Site-Specific Variance From the Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA), 6209-6213 [06-1073]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–55505 Filed 2–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL–8027–6; EPA–HQ–RCRA–2005–0015]
Site-Specific Variance From the Land
Disposal Restrictions Treatment
Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine
(1,3-PDA)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to revise the waste treatment
standard for 1,3-phenylenediamine (1,3PDA) for a biosludge generated at
DuPont’s Chambers Works facility in
Deepwater, New Jersey. This variance is
necessary because the facility is unable
to measure compliance with the 1,3PDA land disposal restrictions treatment
standard in its multisource leachate
treatment biosludge matrix. As a
practical matter, therefore, the facility
cannot fully document compliance with
the requirements of the treatment
standard. For the same reason, EPA
cannot ascertain compliance for this
constituent. Furthermore, faced with the
inability to demonstrate treatment
residual content through analytical
testing for this constituent, this facility
faces potential curtailment of 1,3-PDA
production operations. This site-specific
variance will provide alternative
technology treatment standards for 1,3PDA in multisource leachate that do not
require analysis of the biosludge matrix
to determine whether the numerical
treatment standard is being met, thus
ensuring that treatment reflecting
performance of the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology occurs and that
threats to human health and the
environment from land disposal of the
waste are minimized.
DATES: This final rule is effective April
10, 2006, unless the Agency receives
adverse comment by March 9, 2006. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2005–0015. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the RCRA docket is (202) 566–0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
more information on this rulemaking,
contact Rhonda Minnick, Hazardous
Waste Minimization and Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC
5302 W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (703)
308–8771; fax (703) 308–8433; or
minnick.rhonda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because we view the sitespecific treatment standard as
noncontroversial. We anticipate no
adverse comments because it is sitespecific and the alternative treatment
standard that it establishes is based on
performance of the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) that
ensures treatment of constituents with
similar structure and physical form. We
believe that this treatment will
minimize threats to human health and
the environment posed by land disposal
of the waste. However, in the ‘‘Proposed
Rules’’ section of today’s Federal
Register publication, we are publishing
a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to grant this site-specific
treatment variance, if adverse comments
are filed. This direct final rule will be
effective on April 10, 2006 without
further notice unless we receive adverse
comment by March 9, 2006. If EPA
receives adverse comment on this sitespecific treatment variance, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register indicating which
aspects of the variance will become
effective and which are being
withdrawn due to adverse comment.
Any of the provisions in today’s direct
final rulemaking for which we do not
receive adverse comment will become
effective on the date set above. We will
address all public comments in a
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6209
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. We will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this site-specific variance must do so
at this time.
A. What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment
Variances?
Under section 3004(m) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), EPA is required to set
‘‘levels or methods of treatment, if any,
which substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized.’’ We interpret this
language to authorize treatment
standards based on the performance of
the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT). This interpretation
was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 886 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
We recognize that there may be
wastes that cannot be treated to levels
specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR
268.40) because an individual waste
matrix or concentration can be
substantially more difficult to treat than
those wastes we evaluated in
establishing the treatment standard (51
FR 40576, November 7, 1986). For such
wastes, EPA has a process by which a
generator or treater may seek a treatment
variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted,
the terms of the variance establish an
alternative treatment standard for the
particular waste at issue.
B. What Is the Basis of the Current 1,3PDA Treatment Standard?
The treatment standard for 1,3-PDA
was promulgated in the Dyes and
Pigments (K181) hazardous waste listing
on February 24, 2005 (70 FR 9138) and
it became effective on August 23, 2005.
The 1,3-PDA treatment standard was
placed in the Table of Treatment
Standards (see 40 CFR 268.40) under
‘‘K181’’ (the waste code for the Dyes and
Pigments listing) and under ‘‘F039’’ (the
waste code for multisource leachate). It
is the F039 treatment standard for 1,3PDA that is addressed in this sitespecific variance. We also added this
constituent to the Universal Treatment
Standard Table (see 40 CFR 268.48),
which means that when 1,3-PDA is
reasonably expected to be present in a
characteristic waste at point of
generation it must be considered an
underlying hazardous constituent
requiring treatment.
In the final rule, we set a numerical
nonwastewater treatment standard of
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
6210
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
0.66 mg/kg for 1,3-PDA, based on use of
the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) of combustion. For
purposes of establishing the treatment
standard, we grouped 1,3-PDA with
other waste constituents (notably 1,2PDA, but also including o-Anisidine, pCresidine, 2,4-dimethylaniline, aniline
and 4-chloroaniline). No actual
treatment data were available for 1,3PDA. However, the 0.66 mg/kg
treatment standard was based on: (1)
The thermal stability index ranking
system and incinerability index (if the
most difficult to treat constituents can
be destroyed via incineration, then all
less stable constituents can also be
destroyed); and (2) similar chemical
structures and chemical and physical
properties that are exhibited by the
constituents in each treatability group
(incineration should be able to
destabilize and destroy each of the
compounds in a similar fashion). See
the ‘‘Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for Dyes and Pigments
Production Wastes,’’ December 2004,
section 2.2.3.
II. What Is the Basis for Today’s
Determination?
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES
A. What Criteria Govern a Treatment
Variance?
Facilities can apply for a site-specific
variance in cases where a waste that is
generated under conditions specific to
only one site cannot be treated to the
specified levels. In such cases, the
generator or treatment facility may
apply to the Administrator, or a
delegated representative, for a sitespecific variance from a treatment
standard. One of the demonstrations
that an applicant for a site-specific
variance may make is that it is not
physically possible to treat the waste to
the level specified in the treatment
standard (40 CFR 268.44(h)(1)). This is
the criteria pertinent to today’s variance,
in that it is not technically possible to
measure the constituent in DuPont’s
biosludge treatment residual, as
explained below.
B. What Does DuPont Request?
DuPont contacted EPA about an
analytical problem it is having with 1,3PDA in their multisource leachate
(F039) treatment biosludge. The facility
produces 1,3-PDA in their plant and
then pipes the wastewaters from
manufacturing 1,3-PDA to an onsite
biological wastewater treatment plant.
DuPont ultimately disposes of the
biosolids containing 1,3-PDA into their
hazardous waste landfill. The mass
loading levels of the waste 1,3-PDA do
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
not trigger the K181 listing, so such
placement is not considered land
disposal of a hazardous waste. However,
the landfill is permitted to accept
biosolids with several listed hazardous
wastes and, as a result, generates F039
(a hazardous waste), which is
reasonably expected to contain 1,3-PDA.
The F039 is introduced by pipeline into
DuPont’s biological treatment system, a
two-step biological process that
includes the use of activated carbon.
Biodegradation reduces organics in this
system by approximately 99%. The
treatment residual is a F039 biosludge
that is high in carbon. It is this
biosludge that is the basis of the
requested treatability variance.
DuPont has sent the biosludge to
several commercial laboratories for
analysis to see if it met the treatment
standard and could be legally land
disposed. The laboratories have
consistently been unable to detect 1,3PDA in this high carbon matrix. When
asked if they could develop a new
detection method for this constituent,
only one laboratory was interested in
attempting to do so, but indicated that
it could take a year to develop and it
likely would have a detection limit
around 13 mg/kg (the detection limit for
a similar compound, 1,4-PDA). This
detection limit is much higher than the
1,3-PDA treatment standard of 0.66 mg/
kg.
DuPont pointed out that when the
treatment standard for a similar
compound, 1,2-PDA (1,2phenylenediamine, ophenylenediamine), was promulgated in
the dyes and pigments listing rule, we
set a treatment standard expressed as
specified technologies because of
method detection problems: We
specified that combustion (CMBST), or
chemical oxidation (CHOXD) followed
by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment
train of BIODG followed by CARBN are
the treatment standard. DuPont
requested that we provide a variance
that would set specified technologies as
the treatment standard for 1,3-PDA at
their Chambers Works facility, as we did
for 1,2-PDA. We believe that this is a
reasonable request because when we
evaluated the waste constituents to
determine the original treatment
standards, we grouped 1,3-PDA with
1,2-PDA (and other constituents)
because they are similar in chemical
structure and physical properties.
C. New Treatment Standard for 1,3-PDA
We are granting DuPont’s request in
today’s site-specific variance. Under one
of the criteria for a variance from the
treatment standard, the applicant must
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
demonstrate that it is not physically
possible to treat the waste to the level
specified in the treatment standard. We
believe that today’s variance falls into
this category, in that it is technically
impossible for DuPont to demonstrate
that it complies with a treatment level
when laboratories have not been able to
detect the waste in DuPont’s particular,
site-specific biosludge matrix.1
Therefore, certification that this
constituent has been treated in the F039
biosludge matrix is not possible, and
without the certification, disposal of the
F039 biosludge cannot legally occur.
This situation may impede production
of 1,3-PDA at the facility, because legal
disposal of this waste would no longer
be available. See Steel Manufacturers
Association v. EPA., 27 F.3d 642, 646–
47 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (absence of a
treatment standard providing a legal
means of disposing of wastes from a
process is equivalent to shutting down
that process).
The alternative treatment standard
established by today’s site-specific
variance is: Combustion (CMBST), or
chemical oxidation (CHOXD) followed
by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment
train of BIODG followed by CARBN, the
same treatment standard we set in the
K181 listing rule for a similar
constituent, 1,2-PDA. By altering the
treatment standard for 1,3-PDA to allow
certification of compliance based on the
use of specified treatment technologies
without constituent-specific testing, we
can ensure that effective treatment
occurs without delay and can also
assure that threats to human health and
the environment are minimized. We
believe that DuPont’s two-step
biological treatment system that
includes the use of activated carbon
effectively treats 1,3-PDA in the F039
multisource leachate waste.2 And, as
mentioned in footnote 1, we made a
similar finding that treatment of other
carbamate waste constituents would
adequately treat 1,2-PDA, when we
withdrew it as a constituent of concern
in 1998. Likewise, we believe that
treatment of the other constituents of
1 This finding is similar to a previous LDR
determination. We originally promulgated a
numerical treatment standard for 1,2-PDA (ophenylenediamine) on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15583).
However, we subsequently withdrew the treatment
standard because of poor method performance on
September 4, 1998. We stated at that time that
treatment of other constituents would provide
adequate treatment for o-phenylenediamine (63 FR
47409).
2 When we originally promulgated treatment
standards for F039, we stated that constituents on
the BDAT list serve as surrogates for those
constituents that may be present in the multisource
leachate that cannot be adequately analyzed (55 FR
22622, June 1, 1990).
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
concern in DuPont’s F039 multisource
leachate waste will serve as a surrogate
for 1,3-PDA.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Because this action creates no
new regulatory requirements, it has
been determined that this rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 and
is therefore not subject to OMB review.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This action
is a site-specific variance to the LDR
treatment standards, which allows a
specified BDAT treatment technology to
be used for treating one facility’s
hazardous waste prior to land disposal.
The facility remains subject to the
unchanged Land Disposal Restrictions
paperwork requirements found at 40
CFR 268.7.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This treatment variance does not
create any new regulatory requirements.
Rather, it establishes an alternative
treatment standard for a specific waste
stream that replaces a standard already
in effect, and it applies to only one
facility. Therefore, I hereby certify that
this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule,
therefore, does not require a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6211
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Today’s rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. The rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
This action is a site-specific variance
that allows a different treatment
standard to be met for treating one
constituent in one facility’s hazardous
waste prior to land disposal.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This action is a
site-specific variance for one facility.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
6212
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This final rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action is a
site-specific variance that applies to
only one facility, which is not a tribal
facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
Today’s final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does
not meet either of these criteria. The
waste described in this site-specific
treatment standard variance will be
treated and then disposed of in existing,
permitted RCRA Subtitle C landfills,
ensuring that there will be no risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
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.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. The
Agency uses established technical
standards when determining the best
demonstrated available technologies
upon which land disposal restrictions
treatment standards are based.
Therefore, there is no need to provide
Congress an explanation because
consensus standards were used in
establishing this alternative treatment
standard for 1,3-PDA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EPA is committed to addressing
environmental justice concerns and is
assuming a leadership role in
environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all
residents of the United States. The
Agency’s goals are to ensure that no
segment of the population, regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income
bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
environmental impacts as a result of
EPA’s policies, programs, and activities,
and that all people live in clean and
sustainable communities. In response to
Executive Order 12898 and to concerns
voiced by many groups outside the
Agency, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response formed an
Environmental Justice Task Force to
analyze the array of environmental
justice issues specific to waste programs
and to develop an overall strategy to
identify and address these issues
(OSWER Directive No. 9200.3–17).
Today’s variance applies to waste that
is treated in an existing, permitted
RCRA Subtitle C facility, ensuring
protection to human health and the
environment. Therefore, today’s rule
will not result in any disproportionately
negative impacts on minority or lowincome communities relative to affluent
or non-minority communities.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
K. Congressional Review
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, applying only to a specific
waste type at one facility under
particular circumstances.
A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2), however, this rule will be
effective April 10, 2006.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 27, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
2. Section 268.44, the table in
paragraph (o) is amended by adding in
alphabetical order an additional entry
for ‘‘DuPont Environmental Treatment
Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ’’ and
adding a new footnote 13 to read as
follows:
I
§ 268.44 Variance from a treatment
standard.
*
*
*
(o) * * *
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
*
*
6213
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE TREATMENT STANDARDS UNDER § 268.40
Wastewaters
Facility name 1 and address
*
*
DuPont Environmental Treatment
Chambers Works, Deepwater,
NJ.
*
Regulated hazardous constituent
Waste
code
See also
F039 ......
*
Standards under
§ 268.40.
*
*
*
1,3phenylenediamine 1,3-PDA.
*
Nonwastewaters
Concentration
(mg/L)
Notes
*
NA ..........
NA ..........
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes
*
CMBST;
CHOXD fb
BIODG or
CARBN; or
BIODG fb
CARBN.
*
*
(13)
*
*
(1) A
facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(13) This treatment standard applies to 1,3-PDA in biosludge from treatment of F039.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.
[FR Doc. 06–1073 Filed 2–6–06; 8:45 am]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Background
Prior to the 1998 and 2000 statutory
amendments, the affirmative action
provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans’
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as
amended, 38 U.S.C. 4212 (‘‘Section
4212’’ or ‘‘VEVRAA’’) required parties
holding Government contracts or
subcontracts of $10,000 or more to ‘‘take
affirmative action to employ and
advance in employment qualified
special disabled veterans and veterans
of the Vietnam era.’’ The Veterans
Employment Opportunities Act of 1998
(VEOA) amended section 4212(a) in two
ways. First, section 7 of VEOA raised
the amount of a contract required to
establish VEVRAA coverage from
$10,000 or more to $25,000 or more.
Second, section 7 of VEOA granted
VEVRAA protection to veterans who
have served on active duty during a war
or in a campaign or expedition for
which a campaign badge has been
authorized.
The Veterans Benefits and Health
Care Improvement Act of 2000
(VBHCIA) amended VEVRAA by
extending VEVRAA protection to
‘‘recently separated veterans’’ ‘‘ those
veterans ‘‘during the one-year period
beginning on the date of such veteran’s
discharge or release from active duty.’’
The final rule regulations published on
December 1, 2005, incorporate the
changes made by VEOA and VBHCIA to
the contract coverage threshold and the
categories of protected veterans under
VEVRAA.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs
41 CFR Part 60–250
RIN 1215–AB24
Affirmative Action and
Nondiscrimination Obligations of
Contractors and Subcontractors
Regarding Protected Veterans;
Correction
Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs, Labor.
ACTION: Correcting Amendment.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains a
correction to the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
final regulations implementing the
affirmative action provisions of the
Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment
Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA),
which were published in the Federal
Register on December 1, 2005. Those
final regulations, among other things,
incorporate the changes to VEVRAA
that were made by the Veterans
Employment Opportunities Act of 1998
and the Veterans Benefits and Health
Care Improvement Act of 2000.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Pierce, Acting Director,
Division of Policy, Planning, and
Program Development, Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room
N3422, Washington, DC 20210.
Telephone: (202) 693–0102 (voice) or
(202) 693–1337 (TTY).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
Need for Correction
Section 60–250.2 in the final
regulations published on December 1,
2005, contains definitions of terms used
in the part 60–250 regulations. A final
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
rule published on June 22, 2005, (70 FR
36262), added a new paragraph (v) to
§ 60–250.2, which set forth a definition
for the term ‘‘compliance evaluation.’’
However, the definition for the term
‘‘compliance evaluation’’ was
inadvertently omitted from § 60–250.2
in the final regulations published on
December 1, 2005. To correct the error,
this document adds the definition for
the term ‘‘compliance evaluation’’ to
§ 60–250.2.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 60–250
Administrative practice and
procedure, Civil rights, Employment,
Equal employment opportunity,
Government contracts, Government
procurement, Individuals with
disabilities, Investigations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, and
Veterans.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of
January, 2006.
Victoria A. Lipnic,
Assistant Secretary for Employment
Standards.
Charles E. James, Sr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal
Contract Compliance.
Accordingly, for the reason set forth
above, 41 CFR part 60–250 is corrected
by making the following correcting
amendment:
I
PART 60–250—AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
AND NONDISCRIMINATION
OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTORS
AND SUBCONTRACTORS
REGARDING SPECIAL DISABLED
VETERANS, VETERANS OF THE
VIETNAM ERA, RECENTLY
SEPARATED VETERANS, AND OTHER
PROTECTED VETERANS
1. The authority citation for Part 60–
250 continues to read as follows:
I
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6209-6213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1073]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL-8027-6; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015]
Site-Specific Variance From the Land Disposal Restrictions
Treatment Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to revise the waste
treatment standard for 1,3-phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA) for a biosludge
generated at DuPont's Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, New Jersey.
This variance is necessary because the facility is unable to measure
compliance with the 1,3-PDA land disposal restrictions treatment
standard in its multisource leachate treatment biosludge matrix. As a
practical matter, therefore, the facility cannot fully document
compliance with the requirements of the treatment standard. For the
same reason, EPA cannot ascertain compliance for this constituent.
Furthermore, faced with the inability to demonstrate treatment residual
content through analytical testing for this constituent, this facility
faces potential curtailment of 1,3-PDA production operations. This
site-specific variance will provide alternative technology treatment
standards for 1,3-PDA in multisource leachate that do not require
analysis of the biosludge matrix to determine whether the numerical
treatment standard is being met, thus ensuring that treatment
reflecting performance of the Best Demonstrated Available Technology
occurs and that threats to human health and the environment from land
disposal of the waste are minimized.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 10, 2006, unless the Agency
receives adverse comment by March 9, 2006. If adverse comment is
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA
docket is (202) 566-0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Rhonda Minnick, Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (703) 308-8771; fax (703) 308-8433; or
minnick.rhonda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
the site-specific treatment standard as noncontroversial. We anticipate
no adverse comments because it is site-specific and the alternative
treatment standard that it establishes is based on performance of the
Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) that ensures treatment of
constituents with similar structure and physical form. We believe that
this treatment will minimize threats to human health and the
environment posed by land disposal of the waste. However, in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
grant this site-specific treatment variance, if adverse comments are
filed. This direct final rule will be effective on April 10, 2006
without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by March 9,
2006. If EPA receives adverse comment on this site-specific treatment
variance, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
indicating which aspects of the variance will become effective and
which are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. Any of the provisions
in today's direct final rulemaking for which we do not receive adverse
comment will become effective on the date set above. We will address
all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this site-specific variance must do
so at this time.
A. What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment Variances?
Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), EPA is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if
any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized.'' We interpret this
language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance of
the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT). This interpretation
was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 886 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
We recognize that there may be wastes that cannot be treated to
levels specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR 268.40) because an
individual waste matrix or concentration can be substantially more
difficult to treat than those wastes we evaluated in establishing the
treatment standard (51 FR 40576, November 7, 1986). For such wastes,
EPA has a process by which a generator or treater may seek a treatment
variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted, the terms of the variance
establish an alternative treatment standard for the particular waste at
issue.
B. What Is the Basis of the Current 1,3-PDA Treatment Standard?
The treatment standard for 1,3-PDA was promulgated in the Dyes and
Pigments (K181) hazardous waste listing on February 24, 2005 (70 FR
9138) and it became effective on August 23, 2005. The 1,3-PDA treatment
standard was placed in the Table of Treatment Standards (see 40 CFR
268.40) under ``K181'' (the waste code for the Dyes and Pigments
listing) and under ``F039'' (the waste code for multisource leachate).
It is the F039 treatment standard for 1,3-PDA that is addressed in this
site-specific variance. We also added this constituent to the Universal
Treatment Standard Table (see 40 CFR 268.48), which means that when
1,3-PDA is reasonably expected to be present in a characteristic waste
at point of generation it must be considered an underlying hazardous
constituent requiring treatment.
In the final rule, we set a numerical nonwastewater treatment
standard of
[[Page 6210]]
0.66 mg/kg for 1,3-PDA, based on use of the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) of combustion. For purposes of establishing the
treatment standard, we grouped 1,3-PDA with other waste constituents
(notably 1,2-PDA, but also including o-Anisidine, p-Cresidine, 2,4-
dimethylaniline, aniline and 4-chloroaniline). No actual treatment data
were available for 1,3-PDA. However, the 0.66 mg/kg treatment standard
was based on: (1) The thermal stability index ranking system and
incinerability index (if the most difficult to treat constituents can
be destroyed via incineration, then all less stable constituents can
also be destroyed); and (2) similar chemical structures and chemical
and physical properties that are exhibited by the constituents in each
treatability group (incineration should be able to destabilize and
destroy each of the compounds in a similar fashion). See the ``Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Dyes
and Pigments Production Wastes,'' December 2004, section 2.2.3.
II. What Is the Basis for Today's Determination?
A. What Criteria Govern a Treatment Variance?
Facilities can apply for a site-specific variance in cases where a
waste that is generated under conditions specific to only one site
cannot be treated to the specified levels. In such cases, the generator
or treatment facility may apply to the Administrator, or a delegated
representative, for a site-specific variance from a treatment standard.
One of the demonstrations that an applicant for a site-specific
variance may make is that it is not physically possible to treat the
waste to the level specified in the treatment standard (40 CFR
268.44(h)(1)). This is the criteria pertinent to today's variance, in
that it is not technically possible to measure the constituent in
DuPont's biosludge treatment residual, as explained below.
B. What Does DuPont Request?
DuPont contacted EPA about an analytical problem it is having with
1,3-PDA in their multisource leachate (F039) treatment biosludge. The
facility produces 1,3-PDA in their plant and then pipes the wastewaters
from manufacturing 1,3-PDA to an onsite biological wastewater treatment
plant. DuPont ultimately disposes of the biosolids containing 1,3-PDA
into their hazardous waste landfill. The mass loading levels of the
waste 1,3-PDA do not trigger the K181 listing, so such placement is not
considered land disposal of a hazardous waste. However, the landfill is
permitted to accept biosolids with several listed hazardous wastes and,
as a result, generates F039 (a hazardous waste), which is reasonably
expected to contain 1,3-PDA. The F039 is introduced by pipeline into
DuPont's biological treatment system, a two-step biological process
that includes the use of activated carbon. Biodegradation reduces
organics in this system by approximately 99%. The treatment residual is
a F039 biosludge that is high in carbon. It is this biosludge that is
the basis of the requested treatability variance.
DuPont has sent the biosludge to several commercial laboratories
for analysis to see if it met the treatment standard and could be
legally land disposed. The laboratories have consistently been unable
to detect 1,3-PDA in this high carbon matrix. When asked if they could
develop a new detection method for this constituent, only one
laboratory was interested in attempting to do so, but indicated that it
could take a year to develop and it likely would have a detection limit
around 13 mg/kg (the detection limit for a similar compound, 1,4-PDA).
This detection limit is much higher than the 1,3-PDA treatment standard
of 0.66 mg/kg.
DuPont pointed out that when the treatment standard for a similar
compound, 1,2-PDA (1,2-phenylenediamine, o-phenylenediamine), was
promulgated in the dyes and pigments listing rule, we set a treatment
standard expressed as specified technologies because of method
detection problems: We specified that combustion (CMBST), or chemical
oxidation (CHOXD) followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN are
the treatment standard. DuPont requested that we provide a variance
that would set specified technologies as the treatment standard for
1,3-PDA at their Chambers Works facility, as we did for 1,2-PDA. We
believe that this is a reasonable request because when we evaluated the
waste constituents to determine the original treatment standards, we
grouped 1,3-PDA with 1,2-PDA (and other constituents) because they are
similar in chemical structure and physical properties.
C. New Treatment Standard for 1,3-PDA
We are granting DuPont's request in today's site-specific variance.
Under one of the criteria for a variance from the treatment standard,
the applicant must demonstrate that it is not physically possible to
treat the waste to the level specified in the treatment standard. We
believe that today's variance falls into this category, in that it is
technically impossible for DuPont to demonstrate that it complies with
a treatment level when laboratories have not been able to detect the
waste in DuPont's particular, site-specific biosludge matrix.\1\
Therefore, certification that this constituent has been treated in the
F039 biosludge matrix is not possible, and without the certification,
disposal of the F039 biosludge cannot legally occur. This situation may
impede production of 1,3-PDA at the facility, because legal disposal of
this waste would no longer be available. See Steel Manufacturers
Association v. EPA., 27 F.3d 642, 646-47 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (absence of a
treatment standard providing a legal means of disposing of wastes from
a process is equivalent to shutting down that process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This finding is similar to a previous LDR determination. We
originally promulgated a numerical treatment standard for 1,2-PDA
(o-phenylenediamine) on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15583). However, we
subsequently withdrew the treatment standard because of poor method
performance on September 4, 1998. We stated at that time that
treatment of other constituents would provide adequate treatment for
o-phenylenediamine (63 FR 47409).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alternative treatment standard established by today's site-
specific variance is: Combustion (CMBST), or chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon adsorption (CARBN), or a
treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN, the same treatment standard
we set in the K181 listing rule for a similar constituent, 1,2-PDA. By
altering the treatment standard for 1,3-PDA to allow certification of
compliance based on the use of specified treatment technologies without
constituent-specific testing, we can ensure that effective treatment
occurs without delay and can also assure that threats to human health
and the environment are minimized. We believe that DuPont's two-step
biological treatment system that includes the use of activated carbon
effectively treats 1,3-PDA in the F039 multisource leachate waste.\2\
And, as mentioned in footnote 1, we made a similar finding that
treatment of other carbamate waste constituents would adequately treat
1,2-PDA, when we withdrew it as a constituent of concern in 1998.
Likewise, we believe that treatment of the other constituents of
[[Page 6211]]
concern in DuPont's F039 multisource leachate waste will serve as a
surrogate for 1,3-PDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ When we originally promulgated treatment standards for F039,
we stated that constituents on the BDAT list serve as surrogates for
those constituents that may be present in the multisource leachate
that cannot be adequately analyzed (55 FR 22622, June 1, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Because this action
creates no new regulatory requirements, it has been determined that
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This action is a site-specific variance to the LDR treatment standards,
which allows a specified BDAT treatment technology to be used for
treating one facility's hazardous waste prior to land disposal. The
facility remains subject to the unchanged Land Disposal Restrictions
paperwork requirements found at 40 CFR 268.7.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This treatment variance does not create any new regulatory
requirements. Rather, it establishes an alternative treatment standard
for a specific waste stream that replaces a standard already in effect,
and it applies to only one facility. Therefore, I hereby certify that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This
action is a site-specific variance that allows a different treatment
standard to be met for treating one constituent in one facility's
hazardous waste prior to land disposal.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action is a site-specific
variance for one facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
[[Page 6212]]
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action
is a site-specific variance that applies to only one facility, which is
not a tribal facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it does not meet either of these criteria. The waste described in this
site-specific treatment standard variance will be treated and then
disposed of in existing, permitted RCRA Subtitle C landfills, ensuring
that there will be no risks that may disproportionately affect
children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The Agency uses
established technical standards when determining the best demonstrated
available technologies upon which land disposal restrictions treatment
standards are based. Therefore, there is no need to provide Congress an
explanation because consensus standards were used in establishing this
alternative treatment standard for 1,3-PDA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
that all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response
to Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside
the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed
an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER
Directive No. 9200.3-17).
Today's variance applies to waste that is treated in an existing,
permitted RCRA Subtitle C facility, ensuring protection to human health
and the environment. Therefore, today's rule will not result in any
disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income
communities relative to affluent or non-minority communities.
K. Congressional Review
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, applying only to a
specific waste type at one facility under particular circumstances.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), however, this rule will be effective April 10,
2006.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 27, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.
0
2. Section 268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended by adding in
alphabetical order an additional entry for ``DuPont Environmental
Treatment Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ'' and adding a new footnote 13
to read as follows:
Sec. 268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
[[Page 6213]]
Table.--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec. 268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Regulated -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility name \1\ and address Waste code See also hazardous Concentration (mg/ Concentration
constituent L) Notes (mg/kg) Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
DuPont Environmental Treatment F039 Standards under 1,3- NA............... NA............... CMBST; CHOXD fb (\13\)
Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ. Sec. 268.40. phenylenediamine BIODG or CARBN;
1,3-PDA. or BIODG fb
CARBN.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
* * * * * * *
(13) This treatment standard applies to 1,3-PDA in biosludge from treatment of F039.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.
[FR Doc. 06-1073 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
