19004 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed 

rule? 

This action proposes to issue both a 

site-specific treatment variance to U.S. 

Ecology Nevada (USEN) located in 

Beatty, Nevada and withdraw an 

existing site-specific treatment variance 

issued to Chemical Waste Management, 

Inc. (CWM) located in Kettleman Hills, 

California. This proposal pertains to the 

treatment of a hazardous waste 

generated by the Owens-Brockway Glass 

Container Company in Vernon, 

California that is unable to meet the 

concentration-based treatment standard 

for selenium established under the Land 

Disposal Restrictions program. The sitespecific treatment variance proposed to 

be issued to USEN would provide an 

alternative treatment standard of 59 mg/ 

L for selenium as measured by the 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure. EPA has determined that the 

treatment performed by USEN provides 

the best demonstrated treatment 

available for this waste by reducing the 

amount of selenium potentially released 

to the environment, while minimizing 

the total volume of hazardous waste 

land disposed. 

In the Rules and Regulations section 

of this Federal Register, we have also 

published a direct final rule granting a 

site-specific treatment variance to USEN 

and withdrawing the site-specific 

treatment variance previously granted to 

CWM for this same waste. We are 

issuing a direct final rule for this action 

because we view this as 

noncontroversial and anticipate no 

adverse comment. We have explained 

our reasons for this in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule and the direct final rule 

will become effective as provided in 

that action. If we do receive adverse 

comment, we will publish a timely 

notice in the Federal Register 

withdrawing the direct final rule and it 

will not take effect. We will address all 

public comments in any subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposal applies only to U. S. 

Ecology Nevada located in Beatty, 

Nevada and Chemical Waste 

Management located in Kettleman Hills, 

California. 

III. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Direct Final Rule Location of Regulatory 

Text for This Proposal 

The regulatory text for this proposal is 

identical to that for the direct final rule 

published in the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register. For 

further supplemental information, the 

detailed rationale for the proposal, and 

the regulatory revisions, see the 

information provided in the direct final 

rule published in the Rules and 

Regulations section of today’s Federal 

Register. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

For a complete discussion of all the 

administrative requirements applicable 

to this action, see the direct final rule in 

the Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to the 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 site-specific treatment variance, 

as proposed, does not create any new 

requirements. Rather, it proposes an 

alternative treatment standard for a 

specific waste that applies to only one 

facility, USEN and proposes to 

withdraw an existing site-specific 

treatment variance for the same waste at 

CWM in Kettleman Hills, California. 

Therefore, we hereby certify that this 

action, as proposed would not add any 

new regulatory requirements to small 

entities. This proposal rule, therefore, 

does not require a regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268 

Environmental Protection, Hazardous 

Waste, Variances. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8180 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–0307; FRL–9290–9] 

Oklahoma: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The State of Oklahoma has 

applied to EPA for Final authorization 

of the changes to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA proposes to grant Final 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19005 

authorization to the State of Oklahoma. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register, EPA is 

authorizing the changes by an 

immediate final rule. EPA did not make 

a proposal prior to the immediate final 

rule because we believe this action is 

not controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose it. We have 

explained the reasons for this 

authorization in the preamble to the 

immediate final rule. Unless we get 

written comments which oppose this 

authorization during the comment 

period, the immediate final rule will 

become effective on the date it 

establishes, and we will not take further 

action on this proposal. If we receive 

comments that oppose this action, we 

will withdraw the immediate final rule 

and it will not take effect. We will then 

respond to public comments in a later 

final rule based on this proposal. You 

may not have another opportunity for 

comment. If you want to comment on 

this action, you must do so at this time. 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

May 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, at the address shown below. 

You can examine copies of the materials 

submitted by the State of Oklahoma 

during normal business hours at the 

following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

phone number (214) 665–8533; or 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma 73101–1677, (405) 702– 

7180. Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier; please follow the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the immediate final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson (214) 665–8533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

For additional information, please see 

the immediate final rule published in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: March 19, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8172 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1187] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this proposed rule is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or to show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 

qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before July 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community is available for inspection at 

the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1187, to Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail) 

luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail) 

luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and also are 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in those 

buildings. 

Comments on any aspect of the Flood 

Insurance Study and FIRM, other than 

the proposed BFEs, will be considered. 

A letter acknowledging receipt of any 

comments will not be sent. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This proposed 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This proposed rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 67—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 67 

continues to read as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1