Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 10911 

11, 2021, the EPA proposed a rule titled 

‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Flexible 

Foam Fabrication Operations Residual 

Risk and Technology Review and 

Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 

and Fabrication Area Source 

Technology Review.’’ The EPA is 

extending the comment period on this 

proposed rule that currently closes on 

February 25, 2021. The comment period 

will remain open until March 29, 2021, 

to allow additional time for stakeholders 

to review and comment on the proposal. 

On January 14, 2021, the EPA proposed 

a rule titled ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

Residual Risk and Technology Review,’’ 

and a rule titled ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Carbon Black Production Residual Risk 

and Technology Review,’’ and on 

January 15, 2021, the EPA proposed a 

rule titled ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 

Residual Risk and Technology Review.’’ 

The EPA is extending the comment 

periods on these proposed rules that 

currently closes on March 1, 2021. The 

comment periods will remain open until 

March 31, 2021, to allow additional 

time for stakeholders to review and 

comment on the proposals. 

To allow for additional time for 

stakeholders to provide comments, the 

EPA has decided to extend the public 

comment periods as indicated in the 

DATES section of this document. 

Dated: February 16, 2021. 

Panagiotis Tsirigotis, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03374 Filed 2–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2020–0379; FRL–10017– 

28—Region 6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to modify an 

exclusion from the lists of hazardous 

waste previously granted to American 

Chrome and Chemical (Petitioner), in 

Corpus Christi, Texas. This action 

responds to a petition for amendment to 

exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 1,450 cubic 

yards per year of K006 chromic oxide 

solids from the list of federal hazardous 

wastes when disposed of in an on-site 

surface impoundment in lieu of disposal 

in a Subtitle D Landfill. The Agency is 

proposing to grant the petition based on 

an evaluation of waste-specific 

information provided by the petitioner. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

amendment must be received by March 

25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: shah.harry@epa.gov. 

Instructions: EPA must receive your 

comments by March 25, 2021. Direct 

your comments to Docket ID Number 

EPA–R06–RCRA–2020–0379. The EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI), or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov, or email. The 

Federal regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in 

the public docket and made available on 

the internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment with any CD you submit. If 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. 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, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. 

You can view and copy the delisting 

petition and associated publicly 

available docket materials either 

through www.regulations.gov at: EPA, 

Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, 

Dallas, Texas 75270. The EPA facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays and facility closures 

due to COVID–19. We recommend that 

you telephone Harry Shah, at (214) 665– 

6457, before visiting the Region 6 office. 

Interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Harry Shah, (214) 665–6457, 

shah.harry@epa.gov. Out of an 

abundance of caution for members of 

the public and our staff, the EPA Region 

6 office will be closed to the public to 

reduce the risk of transmitting COVID– 

19. We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov, as there will be a 

delay in processing mail and no courier 

or hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Please call or email the contact listed 

above if you need alternative access to 

material indexed but not provided in 

the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview Information 

II. Background 

A. What laws and regulations give EPA the 

authority to delist waste? 

B. What is currently delisted at the 

Petitioner’s Corpus Christi, TX facility? 

C. What does Petitioner request in its 

petition for amendment? 

III. Disposition of the Petition Amendment 

A. What information did the Petitioner 

submit to support its petition for 

amendment? 

B. What factors did EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

C. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

D. What did EPA conclude? 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. How will the Petitioner manage the 

waste if it is delisted? 

B. What are the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous constituents 

in the waste? 

C. How frequently must the Petitioner test 

the waste? 

D. What data must the Petitioner submit? 

E. What happens if the Petitioner fails to 

meet the conditions of the exclusion? 

F. What must the Petitioner do if the 

process changes? 

V. When would the EPA finalize the 

proposed delisting amendment? 

VI. How would this action affect the States? 

10912 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

The EPA is proposing to grant an 

amendment to the petition submitted by 

American Chrome and Chemical 

(Petitioner), in Corpus Christi, Texas to 

exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 1,450 cubic 

yards per year of K006 chromic oxide 

solids from the list of federal hazardous 

waste set forth in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations CFR 261.32. The Petitioner 

claims that the petitioned waste do not 

meet the criteria for which the EPA 

listed it, and that there are no additional 

constituents or factors which could 

cause the waste to be hazardous. The 

original delisting petition was submitted 

to EPA in April 17, 2002 and made final 

on September 21, 2004. Full facility 

descriptions and information are 

provided in the proposed rulemaking 

(68 FR 64834, November 17, 2003). 

Based on our review described in 

Section III, we propose to approve the 

amendment, and allow the delisted 

waste to be disposed in the on-site 

surface impoundment in addition to an 

off-site Subtitle D landfill. 

II. Background 

A. What laws and regulations give EPA 

the authority to delist waste? 

EPA published amended lists of 

hazardous wastes from non-specific and 

specific sources on January 16, 1981, as 

part of its final and interim final 

regulations implementing Section 3001 

of RCRA. These lists have been 

amended several times and are found at 

40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. 

We list these wastes as hazardous 

because: (1) They typically and 

frequently exhibit one or more of the 

characteristics of hazardous wastes 

identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR part 

261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, and toxicity), or (2) they meet 

the criteria for listing contained in 40 

CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (3). 

Individual waste streams may vary, 

however, depending on raw materials, 

industrial processes, and other factors. 

Thus, while a waste that is described in 

these regulations generally is hazardous, 

a specific waste from an individual 

facility meeting the listing description 

may not be. 

For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 

260.22 provide an exclusion procedure 

which allows a person to demonstrate 

that a specific listed waste from a 

particular generating facility should not 

be regulated as a hazardous waste, and 

should, therefore, be delisted. 

According to 40 CFR 260.22(a)(1), in 

order to have these wastes excluded a 

petitioner must first show that wastes 

generated at its facility do not meet any 

of the criteria for which the wastes were 

listed. The criteria which we use to list 

wastes are found in 40 CFR 261.11. An 

explanation of how these criteria apply 

to a particular waste is contained in the 

background document for that listed 

waste. 

In addition to the criteria that we 

considered when we originally listed 

the waste, we are also required by the 

provisions of 40 CFR 260.22(a)(2) to 

consider any other factors (including 

additional constituents), if there is a 

reasonable basis to believe that these 

factors could cause the waste to be 

hazardous. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must demonstrate that the waste does 

not exhibit any of the hazardous waste 

characteristics defined in Subpart C of 

40 CFR part 261 (i.e., ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and 

must present sufficient information for 

EPA to determine whether the waste 

contains any other constituents at 

hazardous levels 

A generator remains obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that its waste remains 

non-hazardous based on the hazardous 

waste characteristics defined in Subpart 

C of 40 CFR part 261 even if EPA has 

delisted its waste. 

We also define residues from the 

treatment, storage, or disposal of listed 

hazardous wastes and mixtures 

containing listed hazardous wastes as 

hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 

261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), referred to as 

the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules, 

respectively.) These wastes are also 

eligible for exclusion but remain 

hazardous wastes until delisted. 

B. What is currently delisted at the 

Petitioner’s Corpus Christi, TX facility? 

On April 17, 2002, American Chrome 

and Chemical petitioned the EPA to 

exclude from the list of hazardous waste 

contained in Sec. 261.32, the dewatered 

sludge generated from its facility located 

in Corpus Christi, Texas. The waste, the 

EPA Hazardous Waste No. K006, falls 

under the classification of listed waste 

because of the ‘‘derived-from’’ rule in 

Sec. 261.3. 

Specifically, in its petition, the 

Petitioner requested that the EPA grant 

an exclusion for 1,450 cubic yards per 

year of dewatered sludge resulting from 

its process of manufacturing chromic 

oxide. The resulting waste is listed, in 

accordance with the ‘‘derived-from’’ 

rule. 

The Petitioner’s wastewater sludge 

contains approximately 11% solids. The 

petitioned waste is only the dewatered 

portion of the sludge, not the entire 

sludge (solids and wastewater) that is 

generated from the current wastewater 

treatment process. Currently, the 

Petitioner discharges the wastewater 

through Outfall 201, into an on-site 

storage tank. The discharge is permitted 

by Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ) through a Texas 

Pollution Discharges Elimination 

System (TPDES) Permit No. 003490 

(EPA NPDES Permit No. TX0004685). 

In support of its petition, the 

Petitioner submitted sufficient 

information to EPA to allow us to 

determine that the waste was not 

hazardous based upon the criteria for 

which it was listed and that no other 

hazardous constituents were present in 

the waste at levels of regulatory 

concern. 

A full description of these wastes and 

the Agency’s evaluation of the 2002 

petition are contained in the Proposed 

Rule and Request for Comments 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 17, 2003 (68 FR 64834). 

After evaluating public comment on 

the Proposed Rule, we published a final 

decision in the Federal Register on 

September 21, 2004, (69 FR 56357) to 

exclude the Petitioner’s dewatered 

chromic oxide sludge derived from the 

treatment of EPA Hazardous Waste No. 

K006 from the list of hazardous wastes 

found in 40 CFR 261.31. 

EPA’s final decision in 2004 was 

conditioned on the disposal of the 

material in an off-site Subtitle C landfill 

at an annual waste volume generation of 

1,450 cubic yards of K006 dewatered 

sludge. Any additional waste volume in 

excess of this limit generated by 

Petitioner in a calendar year was to have 

been managed as hazardous waste. The 

waste could not be managed in any 

other waste unit. 

C. What does Petitioner request in its 

petition for amendment? 

In an effort to reduce disposal costs 

and the administrative burdens of waste 

tracking, notification, and recording 

requirements, Petitioner petitioned EPA 

on December 3, 2019 for an amendment 

to its September 21, 2004 final 

exclusion. In its petition, Petitioner 

requested to add the disposal scenario 

of surface impoundment as a 

management option for the chromic 

oxide wastes. The volume of waste is set 

at a maximum annual generation of 

1,450 cubic yards. 

III. Disposition of Petition Amendment 

A. What information did the Petitioner 

submit to support its petition for 

amendment? 

The exclusion which we granted to 

the Petitioner on September 21, 2004, is 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 10913 

a conditional exclusion. No more than 

1,450 cubic yards of waste per year can 

be disposed of in an off-site Subtitle D 

Landfill. Disposal in the on-site Surface 

Impoundment #3 (Texas Notice of 

Registration Waste Unit 22) was not 

approved. 

In order to support its Petition for 

Amendment, the Petitioner submitted 

four new samples of the waste material 

and the disposal scenario of the surface 

impoundment was modeled using the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software. 

The worst-case scenario of the 

constituents’ concentrations for the 

K006 sludge were used as input in the 

model to determine if it would meet the 

hazardous waste criteria for which it 

was listed. The maximum total and 

leachate concentrations for the 

inorganic constituents which were 

found in the analytical data provided by 

Petitioner are presented in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS

Chemical name 

Maximum total 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

concentration 

(mg/l) 

Arsenic ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9.54 <0.005 

Barium ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20.8 0.034 

Chromium ................................................................................................................................................................ 350,836 0.563 

Thallium ................................................................................................................................................................... <6.72 <0.05 

Zinc .......................................................................................................................................................................... 136 0.020 

B. What factors did EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

In reviewing this petition, we 

considered the original listing criteria 

and the additional factors required by 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), 

and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) through (4). We 

evaluated the petitioned wastes against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). 

In addition to the criteria in 40 CFR 

260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and in the background 

documents for the listed wastes, EPA 

also considered any factors (including 

additional constituents) other than those 

for which we listed the waste if these 

additional factors could cause the waste 

to be hazardous. 

Our proposed decision to grant the 

amendment to the 2004 petition to 

delist the waste from Petitioner’s facility 

in Corpus Christi, Texas is based on our 

evaluation of the wastes for factors or 

criteria which could cause the waste to 

be hazardous. These factors included: 

(1) Whether the waste is considered 

acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the 

constituents; (3) the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste; (4) the 

tendency of the constituents to migrate 

and to bioaccumulate; (5) the 

persistence in the environment of any 

constituents once released from the 

waste; (6) plausible and specific types of 

management of the petitioned waste; (7) 

the quantity of waste produced; and (8) 

waste variability. 

The EPA must also consider as 

hazardous wastes mixtures containing 

listed hazardous wastes and wastes 

derived from treating, storing, or 

disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 

40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), 

called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. Mixture and 

derived-from wastes are also eligible for 

exclusion but remain hazardous until 

excluded. 

C. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

For this delisting determination, we 

evaluated the risk that the waste would 

be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste 

in a surface impoundment. We 

considered transport of waste 

constituents through groundwater, 

surface water and air. We evaluated 

Petitioner’s analysis of petitioned waste 

using the DRAS software to predict the 

concentration of hazardous constituents 

that might be released from the 

petitioned waste and to determine if the 

waste would pose a threat to human 

health and the environment. The DRAS 

software and associated documentation 

can be found at www.epa.gov/hw/ 

hazardous-waste-delisting-riskassessment-software-dras. 

To predict the potential for release to 

groundwater from landfilled wastes and 

subsequent routes of exposure to a 

receptor, the DRAS uses dilution 

attenuation factors derived from the 

EPA’s Composite Model for leachate 

migration with Transformation 

Products. From a release to ground 

water, the DRAS considers routes of 

exposure to a human receptor through 

ingestion of contaminated groundwater, 

inhalation from groundwater while 

showering and dermal contact from 

groundwater while bathing. 

From a release to surface water by 

erosion of waste from an open landfill 

into storm water run-off, DRAS 

evaluates the exposure to a human 

receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion 

of drinking water. From a release of 

waste particles and volatile emissions to 

air from the surface of an open landfill, 

DRAS considers routes of exposure of 

inhalation of volatile constituents, 

inhalation of particles, and air 

deposition of particles on residential 

soil and subsequent ingestion of the 

contaminated soil by a child. The 

technical support document and the 

user’s guide to DRAS are available at 

https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardouswaste-delisting-risk-assessmentsoftware-dras. 

D. What did EPA conclude? 

The Petitioner does not believe that 

the petitioned waste meets the criteria 

of K006 for which the EPA listed it. The 

Petitioner also believes no additional 

constituents or factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. The Petitioner 

also believes that disposal in the on-site 

surface impoundment will not adversely 

impact human health and the 

environment. The EPA’s review of this 

petition included consideration of the 

original listing criteria, and the 

additional factors required by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

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

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1) 

through (4) (hereinafter all sectional 

references are to 40 CFR unless 

otherwise indicated). In making the 

initial delisting determination, the EPA 

evaluated the petitioned waste against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this 

review, the EPA agrees with the 

Petitioner that the petitioned waste is 

nonhazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria. (If the EPA had 

found, based on this review, that the 

waste remained hazardous based on the 

factors for which the waste was 

originally listed, the EPA would have 

10914 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA 

evaluated the waste with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

The EPA considered whether the waste 

is acutely toxic, the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste, their tendency 

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 

persistence in the environment once 

released from the waste, plausible and 

specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 

generated, and waste variability. The 

EPA believes that the petitioned waste 

does not meet the listing criteria and 

thus should not be a listed waste. The 

EPA’s proposed decision to delist waste 

from Petitioner’s facility is based on the 

information submitted in support of this 

rule, including descriptions of the 

wastes and analytical data from the 

Corpus Christi, Texas facility. 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. How will the Petitioner manage the 

waste if it is delisted? 

If the petitioned wastes are delisted as 

proposed, the Petitioner must dispose of 

them in a Subtitle D landfill which is 

permitted, licensed, or registered by a 

state to manage industrial waste or in 

the on-site surface impoundment. 

B. What are the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous 

constituents in the waste? 

EPA notes that in multiple instances 

the maximum allowable total 

constituent concentrations provided by 

the DRAS model exceed 100% of the 

waste—these DRAS results are an 

artifact of the risk calculations that do 

not have physical meaning. In instances 

where DRAS predicts a maximum 

constituent greater than 100 percent of 

the waste (that is, greater than 1,000,000 

mg/kg or mg/L, respectively, for total 

and TCLP concentrations), the EPA is 

not proposing to require the Petitioners 

to perform sampling and analysis for 

that constituent and sampling type (total 

or TCLP). 

C. How frequently must the Petitioner 

test the waste? 

The testing approach for introduction 

of this waste stream will be conducted 

in a graduated approach. During the first 

thirty days of sending the delisted waste 

to the surface impoundment, The 

Petitioner will collect slurry samples 

from the influent to the surface 

impoundment to determine compliance 

with the delisting parameters. The 

Petitioner will prepare a monthly report 

to determine if the delisted waste in 

compliance with the delisting 

parameters. If compliance with the 

delisting parameters is demonstrated 

with analytical testing for thirty days, 

the Petitioner may decrease its sampling 

frequency for this exclusion to quarterly 

sampling reporting on the delisting 

exclusion. This does not supercede the 

discharge permit requirements, it gives 

only requirements for the submission of 

delisted waste related data. If two 

consecutive quarterly delisting reports 

show compliance with the delisting 

parameters, the Petitioner may request 

to move to annual sampling for the 

purposes of the delisting. The annual 

sampling report shall include the 

volume of chromic oxide solids 

disposed of in the surface impoundment 

as well as an annual testing event data. 

The petitioner should monitor and 

report increasing trends of constituents 

which will affect the overall compliance 

with the discharge permit. 

Thirty days after disposal in the onsite surface impoundment begins, 

wastewater samples should be taken at 

Outfall 101 as prescribed by the 

discharge permit issued by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) through a Texas Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) 

Permit No. 003490 (EPA NPDES Permit 

No. TX0004685). Discharge from Outfall 

101 is intermittent to control freeboard. 

At a minimum, an annual sampling 

event should be conducted at Outfall 

101. A summary of the Outfall 101 

discharge data shall be included in the 

annual report. 

D. What data must the Petitioner 

submit? 

The Petitioner must submit the data 

obtained through verification testing to 

U.S. EPA Region 6, Office of Land, 

Chemicals and Redevelopment, 1201 

Elm Street, Suite 500, M/C 6LCR–RP, 

Dallas, Texas 75270–2102. within 10 

days after receiving the final results 

from the laboratory. These results may 

be submitted electronically to Harry 

Shah, shah.harry@epa.gov. The 

Petitioner must make those records 

available for inspection. All data must 

be accompanied by a signed copy of the 

certification statement in 40 CFR 

260.22(i)(12). 

E. What happens if the Petitioner fails 

to meet the conditions of the exclusion? 

If this Petitioner violates the terms 

and conditions established in the 

exclusion, the Agency may start 

procedures to withdraw the exclusion. 

Additionally, the terms of the exclusion 

provide that ‘‘[a]ny waste volume for 

which representative composite 

sampling does not reflect full 

compliance with the exclusion criteria 

must continue to be managed as 

hazardous.’’ 

If the verification testing of the waste 

does not demonstrate compliance with 

the delisting concentrations described 

in section IV.C above, or other data 

(including but not limited to leachate 

data or groundwater monitoring data 

from the final land disposal facility) 

relevant to the delisted waste indicates 

that any constituent is at a 

concentration in waste above specified 

delisting verification concentrations in 

Table 5, the Petitioner must notify the 

Agency within 10 days, or such later 

date as the EPA may agree to in writing, 

after receiving the final verification 

testing results from the laboratory or of 

first possessing or being made aware of 

other relevant data. The EPA may 

require the Petitioner to conduct 

additional verification sampling to 

better define the particular volume of 

wastes within the affected unit that does 

not fully satisfy delisting criteria. For 

any volume of wastes for which the 

corresponding representative sample(s) 

do not reflect full compliance with 

delisting exclusion levels, the exclusion 

by its terms does not apply, and the 

waste must be managed as hazardous. 

EPA has the authority under RCRA 

and the Administrative Procedures Act, 

5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. to reopen a 

delisting decision if we receive new 

information indicating that the 

conditions of this exclusion have been 

violated or are otherwise not being met. 

F. What must the Petitioner do if the 

process changes? 

Any process changes or additions 

implemented at Petitioner’s facility 

which would significantly impact the 

constituent concentrations of the waste 

must be reported to EPA in accordance 

with Condition VI. of the exclusion 

language. 

V. When would the EPA finalize the 

proposed delisting exclusion? 

HSWA specifically requires EPA to 

provide notice and an opportunity for 

comment before granting or denying a 

final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not 

make a final decision or grant an 

exclusion until it has addressed all 

timely public comments on today’s 

proposal, including any at public 

hearings. Upon receipt and 

consideration of all comments, EPA will 

publish its final determination as a final 

rule. Since this rule would reduce the 

existing requirements for persons 

generating hazardous wastes, the 

regulated community does not need a 

six-month period to come into 

compliance in accordance with 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 10915 

section 3010 of RCRA as amended by 

HSWA. 

VI. How would this action affect the 

states? 

Because EPA is proposing to issue 

this exclusion under the federal RCRA 

delisting regulations, only states subject 

to federal RCRA delisting provisions 

will be affected. This exclusion may not 

be effective in states which have 

received authorization from the EPA to 

make their own delisting decisions. 

RCRA allows states to impose more 

stringent regulatory requirements 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. We urge petitioners to contact 

the state regulatory authority to 

establish the status of their wastes under 

the state law. 

EPA has also authorized some states 

to administer a delisting program in 

place of the federal program, that is, to 

make state delisting decisions. 

Therefore, this exclusion does not apply 

in those states. If the Petitioner manages 

the wastes in any state with delisting 

authorization, the Petitioner must obtain 

delisting authorization or other 

determination from the receiving state 

before it can manage the waste as 

nonhazardous in that state. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is exempt from 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget because it is a rule of particular 

applicability, not general applicability. 

The proposed action approves a 

delisting petition under RCRA for the 

petitioned waste at a particular facility. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This proposed action is not an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because actions such as approval of 

delisting petitions under RCRA are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action 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 only applies to a 

particular facility. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provision of the Regulatory 

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action does not contain 

any unfunded mandate as described in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531–1538) and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

new enforceable duty on any state, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action 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. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. This proposed 

action applies only to a particular 

facility on non-tribal land. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This proposed action’s health 

and risk assessments using the Agency’s 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS), which considers health and 

safety risks to children, are described in 

section III.E above. The technical 

support document and the user’s guide 

for DRAS are included in the docket. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, because it is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This proposed action does not involve 

technical standards as described by the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note). 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action does not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority 

populations, low-income populations, 

and/or indigenous peoples. The EPA 

has determined that this proposed 

action will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The Agency’s risk 

assessment, as described in section III.E 

above, did not identify risks from 

management of this material in an 

authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g., 

RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/ 

industrial solid waste landfill, etc.) or 

the on-site surface impoundment. 

Therefore, the EPA believes that any 

populations in proximity of the landfills 

used by this facility or the Corpus 

Christi facility should not be adversely 

affected by common waste management 

practices for this delisted waste. 

L. Congressional Review Act 

This proposed action is exempt from 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

801 et seq.) because it is a rule of 

particular applicability. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 13, 2021. 

Ronald D. Crossland, 

Director, Land, Chemicals and 

Redevelopment Division, Region 6. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 261 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. 

■ 2. Amend Appendix IX to Part 261 by 

revising the entry for ‘‘American 

Chrome and Chemical—Corpus Christi, 

10916 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TX’’ to Table 2—Wastes Excluded From 

Specific Sources to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

* * * * * 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

American Chrome and 

Chemical (ACC).

Corpus Christi, Texas Slurry (the EPA Hazardous Waste No. K006) generated at a maximum generation of 1,450 

cubic yards on a dry weight basis per calendar year after (effective date of final rule) and 

disposed in an on-site surface impoundment. ACC must implement a verification program 

that meets the following Paragraphs: 

(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable constituent concentrations must not exceed the following 

levels. The petitioner must use the method specified in 40 CFR 261.24 to measure constituents in the waste leachate (mg/L). Slurry leachate: Arsenic-0.0377; Barium-100.0; 

Chromium-5.0; Thallium-0.355; Zinc-1130.0. 

Chromium may not exceed 400,000 mg/kg. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

(A) If the delisted material causes violations of the Discharge permit, ACC must discontinue disposing of the chromic oxide solids in the impoundment and dispose of it in 

accordance with the delisting exclusion issued September 21, 2004, until they have 

completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3), as appropriate, and valid 

analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied. 

(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the slurry that do not exceed the 

levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. ACC can manage and dispose 

the non-hazardous slurry according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels set in Paragraph 

(1), ACC must retreat the batches of waste used to generate the representative sample until it meets the levels. ACC must repeat the analyses of the treated waste. 

(D) If the facility does not treat the waste or retreat it until it meets the delisting levels in 

Paragraph (1), ACC must manage and dispose the waste generated under Subtitle C 

of RCRA. 

(E) ACC must maintain a record of the actual volume of the slurry to be disposed in the 

on-site impoundment according to the requirements in Paragraph (5). 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: ACC must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, according to appropriate methods such as those found 

in SW–846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of 

SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). 

(A) During the first thirty days of sending the slurry to the surface impoundment, ACC 

will collect slurry samples from the influent to the surface impoundment to determine 

compliance with the delisting levels in Paragraph (1). 

(B) Thirty days after disposal in the on-site surface impoundment begins, ACC will take 

samples of the wastewater from Outfall 101 as prescribed by the discharge permit 

issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) through a Texas 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 003490 (EPA NPDES 

Permit No. TX0004685). Wastewater samples will be analyzed for the constituents in 

the TPDES Permit 003490 and in Paragraph (1). Discharge from Outfall 101 is intermittent. At a minimum, an annual sampling event for the constituents listed in Paragraph (1), will be conducted at Outfall 101. 

(C) ACC may decrease its sampling frequency for this exclusion to quarterly sampling 

reporting on the delisting exclusion after compliance with the delisting levels in Paragraph (1) is demonstrated with analytical testing for thirty days. This does not 

supercede the discharge permit requirements, it gives only requirements for the submission of delisted waste related data. 

(D) If two consecutive quarterly delisting reports show no exceedances of the delisting 

levels in Paragraph (1), ACC may request to move to annual sampling for the purposes of the delisting. The annual sampling report shall include the volume of chromic 

oxide solids disposed of in the surface impoundment as well as an annual testing data 

for Outfall 101. 

(E) ACC should monitor and report increasing trends of constituents which will affect the 

overall compliance with the discharge permit. ACC shall analyze the verification samples according to the constituent list specified in Paragraph (1) and submit the analytical results to EPA within 10 days of receiving the analytical results. If the EPA determines that the data collected under this Paragraph do not support the data provided 

for the petition, the exclusion will not cover the generated wastes. The EPA will notify 

ACC the decision in writing within two weeks of receiving this information. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If ACC significantly changes the process described in 

its petition or starts any processes that may or could affect the composition or type of 

waste generated as established under Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, 

changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), they must notify 

the EPA in writing; they may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process 

as nonhazardous until the test results of the wastes meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1) and they have received written approval to do so from the EPA. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 10917 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(5) Data Submittals: ACC must submit the information described below. If ACC fails to submit 

the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the 

specified time, the EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in Paragraph 6. ACC must: 

A. Submit the data obtained through Paragraph 3 to the Chief, RCRA Permits & Solid 

Waste Section, Mail Code, (6LCR–RP) US EPA Region 6,1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, 

Dallas, TX 75270 within the time specified. Data may be submitted via email to the 

technical contact for the delisting program. 

B. Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from Paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years. 

C. Furnish these records and data when the EPA or the State of Texas request them for 

inspection. 

D. Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted: ‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty 

of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but 

may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete. As to 

the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its 

(their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification 

that this information is true, accurate and complete. If any of this information is determined by the EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon 

conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of 

waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by the EPA and 

that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s 

RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void 

exclusion.’’ 

(6) Reopener: 

(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, ACC possesses or is otherwise made 

aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or ground 

water monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that 

any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the 

delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility 

must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) If the verification testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in 

Paragraph 1, ACC must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 

days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(C) If ACC fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B) or 

if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a 

preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect 

human health and the environment. 

(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require Agency 

action, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division 

Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action 

is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present such information. 

(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (6)(D) or 

(if no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information 

described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human 

health or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides 

otherwise. 

(7) Notification Requirements: ACC must do the following before transporting the delisted 

waste: Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and 

a possible revocation of the decision. 

(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or 

through which they will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 

days before beginning such activities. If ACC transports the excluded waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, ACC must obtain delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the 

state. 

(B) Update the one-time written notification if they ship the delisted waste to a different 

disposal facility. 

10918 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(C) Failure to provide the notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and 

a possible revocation of the exclusion. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–02939 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 700 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0493; FRL–10020– 

69] 

RIN 2070–AK64 

Fees for the Administration of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of 

January 11, 2021, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) proposed 

updates and adjustments to the 2018 

fees rule established under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). This 

document extends the comment period 

for 30 days from February 25, 2021 to 

March 27, 2021. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published at 86 FR 1890 

on January 11, 2021, is extended. 

Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0493, must be received on 

or before March 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0493, 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

Please note that due to the public 

health emergency the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room 

was closed to public visitors on March 

31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will 

continue to provide customer service 

via email, phone, and webform. For 

further information on EPA/DC services, 

docket contact information and the 

current status of the EPA/DC and 

Reading Room, please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information contact: 

Marc Edmonds, Existing Chemicals Risk 

Management Division, Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

566–0758; email address: 

edmonds.marc@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document extends the public comment 

period established in the Federal 

Register document of January 11, 2021 

(86 FR 1890) (FR–10018–40), for 30 

days, from February 25, 2021 to March 

27, 2021. In that document, EPA 

proposed updates and adjustments to 

the 2018 fees rule established under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

More information on EPA’s proposal 

can be found in the Federal Register 

document of January 11, 2021 (86 FR 

1890) (FR–10018–40). 

An extension of the comment period 

was requested by stakeholders to allow 

interested parties additional time to 

thoroughly review and analyze how the 

proposed fees will impact parties 

potentially subject to the proposed 

updated TSCA fees and fee categories 

for fiscal years 2022, 2023 and 2024 

discussed in the proposed rule. EPA 

agrees that an extension of the comment 

period is warranted. 

To submit comments, or access the 

docket, please follow the detailed 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES. 

If you have questions, consult the 

technical persons listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 700 

Chemicals, Environmental protection, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, User fees. 

Dated: February 16, 2021. 

Richard Keigwin, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03554 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P