[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 46158]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2361-000]

Enel Green Power Hilltopper Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Enel Green Power Hilltopper Wind, LLC`s application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 26, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 6, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19810 Filed 9-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 77554]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30370]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

 Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11626). No comments were received
on this matter.
    This document describes the collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. The collection of information
described is the ``Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration,
Labeling and Defect Notification.'' (OMB Control Number: 2127-0576)

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cristina Echemendia at U.S.
Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Room W43-447, NVS-113, Washington, DC 20590. Mrs. Cristina
Echemendia's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and fax number is (202)
366-7002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling
and Defect Notifications.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.
    Type of Request: Label revision of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: A final rule published on February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11626)
amended the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for child restraint
systems (CRSs) to expand its applicability to child restraints sold for
children weighing up to 80 pounds (lb). The final rule also added a
sentence to the printed instructions and labeling of certain CRSs
(those that have internal harnesses, and that are recommended for older
children). Currently, child restraint manufacturers are required to
provide printed instructions with step by-step information on how the
restraint is to be used. Without proper use, the effectiveness of these
systems is greatly diminished. Each CRS must also have a permanent
label.\1\ A permanently attached label gives ``quicklook'' information
on whether the restraint meets the safety requirements, recommended
installation and use, and warnings against misuse. The requested
revision is to add a sentence to the existing instructions brochure and
labeling that will inform the consumer that the lower anchors of a
Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) system may only be used
for children weighing ``x'' lb or less, where the ``x'' value depends
on the weight of the CRS. The purpose of this label is to reduce
consumer confusion about using LATCH, and to assure that the lower
anchors will be able to withstand the forces generated by the child and
CRS in virtually all crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FMVSS No. 213 also requires child restraint manufacturers to
provide owner-registration cards and to keep records relating to
owner registration information, so that owners can be notified about
noncompliance or defect recall campaigns. These owner registration
requirements are not affected by the final rule (77 FR 11626).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the final rule, CRSs equipped with internal harnesses to
restrain the child and with components to attach to a child restraint
anchorage system, will be required to be labeled with a child weight
limit for using the lower anchors to attach the child restraint to the
vehicle. The child weight limit depends on the weight of the CRS. NHTSA
anticipates a change to the hour burden or costs associated with the
revised child restraint labels and written instructions. Child
restraint manufacturers produce, on average, a total of approximately
4,500,000 child restraints per year. The label would apply to
approximately 50 percent of the total annual production (2,250,000
units). The hour burden associated with the revised label consist of
the child restraint manufacturer: (1) Determining the maximum allowable
child weight when using the lower LATCH anchor attachments as a means
of installation and (2) adding this information on an existing label
and instruction manual. We estimate 2 seconds of additional burden per
child restraint for the determination of the maximum allowable weight
and the addition of the information on the existing label and
instruction manual (2 sec x 2,250,000 units = 4,500,000 seconds = 1,250
hours).
    Affected Public: Businesses, Individuals and Households.
    Estimated Additional Annual Burden: 1,250 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Departments estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-30370 Filed 12-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50348-50358]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23683]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556; FRL-9970-10-Region 6]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant a petition submitted by Blanchard Refining Company LLC--
(Blanchard) to exclude (or delist) the residual solids generated from
the reclamation of oil bearing hazardous secondary materials (OBSMs)
on-site at Blanchard's Galveston Bay Refinery (GBR), located in Texas
City, Texas from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting
Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 3.0.35 in the evaluation of the
impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.

DATES: We will accept comments until November 30, 2017. We will stamp
comments received after the close of the comment period as late. These
late comments may or may not be considered in formulating a final
decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by November 15,
2017. The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR
260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites refer to 40 CFR unless otherwise
stated).

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
RCRA-2017-0556, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia

submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information regarding
the Blanchard Refinery petition, contact Michelle Peace at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at [email protected].
    Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by November 15, 2017.
The request must contain the information described in 40 CFR 260.20(d).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Blanchard submitted a petition under 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
266, 268 and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically provides generators
the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a
``generator specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. EPA bases
its proposed decision to grant the petition on an evaluation of waste-
specific information provided by the petitioner. This decision, if
finalized, would conditionally exclude the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    If finalized, EPA would conclude that Blanchard's petitioned waste
is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. EPA
would also conclude that Blanchard's reclamation process minimizes
short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human
health and the environment.

Table of Contents

    The information in this section is organized as follows:

I. Overview Information
    A. What action is EPA proposing?
    B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
    C. How will Blanchard manage the waste if it is delisted?
    D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
    E. How would this action affect the states?
II. Background
    A. What is the history of the delisting program?
    B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
    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 wastes did Blanchard petition EPA to delist?
    B. Who is Blanchard and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
    C. How did Blanchard sample and analyze the data in this
petition?
    D. What were the results of Blanchard's sample analysis?
    E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    F. What did EPA conclude about Blanchard's analysis?
    G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
    H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
    A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
    B. What happens if Blanchard violates the terms and conditions?
V. Public Comments
    A. How can I as an interested party submit comments?
    B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed
exclusions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve the delisting petition submitted by
Blanchard to have the residual solids excluded, or delisted from the
definition of a hazardous waste. The residual solids are listed as
F037. Blanchard's residual solids are listed as a hazardous waste,
based on the potential presence of Appendix VII inorganic constituents
of concern, lead and chromium, and Appendix VII organic constituents of
concern benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and chrysene.

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?

    Blanchard's petition requests an exclusion from the F037 waste
listing pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Blanchard does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA
listed it. Blanchard 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
Blanchard is based on the information submitted in support of this
rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data
resulting from Blanchard's delisting demonstration conducted on the
petitioned waste.

C. How will Blanchard manage the waste if it is delisted?

    If the residual solids are delisted, contingent upon approval of
the delisting petition, storage containers with Blanchard's delisted
residual solids will be transported to an authorized, solid waste
landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid
waste landfill, etc.) for disposal. Any plans for recycling must be
addressed through the Hazardous Waste Recycling regulations.

D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?

    RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide a notice
and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final
exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses
all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any)
on this proposal.
    RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 6930(b)(1), allows rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated facility
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
    EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately
upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not necessary to
achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later effective date
would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner. These
reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective
immediately, upon final

publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

E. How would this action affect the 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 states which have
received authorization from EPA 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, 42 U.S.C. 6929. 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, EPA urges 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,
Oklahoma, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA 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 unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program.
If Blanchard transports the delisted waste to or manages the delisted
waste in any state with delisting authorization, Blanchard must obtain
delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the
delisted waste as non-hazardous in the state.

II. Background

A. What is the history of the delisting program?

    EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific
and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and
interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. EPA has
amended this list several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and
261.32.
    EPA lists these wastes as hazardous because: (1) The wastes
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), (2) the wastes
meet the criteria for listing contained in Sec.  261.11(a)(2) or
(a)(3), or (b) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment,
storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed wastes and which
therefore become hazardous under Sec.  261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i),
known as the ``mixture'' or ``derived-from'' rules, respectively.
    Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
described in these 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.

B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?

    A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an
authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions EPA because it does not consider the wastes
hazardous under RCRA regulations.
    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for
which the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste
are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for
the listed waste.
    In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present
sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the
listed waste.)
    Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics, even if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.

C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?

    Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and Sec.
3001(f) of RCRA, 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 EPA listed the waste, if a
reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
    EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Sec.  261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv)
and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).

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

A. What wastes did Blanchard petition EPA to Delist?

    In June 2017, Blanchard petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 261.32, residual
solids (F037) generated during reclamation activities conducted at its
GBR facility located in Texas City, Texas. The waste falls under the
classification of listed waste pursuant to Sec. Sec.  261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, in its petition, Blanchard requested that EPA
grant a conditional exclusion for the annual generation volume of
20,000 cubic yards of F037 residual solids.

B. Who is Blanchard and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?

    Blanchard owns and operates the GBR facility, located in Texas
City, Galveston County, Texas. Blanchard is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Marathon Petroleum Company LP. Blanchard's demonstration evaluated
representative samples of its residual solids resulting from the
indirect thermal desorption reclamation of OBSMs managed on-site at
Blanchard's GBR facility. OBSMs managed on-site at Blanchard's GBR
facility result from separate management practices within GBR's
petroleum refining operations. Blanchard's approved Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) identified three (3) management practices, which
result in the generation of three (3) corresponding categories of OBSMs
with unique physical properties. The three (3) identified categories of
Blanchard's OBSMs include, Category 1, Oil/Water/Solid Separation
Sludges (K048 through K052, F037 and F038); Category 2, Crude Oil and
Clarified Slurry Oil Sediments (K169 and K170); and Category 3,
Stabilized Spent Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalysts (K171 and
K172).
    Blanchard's demonstration utilized a commercial indirectly-fired
thermal desorption unit (``ITDU'') located at US Ecology Texas'
(``USET'') permitted commercial facility in Robstown, Texas. Blanchard
considered it prudent to

utilize USET's ITDU to avoid having to invest the significant capital
and resources required to site and construct a full-scale ITDU on-site
at Blanchard's GBR facility, prior to receiving an approved delisting
determination. The EPA acknowledged Blanchard's use of USET's
commercial ITDU to perform its demonstration, under its approved SAP.
    USET's commercial ITDU was designed and constructed by TD*X
Associates LP (``TD*X''), located in Beaumont, Texas. TD*X currently
operates the commercial ITDU on-site at USET's Robstown facility, under
contract with USET. USET has extensive experience in the management and
processing of Blanchard's OBSMs, and is currently contracted with
Blanchard to provide such services at USET's Robstown facility.
    Blanchard has entered into a services agreement with US Ecology
Thermal Services LLC (``USETS'') to provide and operate an ITDU, on-
site at its GBR facility. USETS is the refinery services affiliate of
USET. Blanchard's proposed ITDU will be designed, constructed and
operated by TD*X, as part of USETS's services agreement with Blanchard.
The processing capabilities, efficiencies and capacity of Blanchard's
proposed ITDU are comparable to USET's commercial ITDU that was
utilized under Blanchard's demonstration.

C. How did Blanchard sample and analyze the data in this petition?

    To support its petition, Blanchard conducted individual sampling
events on residual solids resulting from the reclamation of Blanchard's
three (3) identified categories of OBSMs. Each separate sampling event
consisted of four (4) composite samples taken during a 24-hour period
of representative operation. Each composite sample was comprised of
individual grab samples (i.e. a minimum of four), obtained during
separate six (6) hour periods of the 24-hour sampling event.
Compositing of samples and performance of quality control requirements
were performed by Blanchard's selected analytical laboratory,
TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. (``TestAmerica''). Blanchard submitted:
Historical information on waste generation and management practices;
and analytical results from twelve samples for total and TCLP
concentrations of constituents of concern (COC)s.

D. What were the results of Blanchard's sample analyses?

    EPA believes that the descriptions of the Blanchard analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Blanchard's
petition for an exclusion of the residual solids. EPA believes the data
submitted in support of the petition show the residual solids is non-
hazardous. Analytical data for the residual solids samples were used in
the DRAS to develop delisting levels. The residual solids from Category
3 can only be delisted if stabilization of the residual solids occur.
Data from the stabilized Category 3 residual solids demonstrate the
concentrations from the stabilized residuals meet the delisting
requirements. The data summaries for COCs are presented in Table I. EPA
has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Blanchard and has
determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the residual
solids. In addition, the data submitted in support of the petition show
that COCs in Blanchard's waste are presently below health-based levels
used in the delisting decision-making. EPA believes that Blanchard has
successfully demonstrated that the residual solids are non-hazardous.

                      Table 1--Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration
                      [Residual solids--Blanchard Refining Company LLC, Texas City, Texas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Maximum total   Maximum TCLP    Maximum TCLP
                           Constituent                             concentration   concentration     delisting
                                                                      (mg/kg)         (mg/L)       level (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.........................................................           0.185           0.226           520.0
Antimony........................................................            53.7           0.226           0.599
Anthracene......................................................           0.488         <0.0125          25.993
Arsenic.........................................................           222.0           0.277           0.424
Barium..........................................................           950.0           0.221            36.0
Benzene.........................................................            1.25        <0.00280           0.077
Benzo (a) anthracene............................................           0.512         <0.0106           0.070
Benzo(a) pyrene.................................................          0.0298         <0.0123           2.634
Benzo (b) flouranthene..........................................           0.286         <0.0125           22.43
Beryllium.......................................................            8.61           0.235           1.764
Cadmium.........................................................           0.441        <0.00280           0.217
Chromium........................................................           120.0          0.0550            3.06
Chrysene........................................................           0.272         <0.0103           7.006
Cobalt..........................................................           242.0           0.818           0.902
Copper..........................................................           639.0         <0.0813          21.527
Cyanide.........................................................            99.4         <0.0702            3.08
Diethyl Phthalate...............................................           0.493         <0.0130             990
Flouranthrene...................................................           0.405         <0.0122           2.462
Flourene........................................................           0.420        <0.00710            4.91
Lead............................................................           963.0         <0.0219           0.984
2, methylphenol.................................................            1.31        <0.00710          28.952
3,4 methylphenol................................................            2.18        <0.00675          28.952
Methylene Chloride..............................................           0.827         0.00756          0.0790
Methyl Naphthalene..............................................           0.365         <0.0129           0.727
Mercury.........................................................          0.0403        0.000104           0.068
Naphthalene.....................................................           0.874         <0.0110          0.0327
Nickel..........................................................          29,000        <0.00800            13.5
Phenanthrene....................................................            2.16         <0.0112          10.626
Phenol..........................................................            6.55         0.00813             173
Pyrene..........................................................            1.76         <0.0150           4.446

Pyridine........................................................           0.197         <0.0108          0.5775
Selenium........................................................            13.5          0.0530             1.0
Silver..........................................................            1.86         <0.0129             5.0
Toluene.........................................................           0.670        <0.00275            15.1
Tin.............................................................            13.8        <0.00590             387
Thallium........................................................           110.0          0.0220          0.0366
Vanadium........................................................          75,400           0.215          4.6436
Zinc............................................................          1920.0           0.487             197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting the waste?

    For this delisting determination, EPA used such information
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e. groundwater,
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. EPA determined that disposal in a landfill is the
most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Blanchard's
petitioned waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000) and 65 FR 75637
(December 4, 2000), to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of
hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste
after disposal and determined the potential impact of the disposal of
Blanchard's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. A
copy of this software can be found on the world wide web at f://
www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/dras-software.html. In
assessing potential risks to groundwater, EPA used the maximum waste
volumes and the maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to
the DRAS program to estimate the constituent concentrations in the
groundwater at a hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the
disposal site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10\-5\ and
non-cancer hazard index of 1.0), the DRAS program can back-calculate
the acceptable receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-
point concentrations) using standard risk assessment algorithms and EPA
health-based numbers. Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations
and EPA's Composite Model for Underflow Water Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and transport modeling factors,
the DRAS further back-calculates the maximum permissible waste
constituent concentrations not expected to exceed the compliance-point
concentrations in groundwater.
    EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for possible groundwater contamination
resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a surface
impoundment, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable
worst-case scenarios resulted in conservative values for the
compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once
removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant
threat to human health or the environment.
    The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes and the
maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks
associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways
(e.g. volatilization from the impoundment). As in the above groundwater
analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the health-based data and
standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms to predict maximum
compliance-point concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical
point of exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses
the maximum compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the
maximum allowable waste constituent concentrations (or ``delisting
levels'').
    In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to
hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does
not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after
delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate
to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and
transport model. EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is
disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit the fate and
transport model evaluates.
    The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable
concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in
Table I. Based on the comparison of the DRAS and TCLP Analyses results
found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no
COCs tested are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or
by-products in Blanchard's waste.

F. What did EPA conclude about Blanchard's waste analysis?

    EPA concluded, after reviewing Blanchard's processes, that no other
hazardous COCs, other than those for which tested, are likely to be
present or formed as reaction products or by-products in the waste. In
addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical data provided by
Blanchard, pursuant to Sec.  260.22, EPA concludes that the petitioned
waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. See Sec. Sec.  261.21, 261.22 and
261.23, respectively.

G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?

    During the evaluation of Blanchard's petition, EPA also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-groundwater routes
(i.e. air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne
dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from Blanchard's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore,
no appreciable air releases are likely from Blanchard's residual solids
under any likely disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential
hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to
hazardous constituents released from

Blanchard's residual solids in an open landfill. The results of this
worst-case analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne
exposure to constituents from Blanchard's residual solids.

H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?

    The descriptions of Blanchard's hazardous waste process and
analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant
the exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition show that
constituents in the waste are below the leachable concentrations (see
Table I). EPA believes that Blanchard's residual solids will not impose
any threat to human health and the environment.
    Thus, EPA believes Blanchard should be granted an exclusion for the
residual solids. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the
petition show Blanchard's residual solids is non-hazardous. The data
submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in
Blanchard's waste is presently below the compliance point
concentrations used in the delisting decision and would not pose a
substantial hazard to the environment. EPA believes that Blanchard has
successfully demonstrated that the residual solids sludge is non-
hazardous.
    EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Blanchard for the
residual solids described in its petition. EPA's decision to exclude
this waste is based on descriptions of the treatment activities
associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of the
residual solids.
    If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate the
petitioned waste under Parts 262 through 268 and the permitting
standards of Part 270.

IV. Next Steps

A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?

    The petitioner, Blanchard, must comply with the requirements in 40
CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1. The text below gives the rationale
and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
    This paragraph provides the levels of constituents for which
Blanchard must test the residual solids, below which these wastes would
be considered non-hazardous. EPA selected the set of inorganic and
organic constituents specified in Paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261,
Appendix IX, Table 1, (the exclusion language) based on information in
the petition. EPA compiled the inorganic and organic constituents list
from the composition of the waste, descriptions of Blanchard's
treatment process, previous test data provided for the waste, and the
respective health-based levels used in delisting decision-making. These
delisting levels correspond to the allowable levels measured in the
TCLP concentrations.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
    The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that Blanchard manages
and disposes of any residual solids that contains hazardous levels of
inorganic and organic constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA.
Managing the residual solids as a hazardous waste until the
verification testing is performed will protect against improper
handling of hazardous material. If EPA determines that the data
collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for in
the petition, the exclusion will not cover the petitioned waste. The
exclusion is effective upon publication in the Federal Register but the
disposal of Blanchard's residual solids as non-hazardous cannot begin
until the verification sampling is completed.
(3) Verification, Subsequent, and Annual Testing Requirements
    Blanchard must complete a rigorous verification testing program on
the residual solids to assure that the solids do not exceed the maximum
levels specified in Paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. This
verification program will occur as residual solids are discharged from
Blanchard's reclamation process, prior to containment and disposal. The
volume of residual solids generated may not exceed 20,000 cubic yards
of sludge material annually. Any volume of residual solids generated in
excess of 20,000 cubic yards during any twelve-month period must be
disposed as hazardous wastes. If EPA determines that the data collected
under this paragraph do not support the data provided for the petition,
the exclusion will not cover the generated residual solids. If the data
from the verification testing program demonstrate that the residual
solids meet the delisting levels, Blanchard may commence disposing of
the residual solids as non-hazardous solid waste. Blanchard will notify
EPA in writing, if and when it begins and ends disposal of the delisted
residual solids.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
    If Blanchard significantly changes the reclamation process
described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the
waste that may or could affect the composition or type of waste
generated as established under Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not
limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the
treatment process), they must notify EPA in writing. Blanchard may no
longer handle the residual solids generated from the new process as
non-hazardous until they have completed verification testing described
in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B).
(5) Stabilization Operations
    Blanchard describes an application where it may periodically elect
to modify operating conditions under its reclamation process to
accommodate the addition of chemical stabilization reagents. The
facility also provided data on stabilized materials as part of its
petition. In the event Blanchard initiates the inclusion of
stabilization during operation of its reclamation process, they may no
longer handle the residual solids generated from the modified process
as non-hazardous until the residual solids meet the delisting levels
set in Paragraph (1) under initial verification testing requirements
set in Paragraph (3)(A) and verify that no additional constituents are
leaching from the stabilized residual solids. Following completion of
modified operation of its reclamation process, Blanchard can resume
normal operating conditions and testing requirements under Paragraph
(3), which were in place prior to initiating the addition of
stabilization.
(6) Data Submittals
    To provide appropriate documentation that Blanchard's residual
solids meet the delisting levels, Blanchard must compile, summarize,
and keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. It
should keep all analytical data obtained through Paragraph (3) of the
exclusion language including quality control information for five
years. Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language requires that Blanchard
furnish these data upon request for inspection by any employee or
representative of EPA or the State of Texas.
    If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to the
volume of 20,000 cubic yards of residual solids generated annually at
Blanchard's GBR facility after successful verification testing. EPA
would require Blanchard to

file a new delisting petition for any volume of residual solids
generated during any twelve-month period in excess of the 20,000 cubic
yards, and manage the excess volume of residual solids as hazardous
waste until EPA grants a new exclusion.
    When this exclusion becomes final, Blanchard's management of the
residual solids covered by this petition would be relieved from
Subtitle C jurisdiction, and the residual solids from Blanchard will be
disposed of in an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle
D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.).
(7) Reopener
    The purpose of Paragraph (6) of the exclusion language is to
require Blanchard to disclose new or different information related to a
condition at Blanchard's facility or disposal of the waste, if it is
pertinent to the delisting. Blanchard must also use this procedure, if
the annual testing fails to meet the levels found in Paragraph (1).
This provision will allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion, if a source
provides new or additional information to EPA. EPA will evaluate the
information on which EPA based the decision to see if it is still
correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no
longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition, if presented.
This provision expressly requires Blanchard to report differing site
conditions or assumptions used in the petition, in addition to failure
to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of discovery. If
EPA discovers such information itself or from a third party, it can act
on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those
provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions
at Sec.  268.6.
    EPA believes that it has the authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to
reopen a delisting decision. EPA may reopen a delisting decision when
it receives new information that calls into question the assumptions
underlying the delisting.
    EPA believes a clear statement of its authority in delisting is
merited, in light of EPA's experience. See Reynolds Metals Company at
62 FR 37694 and 62 FR 63458 where the delisted waste leached at greater
concentrations in the environment than the concentrations predicted
when conducting the TCLP, thus leading EPA to repeal the delisting. If
an immediate threat to human health and the environment presents
itself, EPA will continue to address these situations on a case-by-case
basis. Where necessary, EPA will make a good cause finding to justify
emergency rulemaking. See APA Sec.  553(b).
(8) Notification Requirements
    In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is
requiring that Blanchard provide a one-time notification to any state
regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being
carried. Blanchard must provide this notification sixty (60) days
before commencing this activity.

B. What happens if Blanchard violates the terms and conditions?

    If Blanchard violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, EPA will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. Where
there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, EPA
will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-case
basis. EPA expects Blanchard to conduct the appropriate waste analysis
and comply with the criteria explained above in Paragraph (1) of the
exclusion.

V. Public Comments

A. How can I as an interested party submit comments?

    EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556, at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    You should submit requests for a hearing to Kishor Fruitwala,
Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.

B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed
exclusion?

    You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at
the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in EPA Freedom
of Information Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call<PHONE_NUMBER> for
appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket
at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for
additional copies. Docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov and you may also request the electronic
files of the docket which do not appear on regulations.gov.

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 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
(EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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
record-keeping requirements.

    Dated: October 17, 2017.
Wren Stenger,
Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be 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, 6924(y) and
6938.

0
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 261 add the entry ``Blanchard
Refining Company LLC'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

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

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
Blanchard Refining Company LLC....  Texas City, TX...............  Residual solids (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
                                                                    F037) generated at a maximum rate of as
                                                                    20,000 cubic yards annually.
                                                                   For the exclusion to be valid, Blanchard must
                                                                    implement a verification testing program
                                                                    that meets the following Paragraphs:
                                                                   (1) All leachable concentrations for those
                                                                    constituents must not exceed the following
                                                                    levels measured as mg/L (ppm). The
                                                                    petitioner must use an acceptable leaching
                                                                    method, for example SW-846, Method 1311, to
                                                                    measure constituents in the residual solids
                                                                    leachate.
                                                                   (A) Inorganic Constituents of Concern:
                                                                    Antimony--0.5985; Arsenic--0.424; Barium--
                                                                    36; Beryllium--1.74; Chromium--3.06; Cobalt--
                                                                    0.902; Lead--0.984; Nickel--13.5; Selenium--
                                                                    1.0; Vanadium--4.64, Zinc--197. Mercury--
                                                                    0.068.
                                                                   (B) Organic Constituents of Concern: Acetone--
                                                                    520.0; Anthracene--25.993; Benzene--0.077;
                                                                    Benzo(a)pyrene--2.634, Chrysene--7.006;
                                                                    Methylene Chloride--0.0790; Phenanthrene--
                                                                    10.626; Phenol--173; Pyrene--4.446.
                                                                   (2) Waste Holding and Handling:
                                                                   (A) Blanchard must manage and dispose its
                                                                    residual solids as hazardous waste generated
                                                                    under Subtitle C of RCRA, until they have
                                                                    completed verification testing described in
                                                                    Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate,
                                                                    and valid analyses show that paragraph (1)
                                                                    is satisfied.
                                                                   (B) Levels of constituents measured in the
                                                                    samples of the residual solids that do not
                                                                    exceed the levels set forth in Paragraph (1)
                                                                    are nonhazardous. Blanchard can manage and
                                                                    dispose the nonhazardous residual solids
                                                                    according to all applicable solid waste
                                                                    regulations.

                                                                   (C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed
                                                                    any of the delisting levels set in Paragraph
                                                                    (1), Blanchard must retreat or stabilize the
                                                                    residual solids represented by the sample
                                                                    exceeding the delisting levels, until it
                                                                    meets the levels in paragraph (1). Blanchard
                                                                    must repeat the analyses of the retreated
                                                                    residual solids.
                                                                   (3) Verification Testing Requirements:
                                                                   Blanchard must perform analytical testing by
                                                                    sampling and analyzing the Residual solids
                                                                    as follows:
                                                                   (i) Collect representative samples of the
                                                                    Residual solids for analysis of all
                                                                    constituents listed in paragraph (1) prior
                                                                    to disposal.
                                                                   (ii) The samples for verification testing
                                                                    shall be a representative sample according
                                                                    to appropriate methods. As applicable to the
                                                                    method-defined parameters of concern,
                                                                    analyses requiring the use of SW-846 methods
                                                                    incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11
                                                                    must be used without substitution. As
                                                                    applicable, the SW-846 methods might include
                                                                    Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031,
                                                                    0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A,
                                                                    1020B,1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A,
                                                                    9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A
                                                                    (uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and
                                                                    9095B. Methods must meet Performance Based
                                                                    Measurement System Criteria in which the
                                                                    Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate
                                                                    that samples of the Blanchard residual
                                                                    solids are representative for all
                                                                    constituents listed in paragraph (1).
                                                                   Blanchard must perform sample collection and
                                                                    analyses, including quality control
                                                                    procedures, according to SW-846
                                                                    methodologies.
                                                                   (A) Initial Verification Testing:
                                                                   After EPA grants the final exclusion,
                                                                    Blanchard must do the following:
                                                                   (i) Collect four (4) representative composite
                                                                    samples of the residual solids at weekly
                                                                    intervals after EPA grants the final
                                                                    exclusion. The first composite samples may
                                                                    be taken at any time after EPA grants the
                                                                    final approval. Sampling should be performed
                                                                    in accordance with the sampling plan
                                                                    approved by EPA in support of the exclusion.
                                                                   (ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents
                                                                    listed in paragraph (1). Any composite
                                                                    sample taken that exceeds the delisting
                                                                    levels listed in paragraph (1) for the
                                                                    residual solids must be disposed as
                                                                    hazardous waste in accordance with the
                                                                    applicable hazardous waste requirements.
                                                                   (iii) Within thirty (30) days after
                                                                    successfully completing its initial
                                                                    verification testing, Blanchard may report
                                                                    its analytical test data for its initial
                                                                    four (4) weekly composite samples to EPA. If
                                                                    levels of constituents measured in the
                                                                    samples of the residual solids do not exceed
                                                                    the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of
                                                                    this exclusion, Blanchard can manage and
                                                                    dispose the non-hazardous residual solids
                                                                    according to all applicable solid waste
                                                                    regulations.
                                                                   (B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
                                                                   If Blanchard completes initial verification
                                                                    testing requirements, specified in paragraph
                                                                    (3)(A), and no sample contains a constituent
                                                                    at a level which exceeds the limits set
                                                                    forth in paragraph (1), Blanchard may begin
                                                                    subsequent verification testing as follows:
                                                                   (i) Blanchard must test representative
                                                                    composite samples of the residual solids for
                                                                    all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at
                                                                    least once per month.
                                                                   (ii) The samples for the monthly testing
                                                                    shall be a representative composite sample
                                                                    according to appropriate methods.
                                                                   (iii) Within thirty (30) days after
                                                                    completing each monthly sampling, Blanchard
                                                                    will report its analytical test data to EPA.
                                                                   (C) Annual Verification Testing:
                                                                   If levels of constituents measured in the
                                                                    samples of the residual solids do not exceed
                                                                    the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of
                                                                    this exclusion for six (6) consecutive
                                                                    months of subsequent verification testing,
                                                                    Blanchard may begin annual testing as
                                                                    follows:
                                                                   (i) Blanchard must test representative
                                                                    composite samples of the residual solids for
                                                                    all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at
                                                                    least once per calendar year.
                                                                   (ii) The samples for the annual testing shall
                                                                    be a representative composite sample
                                                                    according to appropriate methods.
                                                                   (iii) Within sixty (60) days after completing
                                                                    each annual sampling, Blanchard will report
                                                                    its analytical test data to EPA.
                                                                   (D) Termination of Organic Testing:
                                                                   Blanchard must continue testing as required
                                                                    under Paragraph (3)(B) for organic
                                                                    constituents in Paragraph (1)(B), until the
                                                                    analytical results submitted under Paragraph
                                                                    (3)(B) show a minimum of three (3)
                                                                    consecutive monthly samples below the
                                                                    delisting levels in Paragraph (1). Following
                                                                    receipt of approval from EPA in writing,
                                                                    Blanchard may terminate organic testing.
                                                                   (4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
                                                                   If Blanchard significantly changes the
                                                                    process described in its petition or starts
                                                                    any processes that generate(s) the waste
                                                                    that may or could affect the composition or
                                                                    type of waste generated as established under
                                                                    Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not
                                                                    limitation, changes in equipment or
                                                                    operating conditions of the treatment
                                                                    process), they must notify EPA in writing.
                                                                    Blanchard may no longer handle the residual
                                                                    solids generated from the new process as
                                                                    nonhazardous until they have completed
                                                                    verification testing described in Paragraph
                                                                    (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, documented
                                                                    that valid analyses show that paragraph (1)
                                                                    is satisfied, and received written approval
                                                                    from EPA.
                                                                   (5) Stabilization Operation:

                                                                   Blanchard may periodically elect to modify
                                                                    operating conditions to accommodate the
                                                                    addition of chemical stabilization reagents
                                                                    during indirect thermal desorption
                                                                    processing. In the event that Blanchard
                                                                    initiates the inclusion of stabilization
                                                                    during operation, they may no longer handle
                                                                    the residual solids generated from the
                                                                    modified process as nonhazardous until the
                                                                    residual solids meet the delisting levels
                                                                    set in Paragraph (1) under initial
                                                                    verification testing requirements set in
                                                                    paragraph (3)(A) and verify that the
                                                                    stabilization reagents do not add additional
                                                                    constituents to the residual solid leachate.
                                                                    Following completion of modified operation,
                                                                    Blanchard can resume normal operating
                                                                    conditions and testing requirements under
                                                                    Paragraph (3), which were in place prior to
                                                                    initiating stabilization during operation.
                                                                   (6) Data Submittals:
                                                                   Blanchard must submit the information
                                                                    described below. If Blanchard fails to
                                                                    submit the required data within the
                                                                    specified time or maintain the required
                                                                    records on-site for the specified time, EPA,
                                                                    at its discretion, will consider this
                                                                    sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as
                                                                    described in paragraph (6). Blanchard must:
                                                                   (A) Submit the data obtained through
                                                                    paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, 6MM-RP,
                                                                    Multimedia Division, U. S. Environmental
                                                                    Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave.,
                                                                    Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202, within the
                                                                    time specified. All supporting data can be
                                                                    submitted on CD-ROM or comparable electronic
                                                                    media.
                                                                   (B) Compile records of analytical data from
                                                                    paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-
                                                                    site for a minimum of five years.
                                                                   (C) Furnish these records and data when
                                                                    either EPA or the State of Texas requests
                                                                    them for inspection.
                                                                   (D) Send along with all data a signed copy of
                                                                    the following certification statement, to
                                                                    attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
                                                                    submitted:
                                                                   ``Under civil and criminal penalty of law for
                                                                    the making or submission of false or
                                                                    fraudulent statements or representations
                                                                    (pursuant to the applicable provisions of
                                                                    the Federal Code, which include, but may not
                                                                    be limited to, 18 U.S.C. Sec.   1001 and 42
                                                                    U.S.C. Sec.   6928), I certify that the
                                                                    information contained in or accompanying
                                                                    this document is true, accurate and
                                                                    complete.
                                                                   As to the (those) identified section(s) of
                                                                    this document for which I cannot personally
                                                                    verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I
                                                                    certify as the company official having
                                                                    supervisory responsibility for the persons
                                                                    who, acting under my direct instructions,
                                                                    made the verification that this information
                                                                    is true, accurate and complete.
                                                                   If any of this information is determined by
                                                                    EPA in its sole discretion to be false,
                                                                    inaccurate or incomplete, and upon
                                                                    conveyance of this fact to the company, I
                                                                    recognize and agree that this exclusion of
                                                                    waste will be void as if it never had effect
                                                                    or to the extent directed by EPA and that
                                                                    the company will be liable for any actions
                                                                    taken in contravention of the company's RCRA
                                                                    and CERCLA obligations premised upon the
                                                                    company's reliance on the void exclusion.''
                                                                   (7) Reopener.
                                                                   (A) If, any time after disposal of the
                                                                    delisted waste Blanchard 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 either the verification testing (and
                                                                    retest, if applicable) of the waste does not
                                                                    meet the delisting requirements in paragraph
                                                                    1, Blanchard 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 Blanchard fails to submit the
                                                                    information described in paragraphs (5),
                                                                    (6)(A) or (6)(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 (6)(D)
                                                                    or (if no information is presented under
                                                                    paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of
                                                                    information described in paragraphs (5),
                                                                    (6)(A) or (6)(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.
                                                                   (8) Notification Requirements:
                                                                   Blanchard 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. 2017-23683 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2866-2867]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Renewal,
Rotorcraft External Load Operator Certificate Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves the submission of application FAA
Form 8710-4 for the certification process. The information to be
collected will be used to and/or is necessary to evaluate the operators
request to become certified as a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to

enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection;
and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0044.
    Title: Rotorcraft External Load Operator Certificate Application.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8710-4.
    Type of Review: This is a renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Application for certificate issuance or renewal of a 14
CFR part 133 Rotorcraft External Load Operator Certificate. Application
for an original certificate or renewal of a certificate issued under 14
CFR part 133 is made on a form, and in a manner, prescribed by the
Administrator. The FAA form 8710-4 may be obtained from an FAA Flight
Standards District Office. The completed application is sent to the
district office that has jurisdiction over the area in which the
applicant's home base of operation is located.
    The information collected includes: Type of application, Operators
name/DBAs, telephone number, mailing address, physical address of the
principal base of operations, Chief pilot/designee name, airman
certificate grade and number, rotorcraft make/model registration
numbers to be used and load combinations requested.
    Respondents: 358 active 14 CFR part 133 Certificate Holders.
    Frequency: New applications as industry dictates, however, current
14 CFR part 133 certificate holders must renew every 24 months.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 30 minutes per
application.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 89.5 hours per year for 14 CFR part
133 renewals.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on January 8, 2018.
Barbara L. Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-00827 Filed 1-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P