16534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

drug medicated feed. This correction is 

being made to improve the accuracy of 

the animal drug regulations. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 

Animal drugs, Animal feeds. 

Accordingly, 21 CFR part 558 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendment: 

PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR 

USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 558 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 

§ 558.530 [Corrected] 

■ 2. In § 558.530, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(xvii). 

Dated: March 17, 2011. 

Leslie Kux, 

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6790 Filed 3–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 558 

[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0002] 

New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal 

Feeds; Florfenicol; Correction 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) published a 

document in the Federal Register of 

June 17, 2010 (75 FR 34361) revising the 

animal drug regulations to reflect 

approval of a supplemental new animal 

drug application (NADA). That 

document contained an incorrect table 

entry describing the maximum 

florfenicol concentration in Type B 

medicated swine feeds. This correction 

is being made to improve the accuracy 

of the animal drug regulations. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 24, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (HFV–6), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–9019, email: george.haibel@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) 

published a document in the Federal 

Register of June 17, 2010 (75 FR 34361) 

revising the animal drug regulations to 

reflect approval of a supplemental new 

animal drug application (NADA). That 

document contained an incorrect table 

entry describing the maximum 

florfenicol concentration in Type B 

medicated swine feeds. This correction 

is being made to improve the accuracy 

of the animal drug regulations. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 

Animal drugs, Animal feeds. 

Accordingly, 21 CFR part 558 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendments: 

PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR 

USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 558 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 

§ 558.4 [Corrected] 

■ 2. In paragraph (d) of § 558.4, in the 

‘‘Category II’’ table, in the ‘‘Type B 

maximum (100x)’’ column, in the entry 

for ‘‘Florfenicol’’, remove ‘‘Swine feed: 

n/a’’, ‘‘Catfish feed: n/a’’, and ‘‘Salmonid 

feed: n/a’’ and in their places add ‘‘9.1 

g/lb (2.0%)’’. 

Dated: March 17, 2011. 

Leslie Kux, 

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6789 Filed 3–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Parts 111 and 121 

Combined Mailings of Standard Mail 

and Periodicals Flats 

AGENCY: Postal Service.TM

ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is 

withdrawing a final rule that would 

have provided a new option for mailers 

to combine mailings of Standard Mail ®

flats and Periodicals flats within the 

same bundle, when placed on pallets, 

and to combine bundles of Standard 

Mail flats and bundles of Periodicals 

flats on the same pallet. The Postal 

Service also withdraws the Code of 

Federal Regulations revision to reflect 

that Standard Mail service standards 

apply to all Periodicals flats pieces 

entered in such combined mailings. 

DATES: The final rule published on 

February 28, 2011 (76 FR 10757), is 

withdrawn effective March 24, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Leon at 202–268–7443, or 

Kevin Gunther at 202–268–7208. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on February 28, 2011, the Postal Service 

provided a new option for mailers to 

combine Standard Mail flats and 

Periodicals flats, when bundled and 

placed on pallets. Mailers using this 

option would have combined differentclass mailpieces within the same bundle 

(comail), or combined separate sameclass bundles (of different classes) on 

the same pallet (copalletize) to 

maximize presorting or to qualify for 

deeper destination entry discounts. All 

mailpieces prepared under this option 

were required to be bundled and placed 

on pallets. 

In consideration of concerns 

expressed by members of the mailing 

community, the Postal Service has 

elected to withdraw this final rule and 

will publish these standards as a 

proposed rule concurrently. 

The Postal Service also withdraws the 

revision to 39 CFR part 121.2 whereby 

we added a new item ‘‘c’’ to describe the 

USPS processing of Periodicals 

mailpieces included in combined 

mailings of Standard Mail flats and 

Periodicals flats, and specifying that 

Periodicals mailpieces included in these 

mailings will be assigned the service 

standards applicable to Standard Mail 

pieces. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6911 Filed 3–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R03–RCRA–2010–0132; FRL–9285–7] 

Hazardous Waste Management System 

Identification and Listing of Hazardous 

Waste; Final Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA, also the Agency or we in 

this preamble) today is granting a 

petition submitted by Babcock & Wilcox 

Nuclear Operations Group, Inc., the 

current owner, and to BWX 

Technologies, Inc., as predecessor in 

interest to the current owner, identified 

collectively hereafter in this preamble as 

‘‘B&W NOG,’’ to exclude (or delist) on a 

one-time basis from the lists of 

hazardous waste, a certain solid waste 

generated at its Mt. Athos facility near 

Lynchburg, Virginia. 

After careful analysis, we have 

concluded that the petitioned waste is 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 16535 

not hazardous waste. This exclusion 

applies to 148 cubic yards of sludge 

currently deposited in two on-site 

surface impoundments designated as 

Final Effluent Ponds (FEPs) 1 and 2. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

conditionally excludes this volume of 

the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of the hazardous waste 

regulation under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R03–RCRA–2010–0132. The 

public docket for this final rule is 

located at the Environmental Protection 

Agency Region III, Land and Chemicals 

Division, Office of Technical and 

Administrative Support, Mail Code: 

3LC10, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 

PA 19103–2029. The docket is available 

for viewing from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. You may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at a 

cost of $0.15 per page. EPA requests that 

you contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. You should 

make an appointment with the office at 

least 24 hours in advance. Docket 

materials are also available 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further technical information 

concerning this document or for 

appointments to view the docket for the 

B&W NOG facility petition, contact 

David M. Friedman, Environmental 

Protection Agency Region III, Land and 

Chemicals Division, Office of Technical 

and Administrative Support, Mail Code: 

3LC10, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 

PA 19103–2029, by calling 215–814– 

3395 or by e-mail at 

friedman.davidm@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

B. What regulations allow a hazardous 

waste generator to petition for a delisting 

of its waste? 

C. What information must the petitioner 

supply? 

III. B&W NOG’s Delisting Petition 

A. What waste is the subject of B&W NOG’s 

petition? 

B. What information was submitted in 

support of this petition? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Final Decision 

A. Why is EPA approving this petition? 

B. What limitations are associated with this 

exclusion? 

C. When is the final rule effective? 

D. How does this action affect States? 

V. Public Comment Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

B. Comment and Response From EPA 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

On October 7, 2010, we proposed to 

grant a petition submitted by B&W NOG 

to exclude (or delist) from the definition 

of hazardous waste on a one-time basis, 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

at its Mt. Athos facility near Lynchburg, 

VA, and currently deposited in two onsite surface impoundments designated 

as FEPs 1 and 2. Today we are finalizing 

the decision to grant a conditional 

exclusion as described in the October 7, 

2010 proposed rule (75 FR 62040). 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a facility to EPA or an authorized State 

to exclude waste from the list of 

hazardous wastes on a site-specific 

basis. A facility petitions EPA because 

it believes the waste should not be 

considered hazardous under RCRA. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that waste generated at a 

particular facility does not meet any of 

the criteria for which the waste was 

listed. The criteria which EPA uses to 

evaluate a waste for listing are found in 

40 CFR 261.11. An explanation of how 

these criteria apply to a waste is 

contained in the background document 

for that particular listed waste. 

In addition to the criteria that we used 

when we originally listed the waste, a 

petitioner must demonstrate that the 

waste does not exhibit any of the 

hazardous waste characteristics found 

in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C, and must 

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 as required by Section 3001(f) of 

RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6921(f)) and 40 CFR 

260.22(a). 

A petitioner who is granted a delisting 

by EPA or an authorized State remains 

obligated under RCRA to confirm that 

the delisted waste remains 

nonhazardous based on the hazardous 

waste characteristics and must ensure 

that the waste meets the conditions set 

forth. 

B. What regulations allow a hazardous 

waste generator to petition for a 

delisting of its waste? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 262.22, a 

generator may petition EPA to remove 

its waste from hazardous waste 

regulation by excluding it from the lists 

of hazardous wastes contained in 40 

CFR 261, Subpart D. Specifically, 40 

CFR 260.20 allows any person to 

petition the Administrator to modify or 

revoke any provision of parts 260 

through 266, 268 and 273. 40 CFR 

260.22 provides generators the 

opportunity to petition the 

Administrator to exclude a waste on a 

‘‘generator-specific’’ basis from the 

hazardous waste lists. 

C. What information must the petitioner 

supply? 

A petitioner must provide sufficient 

information to allow EPA to determine 

that the waste to be excluded does not 

meet any of the criteria under which the 

waste was listed as a hazardous waste. 

In addition, EPA must determine that 

the waste is not hazardous for any other 

reason. 

III. B&W NOG’s Delisting Petition 

A. What waste is the subject of B&W 

NOG’s petition? 

On February 21, 2003, B&W NOG 

(then known as BWX Technologies, 

Inc.) petitioned EPA to exclude from the 

lists of hazardous waste contained in 40 

CFR 261.31 on a one-time basis, the 

sludge which was deposited in FEPs 1 

and 2 because it believed that the 

petitioned waste did not meet any of the 

criteria for which the waste was listed 

and because there were no additional 

constituents or factors that would cause 

the waste to be hazardous. This sludge 

was derived in part from the treatment 

of wastewater in the pickle acid 

treatment system and, therefore, was 

designated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. 

F006 (wastewater treatment sludge from 

electroplating operations). The volume 

of sludge contained in each FEP at that 

time was determined to be 6,600 cubic 

yards, for a combined sludge volume of 

13,200 cubic yards. 

In addition, although the routing of 

treated wastewaters into the FEPs has 

changed during the operating history of 

these units, at some point they have 

both received treated wastewater from 

the low level radioactive treatment 

system. Because of this, the sludge in 

these units is classified as a ‘‘mixed 

waste’’ under RCRA. A mixed waste is 

defined as a waste that contains both a 

radioactive component subject to the 

Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, 

and a hazardous component subject to 

RCRA. 

On September 3, 2008, B&W NOG 

notified EPA that it had successfully 

completed a sludge removal project at 

FEPs 1 and 2. Sludge was removed from 

these units and disposed of at a mixed 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
16536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

waste disposal facility permitted under 

the authority of both RCRA and the 

Atomic Energy Act. B&W NOG 

conservatively estimated that of the 

13,200 cubic yards of sludge in both 

units, only 148 cubic yards (less than 2 

percent of the original volume) 

remained. In this notification, B&W 

NOG requested that its petition be 

amended to reflect the reduced volume, 

and that the Agency proceed with the 

delisting request based on the new 

volume. 

For a detailed description of how the 

waste was generated, please refer to the 

October 7, 2010 proposed rule. 

B. What information was submitted in 

support of this petition? 

B&W NOG submitted detailed 

descriptions of the processes generating 

the waste. B&W NOG also asserted that 

the waste does not meet the criteria for 

which the F006 waste was listed and 

that there are no other factors that might 

cause the waste to be hazardous. 

To support its assertion that the waste 

is not hazardous, B&W NOG 

implemented a comprehensive strategy 

for evaluating the sludge in the FEPs 

consisting of a two-phase sampling and 

analysis plan. Details of this plan and 

the analytical results from 

representative samples of the sludge are 

contained in the October 7, 2010 

proposed rule. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Final 

Decision 

A. Why is EPA approving this petition? 

Today EPA is finalizing a one-time 

exclusion for the 148 cubic yards of 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

at the B&W NOG’s Mt. Athos facility 

and currently deposited in two on-site 

surface impoundments designated as 

FEPs 1 and 2. B&W NOG petitioned EPA 

to exclude, or delist, the wastewater 

treatment sludge because B&W NOG 

believed that the petitioned waste did 

not meet the criteria for which it was 

listed and that the waste was not 

hazardous for any other reason. Review 

of this petition included consideration 

of the original listing criteria, as well as 

factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed as required by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 to RCRA. 

See, Section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(a)(1) and (2). 

On October 7, 2010, we proposed to 

conditionally exclude the remaining 148 

cubic yards of wastewater treatment 

sludge currently deposited in FEPs 1 

and 2 at the B&W NOG’s Mt. Athos 

facility from the list of hazardous waste 

in 40 CFR 261.31, and requested public 

comment on the proposed rule. For 

reasons stated in both the proposed rule 

and in today’s preamble, we determined 

that B&W NOG’s wastewater treatment 

sludge should be excluded from 

regulation as a hazardous waste. 

B. What limitations are associated with 

this exclusion? 

This exclusion applies only to the 

estimated 148 cubic yards of sludge 

currently deposited in FEPs 1 and 2 at 

the B&W NOG’s Mt. Athos facility. 

B&W NOG states in its petition that 

this sludge contains low levels of 

radioactivity, and that it is, and if 

delisted by EPA will remain subject to, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

regulations. Although the sludge 

currently resides in the FEPs and will 

continue to do so for many years, the 

FEPs will be subject to NRC 

decommissioning rules when they are 

taken out of service. At that time, any 

sludge remaining in the units will have 

to be removed and disposed of in a 

facility licensed to accept low-level 

radioactive waste. 

In order to adequately track wastes 

that have been delisted, when a decision 

is made to dispose of all or of part of 

the sludge off-site, we are requiring that 

B&W NOG provide a one-time 

notification to any State regulatory 

agency to which or through which the 

delisted waste will be transported for 

disposal. B&W NOG will be required to 

provide this notification at least 60 

calendar days prior to commencing 

these activities. 

C. When is the final rule effective? 

This rule is effective March 24, 2011. 

HSWA amended Section 3010 of RCRA 

to allow rules to become effective in less 

than six months when the regulated 

community does not need the six-month 

period to come into compliance. That is 

the case here because this rule reduces, 

rather than increases, the existing 

requirements for persons generating 

hazardous wastes. For these same 

reasons, this rule can and will become 

effective immediately upon publication 

pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

D. How does this action affect States? 

Today’s exclusion is being issued 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program. Therefore, only States subject 

to Federal RCRA delisting provisions 

would be affected. This exclusion is not 

effective in States that have received 

EPA authorization to make their own 

delisting decisions. Also, this exclusion 

may not be effective in States having a 

dual system that includes Federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements. 

We allow States to impose their own 

regulatory requirements that are more 

stringent than EPA’s under section 3009 

of RCRA. These more stringent 

requirements may include a provision 

that prohibits a Federally issued 

exclusion from taking effect in the State 

until the State approves the exclusion 

through a separate State administrative 

action. Because a dual system (that is, 

both Federal and State programs) may 

regulate a petitioner’s waste, we urge 

petitioners to contact the applicable 

State regulatory authorities or agencies 

to establish the status of their waste 

under that State’s hazardous waste 

program. 

We have also authorized some States 

to administer a delisting program in 

place of the Federal program; that is, to 

make delisting decisions pursuant to 

EPA authorized State regulations. 

Therefore, the petition for an exclusion 

that EPA is granting today does not 

necessarily apply within those 

authorized States. If B&W NOG 

transports the petitioned waste to, or 

manages the waste in, any State which 

has received delisting authorization 

from EPA, B&W NOG must obtain 

delisting approval from that State before 

it can manage the waste as 

nonhazardous in that State. 

V. Public Comment Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

We received public comments on the 

October 7, 2010 proposed exclusion 

from counsel for B&W NOG, on behalf 

of the petitioner. 

B. Comment and Response From EPA 

Comment: The commenter requested 

a clarification of the regulatory status of 

the minimal amounts of newly 

generated suspended solids that are not 

captured by the dewatering process for 

the currently generated wastewater 

treatment sludge, which is generated for 

the purpose of disposal as filter cake 

solids. As explained in the October 7, 

2010 proposed exclusion, on January 14, 

2000 (65 FR 2337), EPA granted an 

exclusion to B&W NOG (known then as 

BWX Technologies, Inc.), for its 

currently generated F006 wastewater 

treatment sludge (i.e., the filter cake 

solids). However, suspended solids 

carry over in the effluent from the 

sludge dewatering process and settle out 

in the FEPs as a portion of the sludge 

accumulation in these units (currently 

only in FEP 2). 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 16537 

The commenter stated that it was not 

clear whether the ‘‘currently deposited’’ 

wording in the proposal refers to the 

sludge now residing in the FEPs, or the 

current sludge plus the minimal future 

accumulations contributed by the 

suspended solids carryover. The 

commenter stated that there is no 

practical difference between the filter 

cake solids, the FEP sludge that is the 

subject of today’s exclusion, and the 

suspended solids carryover. The 

commenter further stated that the filter 

cake solids and the suspended solids 

carryover are physically (except for 

water content) and chemically identical, 

since they are both the precipitated 

electroplating sludge either (1) captured 

on the filter media and subject to the 

January 14, 2000 exclusion or (2) 

escaping that process, carried over in 

the effluent from the filtering process, 

subsequently settling out in FEP 2 and 

similarly subject to the earlier delisting. 

Response: As noted in the October 7, 

2010, proposed exclusion, on January 

14, 2000, EPA finalized a delisting for 

the current production of filter cake 

solids from the pickle acid wastewater 

system. The suspended solids carryover 

that is the subject of this commenter’s 

request for clarification are uncaptured 

portions of the newly generated filter 

cake which escape the dewatering 

process. EPA agrees with the commenter 

that these suspended solids are identical 

in all respects to the filter cake except 

for water content. 

Recognizing that no filtration process 

is 100 percent efficient, it was EPA’s 

intention that this minimal amount of 

newly generated suspended solids 

carryover described above be included 

as part of the January 14, 2000 exclusion 

for the currently generated sludge. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule 

is not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

final rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Similarly, because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this final rule 

does not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and children, to calculate the 

cumulative carcinogenic and 

noncarcinogenic risk. 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 this action under section 801 

because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

6921(f). 

Dated: March 17, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 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. 

Appendix IX of Part 261—[Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261 

is amended to add the following waste 

stream in alphabetical order by facility 

to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
16538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Operations Group, Inc., current 

owner, and BWX Technologies, 

Inc., predecessor in interest to 

the current owner, identified collectively hereafter as ‘‘B&W 

NOG’’.

Lynchburg, Virginia ........................ Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations (Hazardous Waste Number F006) generated at the Mt. Athos facility 

near Lynchburg, VA and currently deposited in two on-site surface 

impoundments designated as Final Effluent Ponds (FEPs) 1 and 2. 

This is a one-time exclusion for 148 cubic yards of sludge and is effective after March 24, 2011. 

(1) Reopener language. 

(A) If B&W NOG discovers that any condition or assumption related to 

the characterization of the excluded waste which was used in the 

evaluation of the petition or that was predicted through modeling is 

not as reported in the petition, then B&W NOG must report any information relevant to that condition or assumption, in writing, to the 

Regional Administrator and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality within 10 calendar days of discovering that information 

(B) Upon receiving information described in paragraph (a) of this section, regardless of its source, the Regional Administrator will determine whether the reported condition requires further action. Further 

action may include repealing the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, 

or other appropriate action deemed necessary to protect human 

health or the environment 

(2) Notification Requirements 

In the event that the delisted waste is transported off-site for disposal, 

B&W NOG must provide a one-time written notification to any State 

Regulatory Agency to which or through which the delisted waste 

described above will be transported at least 60 calendar days prior 

to the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide such notification will be deemed to be a violation of this exclusion and may 

result in revocation of the decision and other enforcement action 

*******

[FR Doc. 2011–6892 Filed 3–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Part 1155 

[Docket No. EP 684] 

Solid Waste Rail Transfer Facilities 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Railroads Act of 

2008 amended the law to restrict the 

jurisdiction of the Surface 

Transportation Board (Board or STB) 

over solid waste rail transfer facilities. 

The Clean Railroads Act also added 

three new statutory provisions that 

address the Board’s regulation of such 

facilities, which is now limited to 

issuance of ‘‘land-use-exemption 

permits’’ in certain circumstances. Upon 

receiving a land-use-exemption permit 

issued by the Board, a solid waste rail 

transfer facility need not comply with 

State laws, regulations, orders, and 

other requirements affecting the siting of 

the facility, except to the extent that the 

Board requires compliance with any of 

those requirements. The Clean Railroads 

Act provides that a solid waste rail 

transfer facility must comply with all 

applicable Federal and State 

requirements respecting the prevention 

and abatement of pollution, the 

protection and restoration of the 

environment, and the protection of 

public health and safety, in the same 

manner as any similar solid waste 

management facility not owned or 

operated by or on behalf of a rail carrier, 

except for laws affecting the siting of the 

facility that are covered by the land-useexemption permit. As required by the 

Clean Railroads Act, on January 14, 

2009, the Board issued interim rules 

that were published in the Federal 

Register on January 27, 2009 (2009 

interim rules). Based on the comments 

received and further evaluation, the 

Board now modifies the review process 

for land-use-exemption permits under 

the Clean Railroads Act and modifies 

other aspects of the 2009 interim rules, 

in the interest of clarity and efficiency. 

The Board requests comments on the 

modifications contained in the interim 

rules. 

DATES: Effective date: March 24, 2011. 

Comment date: Comments are due 

May 23, 2011. Reply comments are due 

by June 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted either via the Board’s e-filing 

format or in the traditional paper 

format. Any person using e-filing should 

attach a document and otherwise 

comply with the instructions at the 

E-FILING link on the Board’s Web site, 

at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person 

submitting a filing in the traditional 

paper format should send an original 

and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation 

Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 684, 395 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001. 

Copies of written comments will be 

available for viewing and self-copying at 

the Board’s Public Docket Room, Room 

131, and will be posted to the Board’s 

Web site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie Quinn at (202) 245–0382. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 

U.S.C. 10501(a), the Board has 

jurisdiction over ‘‘transportation by rail 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES