
store it somewhere. There probably are some kind of bacteria that will
break this stuff down into something useful or non toxic. This stuff
should NOT end up in our ground water. If you cannot do something
positive with this waste, the process whereby this waste is produced
MUST BE STOPPED. We need to move away from fossil fuel use and towards
renewable energy and sustainable products.''
    Response 2. The Delisting Program requires extensive waste sampling
and a risk assessment is performed to assess a wastes potential harm to
human health and the environment. The program is designed to insure
that the wastes which are deemed excluded will not be managed in a
manner to harm human health or the environment. This waste will be
managed in a Subtitle D industrial waste landfill as solid waste to
prevent releases to groundwater and air pathways.
    Comment 3. ``The EPA should feel obligated to ensure that there are
no possible adverse effects to humans or the environment by approving
the petition from ExxonMobile. The EPA should conduct their own
investigation, take their own samples, and perform data analysis to
confirm that there are no discrepancies between their findings and
those provided by the Beaumont facility. In the list of constituents
provided by ExxonMobile, there are known human carcinogens such as
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and benzene, along with
other harmful constituents such as lead and mercury. The EPA should
conduct an environmental impact assessment before approving this
petition.''
    Response 3. The requirements of the Federal regulations defined in
40 CFR part 260.20, and 260.22, describe the process by which wastes
may be removed from the list of hazardous waste. In addition to
extensive quality assurance and quality control data for the samples
taken, EPA performs a risk assessment using the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software to ensure that our decision is protective of human
health and the environment. The constituent concentrations found in the
surface impoundment basin solids are below the concentrations that
would pose harm to human health and the environment.
    Comment 4. ``Although the tests that have been run by ExxonMobil's
Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to provide scientific
reasoning to the EPA for the delisting of SIB solids, I believe that
more research must be conducted by the EPA itself. Employees of this
agency should especially check the individual components of the SIB
solids and test for even greater possibilities than those proposed by
the DRAS; the DRAS was not said to take into account the effects that
chemical exposure would produce on surrounding populations or even
employees themselves if buildups were to occur. Risk assessment should
be issued for each individual chemical compound by the EPA. Assuming
the EPA would like to work rather quickly on this issue considering
ExxonMobil's insistence that the SIB solids are non-hazardous, benefits
would include reduced regulation on the industry, as well as, one less
responsibility for the EPA. However, closer examination needs to occur,
especially since this test has only been conducted for Beaumont,
Texas.''
    Response 4. A waste is eligible for delisting only if that waste,
as generated at a particular facility, does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the waste may not contain any other Appendix VIII
constituents that would cause the waste to be hazardous. RCRA Sec.
3001(f) and 40 CFR 260.22. A delisting is only intended to address a
specific waste stream generated at a specific site. The risk analysis
is conducted specifically for each chemical constituent of the waste
stream. If any constituent concentration exceeds the delisting limit,
the entire waste stream remains hazardous.
    The delisting risk analysis performed using the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software evaluates the worst case scenario for the
petitioned waste and risk pathways are evaluated. All chemical
constituents detected in the waste are individually assessed for their
impact on human health and the environment.
    Comment 5. ``I believe there should be a thorough health
examination of all employees in the facility who work directly with the
waste proposed for delisting. Some of these chemicals can build-up in
the system over time and if any de-regulations are to occur they need
science based evidence to prove the decision would not pose a human
safety issue. If the decision would not prove to have a high economical
impact, I do not see any reason it should be considered, especially
when the decision is for only a single site.''
    Response 5. A waste is eligible for delisting only if that waste,
as generated

at a particular facility, does not meet any of the criteria under which
the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the waste may
not contain any other Appendix VIII constituents that would cause the
waste to be hazardous. RCRA Sec.  3001(f) and 40 CFR 260.22. A
delisting is only intended to address a specific waste stream generated
at a specific site. Since individual waste streams may vary depending
on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors, it may be
appropriate not to list a specific waste from a specific site.
Therefore, while a waste described in the regulations or resulting from
the operation of the mixture or derived-from rules generally is
hazardous, a specific waste from an individual facility may not be
hazardous. For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an
exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove
that EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular
generating facility as a hazardous waste. A risk assessment of the
petitioned waste is completed and a part of the decision factors in
issuing an exclusion. Specific health examinations and worker
protection is covered by the facility operating plans and overseen by
OSHA. Worker safety during the management of this waste to avoid
contact with this material are covered by the Health and Safety plans
of the petitioner.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore, is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because
this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'', (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
    Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used 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. Executive Order
(E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from
management of this material in an authorized, solid waste landfill
(e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste
landfill, etc.). Therefore, EPA believes that any populations in
proximity of the landfills used by this facility should not be
adversely affected by common waste management practices for this
delisted waste.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 4, 2017.
Wren Stenger,
Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.

    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. In Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources in Appendix IX
to Part 261, add the following waste stream in alphabetical order by
facility to read as follows:

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

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
ExxonMobil....................  Beaumont, TX.............  Secondary Impoundment Basin Solids (SIB) (EPA
                                                            Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and F038) generated at
                                                            a maximum rate of 400,000 cubic yards.
                                                           (1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those
                                                            constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable
                                                            concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph.
                                                           Surface Impoundment Basin Solids. Leachable
                                                            Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony--0.109; Arsenic--
                                                            0.424; Barium--36; Beryllium--2.0; Cadmium--0.09;
                                                            Chromium--2.27; Cobalt--0.214; Lead--0.702; Mercury--
                                                            0.068; Nickel--13.5; Selenium--0.890; Silver--5.0;
                                                            Vanadium--3.77; Zinc--197; 2,4 Dimethylphenol--11.3;
                                                            2-Methylphenol--28.9; 3-Methylphenol--28.9; 4-
                                                            Methylphenol--2.89; Acenaphthene--10.6; Anthracene---
                                                            25.9; Benz(a)anthracene--0.07; Benz(a)pyrene--26.3;
                                                            Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate--106,000; Chrysene--
                                                            7.01; Di-n-butyl phthalate--24.6; Fluoranthene--
                                                            2.46; Fluorene--4.91; Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene--73;
                                                            Naphthalene--0.0327; Phenol--173; Pyrene--4.45;
                                                            Benzene--0.077; Xylenes, total--9.56
                                                           (2) Reopener
                                                           (A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste
                                                            ExxonMobil possesses or is otherwise made aware of
                                                            any environmental data (including but not limited to
                                                            underflow water data or ground water 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
                                                            Division Director in granting the petition, then the
                                                            facility must report the data, in writing, to the
                                                            Division Director within 10 days of first possessing
                                                            or being made aware of that data.
                                                           (B) If verification testing (and retest, if
                                                            applicable) of the waste does not meet the delisting
                                                            requirements in paragraph 1, ExxonMobil must report
                                                            the data, in writing, to the Division Director
                                                            within 10 days of first possessing or being made
                                                            aware of that data.
                                                           (C) If ExxonMobil fails to submit the information
                                                            described in paragraphs (2),(3)(A) or (3)(B) or if
                                                            any other information is received from any source,
                                                            the Division Director will make a preliminary
                                                            determination as to whether the reported information
                                                            requires EPA action to protect human health and/or
                                                            the environment. Further action may include
                                                            suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other
                                                            appropriate response necessary to protect human
                                                            health and the environment.
                                                           (D) If the Division Director determines that the
                                                            reported information requires action by EPA, the
                                                            Division Director will notify the facility in
                                                            writing of the actions the Division Director
                                                            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 EPA
                                                            action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10
                                                            days from receipt of the Division Director's notice
                                                            to present such information.
                                                           (E) Following the receipt of information from the
                                                            facility described in paragraph (3)(D) or (if no
                                                            information is presented under paragraph (3)(D)) the
                                                            initial receipt of information described in
                                                            paragraphs (2), (3)(A) or (3)(B), the Division
                                                            Director will issue a final written determination
                                                            describing EPA actions that are necessary to protect
                                                            human health and/or the environment. Any required
                                                            action described in the Division Director's
                                                            determination shall become effective immediately,
                                                            unless the Division Director provides otherwise.
                                                           (3) Notification Requirements:
                                                           ExxonMobil must do the following before transporting
                                                            the delisted waste. Failure to provide this
                                                            notification will result in a violation of the
                                                            delisting petition and a possible revocation of the
                                                            decision.
                                                           (A) Provide a one-time written notification to any
                                                            state Regulatory Agency to which or through which it
                                                            will transport the delisted waste described above
                                                            for disposal, 60 days before beginning such
                                                            activities.
                                                           (B) For onsite disposal, a notice should be submitted
                                                            to the State to notify the State that disposal of
                                                            the delisted materials has begun.
                                                           (C) Update one-time written notification, if it ships
                                                            the delisted waste into a different disposal
                                                            facility.
                                                           (D) Failure to provide this notification will result
                                                            in a violation of the delisting exclusion and a
                                                            possible revocation of the decision.

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

[FR Doc. 2017-23239 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24769-24770]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53676; File No. SR-CHX-2006-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto Relating to Specialist Participant Fees and Credits

April 18, 2006.
    On February 27, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its Participant Fee Schedule to confirm
that, retroactive to January 1, 2006, specialist fixed fees would not
be assessed to a specialist firm with respect to securities that are
temporarily assigned.\3\ On March 2, 2006, CHX filed

Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The proposed rule
change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 14, 2006.\5\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On February 27, 2006, the Exchange filed with the Commission
a proposed rule change to amend its Participant Fee Schedule to
confirm that, effective immediately, specialist fixed fees would not
be assessed to a specialist firm with respect to securities that are
temporarily assigned. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53429
(March 6, 2006), 71 FR 13197 (March 14, 2006).
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposal's rule
text to clarify its meaning.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53433 (March 7,
2006), 71 FR 13196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's rules, the Committee on Specialist Assignment
and Evaluation (``CSAE'') is responsible for appointing participant
firms to act as specialists on the Exchange.\6\ From time to time, the
CSAE may make a temporary assignment of one or more securities to a
specialist firm.\7\ Temporary assignments may be made, for example,
when one specialist firm has requested and been granted the opportunity
to deregister in one or more of its securities before the formal
posting and assignment process has been completed.\8\ Through this
proposed rule change, as amended, the Exchange seeks to confirm,
retroactive to January 1, 2006, that, when a firm has been appointed to
act as specialist in a security on a temporary basis, the firm will not
be charged the specialist fixed fees otherwise associated with the
trading of that security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Article IV, Rule 6.
    \7\ See Article XXX, Rule 1.
    \8\ The Exchange represents that when a security is to be
assigned or reassigned, the Exchange notifies specialist firms of
the assignment opportunity and invites applications for the
security. See Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and Policy .01,
Section II. The Exchange further represents that if more than one
firm seeks the assignment, the CSAE holds meetings with the firms to
review their demonstrated ability, experience, financial
responsibility and other factors that are relevant to the CSAE's
assignment decision. See Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and
Policy .01, Section II and Section III. The Exchange represents that
depending upon the number of firms applying for a security and the
availability of committee members and specialist firm
representatives, this process could take several weeks to complete.
An interim temporary assignment allows a security to continue to be
traded by a specialist firm, while the process is completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that the Exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and
issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Commission believes
that the suspension, retroactive to January 1, 2006, of the specialist
fixed fees for specialist firms who accepted a temporary assignment of
securities is appropriate because it creates an incentive for a
specialist firm to act as specialist on a temporary basis pending
completion of the Exchange's formal process for assigning securities to
a specialist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2006-08), as amended, is
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6230 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 35)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9448-9449]
[DOCID:fr21fe08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR PART 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0066; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-97]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Dover-Foxcroft, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Dover-Foxcroft, ME
to support a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Special Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) that has been developed for
medical flight operations into the Mayo Regional Hospital. This action
enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations by providing that required controlled airspace to protect
for this approach around Dover-Foxcroft, ME.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for
inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before April 7,
2008.

ADDRESSES:  Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2008-0066; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-97, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Melinda Giddens, System Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
nor negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will

publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse
or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date.
If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative
comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a
document withdrawing the direct final will be published in the Federal
Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking my be published with a
new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed at
http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web site page at http://www.faa.gov.,

or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
 Communications should identify both docket numbers and be

submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
ADDRESSES above or through the Web site. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this
rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2008-0066; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-97.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Dover-Foxcroft, ME, providing
the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 120 Point in Space
(PinS) approach developed for the Mayo Regional Hospital. Controlled
airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is
required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass
all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical,
therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at
Dover-Foxcroft, ME. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are
published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, effective
September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part
71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (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 United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes 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 establishes controlled airspace near the Mayo Regional Hospital
in Dover-Foxcroft, ME.

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 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Dover-Foxcroft, ME [New]

Mayo Regional Hospital
    (Lat. 45[deg]11[min]19[sec] N., long. 69[deg]14[min]12[sec] W.)
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 45[deg]11[min]31[sec] N., long. 69[deg]15[min]24[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of the Earth within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space
Coordinates (lat. 45[deg]11[min]31[sec] N., long.
69[deg]15[min]24[sec] W.) serving the Mayo Regional Hospital.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 31, 2008.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 08-730 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 03/10/2008 08:50 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Schwab, Margo" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johansson, Robert" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: more RIA comments (but a shorter list!)

Thanks Ron, good night -- until tomorrow

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:48 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Schwab, Margo; Johansson, Robert;

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: more RIA comments (but a shorter list!)

We can chat tomorrow, see comments below.

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

             03/10/2008 08:12         Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             PM                                                      cc

                                      "Johansson, Robert"

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                       , "Schwab, Margo"

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                                                Subject

                                      more RIA comments (but a shorter

                                      list!)

Ron,

A few more comments and key next steps on review of the RIA :

1) we spoke today on table 5-1 on pg 5-8 about the cost per ton for EGUs

seeming low, and the explanation that it averages out across the year -

can we speak on that again briefly?  I'm afraid that it doesn't make

sense to me, although it might make perfect sense when you add the

clarifying bullet we agreed to explain what is represented in the table

We can try again tomorrow, we can bring in the OAP people if needed

2) Chap 9 Appendix A - I would like to move the sentence "Cost for all

standards .... $1.8 Bcosts, ... benefits at 3% ... benes at 7%" forward

to one of the first 2 paragraphs.  The point of the appendix is to

provide this result, and yet the result is somewhat buried at the end of

a paragraph a couple of pages into the appendix  No problem with

bringing the result forward.

3) Same sentence as #2 (the cost and bene consequence of the alt

baseline); can we please place that sentence in other mentions of the

alternative baseline, namely the ES and Intro paragraphs and also in the

body of Chapter 9?  Thank you.  The sentence should appear in the body

of 9 already, look near the summary table.  I think we have also

included in the ES but I don't see a problem finding a place if not.  I

would like to match the presentation in chapter 9 for the ES.  The only

question may be in the intro to chapter 9, if we don't mention the costs

of our approach in the intro to 9 I would not want the alternative

there, but if it is we can provide some balance.

4) Chapter 9 appendix - you probably want to add the references for

studies mentioned in the footnotes, also the study by OTAQ on the uptake

of Plug-In Hybrid vehicles  We will ask OTAQ for that

More importantly, asap we need to follow up to earlier comments :

5) Let's talk about your response to Friday email agreed, need to

discuss these

- including South Coast and San Joaquin results in body of RIA

- Moving Chap 6 to appendix of 5B

- Other points of disagreement from interagency / OMB comments on

Chapter 6

6)  We should also go through the result of your "will review" on other

comments from the Friday email and anything in this email

Thanks !!  I look forward to talking tomorrow,

heidi


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50418]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23684]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9970-18-Region 6]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative
settlement concerning the Bandera Road Ground Water Plume Superfund
Site, located in City of Leon Valley, Bexar County, Texas.
    The settlement requires Savings Square Partners, Ltd., settling
party, to pay a total of $1,820,000 as payment of past response costs
to the Hazardous Substances Superfund. The settlement includes a
covenant not to sue pursuant to sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a).
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background
information relating to the settlement are available for public
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the
proposed settlement may be obtained from Lawrence Andrews, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
should reference the Bandera Road Ground Water Plume Superfund Site,
City of Leon, Bexar County, Texas, and EPA Docket Number 06-06-17 and
should be addressed to Lawrence Andrews at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacob Piehl, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733 or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 16, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017-23684 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite Reader’s Guide - Docket #
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118

Publication Date: March 26, 2008

The Environmental Protection Agency is providing this “Reader’s
Guide” to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the
various documents contained in the Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite electronic
docket.  The documents are posted in Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) electronic docket in   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  under EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118.  Each item contains the
title of the document, the date of the document, its author(s) when
applicable, and a brief description of its purpose.

EPA is committed to involving stakeholders and the public in its
development of pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. The Agency's public participation process provides a dynamic
framework for public involvement and consultation during the conduct of
these programs.

Docket Item 1. 	Federal Register Notice:  Pesticide Registration Review;
New Dockets Opened for Review and Comment; Notice of Availability; Mar
26, 2008;

This document formally and publicly announces the establishment of,
inter alia, the Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite Registration Review Docket is
available for review on the Federal Docket Management System’s
(FDMS’s) internet site or at the EPA’s Office of Pesticides
Programs’ (paper copy) Public Docket.  It solicits comments on
inorganic nitrate/nitrite and provides timeframes and locations for
submitting comments.

Docket Item 2. 	Reader’s Guide to docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118; Mar
20 2008; Miederhoff

This document, it is designed to describe the purpose of each document
in the docket.

Docket Item 3.	Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite Summary Document; Mar 19, 2008;
Bradbury

Document summarizes what EPA currently knows about the Inorganic
Nitrate/Nitrite pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for
anticipated data and assessment needs.

Docket Item 4.	Appendix A; January 25, 2007; Biological and Economic
Analysis Division

This report presents EPA’s understanding of the current use and usage
patterns of Sodium Nitrate including any limitations or restrictions.

Docket Item 5.	Appendix A; June 19, 2007; Biological and Economic
Analysis Division

This report presents EPA’s understanding of the current use and usage
patterns of Potassium Nitrate including any limitations or restrictions.

Docket Item 6.	Problem Formulation for Ecological Risk Assessment, for
Carbon Dioxide and Gas Fumigant Producing Cartridges: Carbon, Sawdust,
Sodium Nitrate. Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur; March 17, 2008;
Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Also included as part of the Summary Document, this document summarizes
what EPA currently knows about the environmental fate and effects of the
Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite pesticide case and includes a preliminary work
plan for anticipated data and assessment needs.

Docket Item 7.	Sodium Nitrate (076104) and Potassium Nitrate (076103).
Human Health Assessment Problem Formulation Document in Support of
Registration Review; March 6, 2008; Health Effects Division

Also included as part of the Summary Document, this document summarizes
what EPA currently knows about the human health effects of the Inorganic
Nitrate/Nitrite pesticide case and includes a preliminary work plan for
anticipated data and assessment needs.

Docket Item 8.	HED Product Chemistry and Human Health Assessment for
potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate; July 18, 1991; Health Effects
Division

This document was completed as a component of the human health
assessment for the 1991 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for
Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite.

Docket Item 9.	HED Review of Potential Occupational and Residential
Exposure to Sodium Nitrate and Potassium Nitrate for the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision; June 26, 1991; Health Effects Division

This document was completed as a component of the human health
assessment for the 1991 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for
Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite.

Docket Item 10.	Environmental Fate and Groundwater Branch Science
Chapter for potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate; June 4, 1991;
Environmental Fate and Effects Division

This document was completed as a component of the Environmental Fate and
Effects assessment for the 1991 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for
Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite.

Docket Item 11.	RED for Sodium Nitrate:  Ecotoxicity Data; July 1, 1991;
Environmental Fate and Effects Division

This document was completed as a component of the Environmental Fate and
Effects assessment for the 1991 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for
Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite.

Docket Item 12.	Transmittal of EFED List D Review for Inorganic
Nitrates, (Potassium, Sodium); July 16, 1991; Environmental Fate and
Effects Division

This document was completed as a component of the Environmental Fate and
Effects assessment for the 1991 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for
Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40937-40939]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0264; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01416-T;
Amendment 39-21616; AD 2021-13-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report that the lower aft outboard supporting structure
of galley 2 does not meet certification requirements for all flight
and/or emergency landing loads. This AD requires modifying the floor
structure between certain fuselage stations. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 3, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 3,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel,
Qu[eacute]bec J7N 1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North
America toll-free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone
+1-514-855-8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
https://mhirj.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0264.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0264; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antariksh Shetty, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-40, dated October 15,
2020 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain
MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-
600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI
in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0264.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain MHI RJ Aviation
ULC Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on April 7, 2021 (86 FR 17998). The NPRM was prompted by a
report that the lower aft outboard supporting structure of galley 2
does not meet certification requirements for all flight and/or
emergency landing loads. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the
floor structure between certain fuselage stations. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the insufficient structural safety margin of galley
2 in case of hard landing or severe turbulence. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in injury to the occupants and could limit
access to the exit door during emergencies if the galley is displaced
or fails structurally. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA),
indicated its support for the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    MHI RJ has issued MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-53-060, Revision A,
dated September 17, 2020. This service information describes procedures
for modifying the floor structure between fuselage station (FS) 379.00
and FS 394.00 at right buttock line (RBL) 37.75. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,700........................          $5,081           $6,781           $6,781
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-13-11 MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-21616; Docket No. FAA-2021-0264;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01416-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 3,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes,
certificated in any category, having serial numbers 15057, 15063
through 15065 inclusive, 15071, 15074, 15079, 15087, 15090, 15106,
15111, 15113, 15115, and 15117.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the lower aft outboard
supporting structure of galley 2 does not meet certification
requirements for all flight and/or emergency landing loads. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the insufficient structural safety
margin of galley 2 in case of hard landing or severe turbulence.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in injury to the
occupants and could limit access to the exit door during emergencies
if the galley is displaced or fails structurally.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the
floor structure between fuselage station (FS) 379.00 and FS 394.00
at right buttock line (RBL) 37.75 in accordance with paragraph 2.B.
of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-
53-060, Revision A, dated September 17, 2020.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-53-060, dated
August 6, 2020.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or MHI RJ
Aviation ULC's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-40, dated October 15, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2021-0264.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Antariksh
Shetty, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is

available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of
this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-53-060, Revision A, dated
September 17, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N
1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-
8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://mhirj.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 10, 2021.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16238 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P