[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 146 (Friday, July 31, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38107-38109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18390]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-8937-9]


Autoliv ASP Inc. Facility in Promontory, UT, Under Project XL

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing a 
final rule published on May 9, 2001 which modified the regulations 
under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to enable the 
implementation of the Autoliv XL project that was developed under EPA's 
Project eXcellence in Leadership (Project XL) program. Project XL was a 
national pilot program that allowed State and local governments, 
businesses and Federal facilities to work with EPA to develop more 
cost-effective ways of achieving environmental and public health 
protection. In exchange, EPA provided regulatory, policy or procedural 
flexibilities to conduct the pilot experiments.

DATES: The final rule is effective August 31, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Panetta, Mail Code 1870T, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics and 
Innovation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Ms. 
Panetta's telephone number is (202) 566-2184 and her e-mail address is 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d5d4c434859594c035e4c43495f4c6d485d4c034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2757464942535346095446494355466742574609404851">[email protected]</span></a>. Further information on today's action may also 
be obtained on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/autoliv/index.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is withdrawing the final rule which was 
published on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23617) in response to Autoliv's request 
in a letter to the State of Utah dated October 7, 2003 to withdraw the 
XL project. The final rule granted Autoliv an exemption under Project 
XL from the definition of hazardous waste for treatment of waste in an 
on-site Metals Recovery Furnace (MFR) at the Promontory Facility 
instead of sending the materials off-site to be treated. Prior to 
implementation of the project, new criteria were set forth by the Utah 
Division of Air Quality in the MACT standard for dioxins. The project 
became economically impracticable given the added cost to upgrade 
Autoliv's facility to meet the new requirement and the project was not 
implemented. Discontinuing the XL project will have no environmental 
impact. All reporting requirements in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(18) are 
discontinued.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B), provides that when an agency for good cause finds that 
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary 
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing 
notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that 
there is good cause

[[Page 38108]]

for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity 
for comment because EPA is withdrawing a rule that no longer applies to 
the company and the company has notified us that the project was not 
implemented. The removal of the rule has no legal effect. Notice and 
public procedure would serve no useful purpose and is thus unnecessary. 
EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. This rule is 
of particular applicability because it applies to one facility and 
therefore it falls outside the scope of Executive Order 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
because it is withdrawing a rule that was not implemented and does not 
impose any new requirements.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Today's final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only 
to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule 
is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any 
other statute because it withdraws a rule that applied to only one 
facility and does not impose any new requirements. In addition, the 
agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not 
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section), therefore it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private 
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or 
Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. Because 
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not 
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section), it is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action 
withdraws a rule that was not implemented.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule withdraws a rule that 
was specific to one facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule 
withdraws a rule that was not implemented. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks''

    (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 
13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on 
health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 
5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not 
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement

[[Page 38109]]

Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not 
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This rule applies to one facility and withdraws a rule 
that was not implemented.

K. The Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because it is a rule of particular applicability and does not impose 
any new requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Waste 
treatment and disposal.

    Dated: July 24, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 261 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 
6938.


0
2. Section 261.4 paragraph (b)(18) is removed.

[FR Doc. E9-18390 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>