Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5107 

37 CFR 202.3(b)(5). Using this 

provision, stock photography agencies 

have registered all the photographs 

added to their databases within a threemonth period when they have obtained 

copyright assignments from the 

photographers. 

The regulations governing registration 

of automated databases embodied in 

machine-readable copies (other than in 

a CD–ROM format) require deposits that 

are significantly different than the 

deposits required in connection with 

the other regulations for registration of 

photographs, discussed above. Section 

202.20(c)(2)(vii)(D)(5) of the Office’s 

regulations provides that the 

applications for database registrations 

need not be accompanied by a deposit 

of the entire work, but instead may 

include identifying material consisting 

of fifty representative pages or data 

records marked to show the new 

material added on one representative 

day, along with additional identifying 

information. The deposit accompanying 

a database registration application thus 

can consist of a fraction of the 

copyrightable material covered by the 

registration. 

This is in stark contrast to the deposit 

requirements for registration of 

unpublished collections, for group 

registrations of published photographs, 

and for most other forms of copyright 

registration. Section 202.3(b)(10)(x), 

which governs the deposit for a group 

registration of photographs, provides 

that the deposit shall consist of ‘‘one 

copy of each photograph [to] be 

submitted in one of the formats set forth 

in Sec. 202.20(c)(2)(xx).’’ See also 37 

CFR 202.20(c)(1)(i) (‘‘in the case of 

unpublished works, [the deposit shall 

consist of] one complete copy or 

phonorecord,’’ a provision that applies 

to registrations of unpublished 

collections as well as individual 

unpublished works). 

There is no good reason why a 

registration should issue for a database 

consisting predominantly of 

photographs when the copyright claim 

extends to the individual photographs 

themselves unless each of those claimed 

photographs is actually included as part 

of the deposit. As the Office said when 

it announced its regulations on group 

registration of published photographs: 

[T]he Office rejects the plea of at least one 

commenter to permit the use of descriptive 

identifying material in lieu of the actual 

images. Although the Office had previously 

expressed a willingness to consider such a 

proposal, the most recent notice of proposed 

rulemaking noted that ‘‘the Office is reluctant 

to implement a procedure that would permit 

the acceptance of deposits that do not 

meaningfully reveal the work for which 

copyright protection is claimed.’’ Deposit of 

the work being registered is one of the 

fundamental requirements of copyright 

registration, and it serves an important 

purpose. As the legislative history of the 

Copyright Act of 1976 recognizes, copies of 

registration deposits may be needed for 

identification of the copyrighted work in 

connection with litigation or for other 

purposes. The ability of litigants to obtain a 

certified copy of a registered work that was 

deposited with the Office prior to the 

existence of the controversy that led to a 

lawsuit serves an important evidentiary 

purpose in establishing the [identity] and 

content of the plaintiff’s work. 

Registration of Claims to Copyright, 

Group Registration of Photographs, 66 

FR 37142, 37147 (July 17, 2001) 

(citations omitted). Moreover, the actual 

practice with respect to almost all 

registrations of predominantly 

photographic databases has in fact been 

to include all of the photographs in the 

deposit. 

For these reasons, in the recently 

announced interim regulation 

establishing a pilot program for online 

applications for group registration of 

databases consisting predominantly of 

photographic authorship, the Office 

included a requirement that the deposit 

accompanying such an online 

application authorship must include the 

image of each claimed photograph in 

the database. Interim Rule, Registration 

of claims of copyright, 76 FR 4072–4076 

January 24, 2011). 

In order to conform to the prevailing 

practice and the Office’s determination 

of what a reasonable deposit 

requirement should include, the Office 

proposes to apply that requirement to 

deposits accompanying paper 

applications for group registration of 

databases consisting predominantly of 

photographic authorship. The proposed 

amendment would provide that, for any 

registration (whether the application is 

made by paper application or online 

pursuant to the Interim Regulation) of 

an automated database consisting 

predominantly of photographs, the 

deposit shall include, in addition to the 

descriptive statement currently required 

under section 202.20(c)(2)(vii)(D)(5), all 

of the photographs included in the 

copyright claim being registered. 

Identifying material will not constitute 

a sufficient deposit. As noted above, this 

conforms with what has in fact been the 

prevailing practice. The Office also 

notes that it will, in the future, consider 

extending this requirement to other 

types of databases. 

Proposed Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Copyright Office proposes to amend part 

202 of 37 CFR, as follows: 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202 

Copyright. 

PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND 

REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO 

COPYRIGHT 

1. The authority citation for part 202 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 407, 408, 702. 

2. Amend § 202.20 as follows: 

a. In paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D)(5) 

introductory text by removing 

‘‘electronically submitted’’ after ‘‘or in 

the case of’’; 

b. In paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D)(8) by 

removing ‘‘submitted electronically’’ 

after ‘‘case of an application’’; and 

c. In paragraph (c)(2)(xx) introductory 

text remove ‘‘registered with an 

application submitted electronically 

under § 202.3(b)(5)(ii)(A)’’ after ‘‘and for 

automated databases that consist 

predominantly of photographs’’. 

Dated: January 24, 2011. 

Maria Pallante, 

Acting Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1884 Filed 1–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808; FRL–9260–2] 

RIN–2050–AE78 

Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous 

Secondary Materials From the 

Petroleum Refining Industry 

Processed in a Gasification System To 

Produce Synthesis Gas; Tentative 

Determination To Deny Petition for 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of action—tentative 

determination to deny petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: EPA is providing notice of, 

and soliciting written comments on, a 

tentative determination to deny an 

administrative petition submitted by the 

Sierra Club under RCRA section 7004. 

EPA issued an earlier notice denying 

this same petition in November 2008. 

However, the Agency at that time failed 

to comply with notice and comment 

provisions in its regulations. 

Accordingly, we are now giving the 

public the opportunity to provide 

comments on this tentative decision. 

This petition requests EPA to reconsider 

the final rule, ‘‘Regulation of Oil-Bearing 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5108 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1We would also note that section 7004(a) of 

RCRA provides that any person may petition the 

Administrator for the promulgation, amendment or 

repeal of any regulation under the Act. However, in 

your petition for reconsideration, you fail to state 

whether the Sierra Club and LEAN are requesting 

whether EPA amend or repeal the Gasification Rule. 

2Letter to Lisa Gollin Evans, Earthjustice, from 

Susan Parker Bodine, EPA Assistant Administrator, 

Hazardous Secondary Materials from 

the Petroleum Refining Industry 

Processed in a Gasification System to 

Produce Synthesis Gas,’’ published in 

the Federal Register on January 2, 2008. 

The EPA considered the petition, along 

with information contained in the 

rulemaking docket, and has tentatively 

decided to deny the petition. In a letter 

from EPA Assistant Administrator 

Mathy Stanislaus dated January 21, 

2011, EPA provided the petitioner with 

its tentative decision to deny the 

petition for reconsideration. The letter 

explains EPA’s reasons for tentatively 

deciding to deny the petition. After 

evaluating all public comments, as well 

as any other information in the 

rulemaking record, EPA will publish 

either a final denial of the petition or 

issue a proposed rule to amend or repeal 

the regulation. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

March 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2008–0808, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic docket at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to rcradocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808. In 

contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s e-mail system is not an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you send 

an e-mail comment directly to the 

Docket without going through EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail 

system automatically captures your email address. E-mail addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail 

system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

• Fax: Comments may be faxed to 

202–566–0272; Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808. 

• Mail: Send your comments to the 

RCRA Docket (28221T), Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008– 

0808, Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies 

of your comments to the RCRA Docket, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2008–0808, EPA, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008– 

0808. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 and with any 

disk or CD–ROM 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Carpien, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of General 

Counsel, Mail Code 2366A, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone (202) 564–5507; or 

carpien.alan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

This Federal Register notice, the 

petition for reconsideration and the 

letter providing a tentative 

determination for denial of the petition 

for reconsideration are available in a 

docket EPA has established for this 

action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2008–0808. All documents in the 

docket are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, because, 

for example, it may be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information, the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Certain material, 

such as copyrighted material, is not 

placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the RCRA Docket, EPA, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 

566–0270. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying docket materials. 

Appendix: Letter to Earthjustice 

Tentatively Denying the Request for a 

Petition for Reconsideration 

Ms. Lisa Gollin Evans, Earthjustice, 21 Ocean 

Avenue, Marblehead, MA 01945. 

Dear Ms. Evans: 

This is in response to the petition for 

reconsideration you submitted, dated April 1, 

2008, to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

§ 7004(a), 42 U.S.C. 6974(a), on behalf of the 

Sierra Club and the Louisiana Environmental 

Action Network (LEAN). Sierra Club and 

LEAN request that EPA reconsider the final 

rule, ‘‘Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous 

Secondary Materials from the Petroleum 

Refining Industry Processed in a Gasification 

System to Produce Synthesis Gas’’ 

(Gasification Rule). This final rule was 

published in the Federal Register on January 

2, 2008 (73 FR 57, et seq.) 

Your petition raises both procedural 

(notice and comment) and substantive 

grounds for seeking the agency’s 

reconsideration of the Gasification Rule. For 

the reasons stated below, EPA has made a 

tentative determination to deny the petition 

for reconsideration.1 In accordance with the 

regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 260.20, 

EPA is providing notice of and soliciting 

written comments on this tentative 

determination to deny your petition for 

reconsideration in the Federal Register. 

EPA notes that we issued a letter with 

essentially the same substantive response as 

stated in this letter in November 2008.2

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5109 

dated November 14, 2008. This letter is available in 

the docket (docket item EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008– 

0808–0004). 

3Notice of Data Availability (NODA), 63 FR 

38139 (July 15, 1998). 

4 ‘‘Regulation of Hazardous Oil-Bearing Secondary 

Materials From the Petroleum Refining Industry 

and Other Hazardous Secondary Materials 

Processed in a Gasification System To Produce 

Synthesis Gas,’’ 67 FR 13684 (March 25, 2002). 

5 Your reference to an inadequacy of notice and 

comment with respect to the synthesis gas 

specification (Petition at pg. 9) is taken out of 

context. You claim that we only received comments 

on the sufficiency of the specification but, in fact, 

EPA received a range of comments some of which 

claimed the specification was too lenient, but others 

argued against establishing any specification. See 

73 FR at 64. 

However, the Agency at that time failed to 

comply with notice and comment provisions 

in its regulations at 40 CFR 260.20. 

Accordingly, we are now giving the public 

the opportunity to provide comments on this 

tentative decision. A notice is appearing in 

the Federal Register allowing the public to 

respond to this decision. The comment 

period will be 45 days from the date of 

publication of the Federal Register notice. 

Notice and Comment Issues 

Your petition states as grounds for 

reconsideration that the rule violates the 

notice and comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) set forth 

at 5 U.S.C. 553. Your basis for this assertion 

is that EPA ‘‘relied on’’ a proposal suggested 

in a 1998 Federal Register notice 3 and ‘‘not 

on the 2002 proposed rule’’ 4 to formulate the 

Gasification Rule. You suggest that, as a 

result, the final rule ‘‘is not a ‘‘logical 

outgrowth’’ of the agency’s proposed rule’’ 

(Petition at pg. 7) and, therefore, ‘‘the public 

was denied the opportunity for notice and 

comment in several critical areas.’’ (Petition 

at pg. 8) 

The ‘‘critical areas’’ to which you refer are 

noted below. 

(1) You assert that the Gasification Rule 

does not contain ‘‘chemical and physical 

specifications of the synthesis gas fuel 

product that is produced by gasifying the oilbearing hazardous secondary materials.’’ 

(Petition at pg. 8–10) In support of this 

assertion, you refer to statements in the 

preamble to the March 2002 proposal for the 

Gasification Rule (67 FR 13684, et seq.) and 

one statement in the January 2, 2008, final 

rule. The statements in the March 2002 

proposal discuss various reasons why EPA 

thought, at the time, there should be 

chemical and physical specifications for 

synthesis gas produced and also express 

concerns as to what concentrations of metals 

actually exist in synthesis gas. 

(2) You assert that the Gasification Rule 

‘‘fundamentally alters the definition of 

gasification and entirely removes proposed 

conditions pertaining to operation of the 

gasifier,’’ particularly requirements for 

slagging inorganic feed at temperatures above 

2,000 degrees C. (Petition at pg. 10) 

(3) You assert that the Gasification Rule is 

not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule 

and that it is insufficiently protective of 

human health and the environment because 

it did not ‘‘require that co-products and 

residues generated by the gasification system 

meet the Universal Treatment Standards if 

these materials are applied to the land,’’ even 

though the agency had proposed such 

conditions in March 2002. (Petition at pg. 

10–12) 

Arbitrary and Capricious Issues 

You also make several arguments as to why 

the Gasification Rule is arbitrary and 

capricious. Specifically, you argue that EPA’s 

decision not to impose the treatment 

requirements, for which you claim notice and 

comment was inadequate, was arbitrary and 

capricious based on certain details regarding 

particular chemicals. (Petition at pg. 12–13) 

In addition, you argue that EPA is arbitrary 

and capricious for relying on the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to 

predict leaching characteristics of 

gasification residues. (Petition at pg. 15) 

Finally, you also argue that EPA fails to 

regulate facilities that burn fuel made from 

hazardous wastes in contravention of RCRA 

section 3004(q), 42 U.S.C. 6924(q). (Petition 

at pg. 13–15) This argument presupposes that 

the material fed into the gasifier is a solid 

and hazardous waste as opposed to a nonwaste material that is being recycled. 

Response 

EPA does not believe that you have 

presented the agency with any new 

information that would suggest or otherwise 

require that we reconsider the Gasification 

Rule, nor have you raised any issues that 

have not already been raised by the 

comments in the rulemaking process. We 

also believe that the Gasification Rule meets 

the APA notice and comment requirements 

and, therefore, disagree with your view that 

the agency did not provide adequate notice 

to the public and an opportunity to comment 

on the provisions of the final rule. 

In particular, in August 1998, EPA decided 

not to include gasification in the petroleum 

refinery exclusion when it issued the final 

rule ‘‘Hazardous Waste Management System; 

Identification and Listing of Hazardous 

Waste; Petroleum Refining Process Wastes; 

Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly 

Identified Wastes; And CERCLA Hazardous 

Substance Designation and Reportable 

Quantities,’’ (‘‘Petroleum Listing Rule’’), 63 FR 

42110, et seq. The rules, issued in 1998, 

which were limited to the petroleum refinery 

industry, only require that the materials 

reinserted into the petroleum refining 

process not be speculatively accumulated nor 

be placed on the land prior to reuse. In the 

March 2002 proposal, EPA made it very clear 

that it was proposing to put gasification ‘‘on 

the same regulatory footing (i.e., excluded) as 

other hazardous secondary materials 

returned to a petroleum refining process’’ in 

the 1998 rule. In March 2002, EPA proposed 

a definition of gasification systems to ensure 

that the systems were not actually waste 

treatment systems, but true synthesis gas 

production facilities. This definition 

included certain operating conditions for the 

gasifiers, including a condition that the 

gasifier slag organic feed materials at 

temperatures above 2,000 degrees C. The 

proposal also suggested specifications as to 

various contaminants that the fuels produced 

contained, and specifications regarding 

residues. See 67 FR at 13693–96. These last 

three conditions are those to which you refer 

in your Petition for Reconsideration, as noted 

above. 

Importantly, the March 2002 Gasification 

Proposal specifically provided notice that the 

provisions of the 1998 NODA were still being 

considered. It is significant that your petition 

for reconsideration ignores this discussion in 

the March 2002 proposal. In particular, the 

March 2002 proposal discusses in detail that 

the agency had requested comment as to 

whether the exclusion from the definition of 

solid waste issued in 1998 should apply to 

the recycling of oil-bearing materials into 

gasification systems at petroleum refineries 

and that the gasification and petroleum 

industries favored this exclusion (63 FR 

13685–86, footnote 2). We also noted that 

reinserting secondary materials into 

gasification systems ‘‘is analogous’’ to the 

August 1998 exclusion for reinsertion of 

other petroleum residuals into the refining 

process. Id. at 13686. 

In the Gasification Rule, EPA scaled back 

on its plans for a more ‘‘ambitious’’ exclusion 

and returned largely to its original views 

regarding exclusions for hazardous secondary 

materials returned to the petroleum refining 

system. See 73 FR 58–59. The final rule 

retained the conditions for speculative 

accumulation and land placement, and 

added a definition of ‘‘gasifier’’ to ensure that 

the gasification was indeed recycling of a 

product and not waste treatment. The final 

rule, however, as you noted, did not contain 

the slagging requirement in the definition, 

nor the fuel specifications or the residue 

requirements. These changes were the result 

of the agency’s deliberations on each 

condition that took into account all of the 

comments received. The preamble to the 

final rule discussed in detail the fact that 

EPA received comments ranging from 

demands for full hazardous waste regulation 

to those arguing that the agency should not 

be regulating gasification at all since it was 

an integral part of the petroleum refining 

process and did not constitute waste 

management. See 73 FR at 59. Among the 

comments were those that ‘‘expressed 

concern with one or more of the proposed 

conditions’’ and, even if they disagreed with 

imposing any conditions, provided 

‘‘comments on the specific conditions 

proposed.’’ 5 Id. 

The variety and nature of comments 

submitted demonstrates that EPA had a 

record upon which to make a decision that 

was based on a wide range of opinions and 

information. Indeed, it is plain that EPA’s 

proposal succeeded in obtaining opinions 

and views from a wide range of interests and 

allowed the agency to consider the form of 

the final rule carefully. In fact, as noted 

above, EPA decided on a far less ambitious 

final rule for a number of reasons. We 

understand that you may disagree with EPA’s 

conclusions, but we believe that the 

regulatory choices made by the agency are 

reasonable based on the rulemaking record. 

In the absence of any new information, it 

would not be useful for the agency to revisit 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6We also disagree with your assertion that the 

Agency improperly relied on the use of the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The 

TCLP is a duly promulgated regulation of EPA and 

has not been challenged within the appropriate 

statutory time period for challenging regulations. 

EPA’s use of the TCLP in this regulation is entirely 

appropriate. 

evidence and arguments it has already 

carefully considered. In our view, the notice 

and comment issues you have raised are 

actually discussions of the merits of the 

agency’s decision with which you disagree. 

See 73 FR 61–67.6 In fact, you do not point 

to any information which EPA lacks to make 

its decision. 

Finally, EPA disagrees with your legal 

argument that the final rule does not comport 

with RCRA section 3004(q). (Petition at pg. 

13–15) Because EPA is providing an 

exclusion from the definition of solid waste 

for the hazardous secondary materials fed to 

gasifiers subject to this rule, EPA does not 

implicate the provisions of section 3004(q) of 

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6924(q), which requires that 

the hazardous secondary material first be a 

solid waste. 

As previously stated, a notice will be 

published in the Federal Register 

announcing the agency’s tentative decision to 

deny your petition for reconsideration and 

will provide the public a 45 day period to 

comment After considering any comments 

received, the agency will make a final 

decision on the merits of your petition. 

If you should have any questions, you may 

contact Alan Carpien, EPA’s Office of 

General Counsel at (202) 564–5507. 

Sincerely, 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response 

Dated: January 19, 2011. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1906 Filed 1–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–1052; SW–FRL– 

9259–3] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Gulf West 

Landfill, TX, LP. (Gulf West) to exclude 

(or delist) the landfill leachate generated 

by Gulf West in Anahuac, Texas from 

the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used 

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: We will accept comments until 

February 28, 2011. We will stamp 

comments received after the close of the 

comment period as late. These late 

comments may or may not be 

considered in formulating a final 

decision. Your requests for a hearing 

must reach EPA by February 14, 2011. 

The request must contain the 

information prescribed in 40 CFR 

260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites refer 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA- 2010–1052 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2010– 

1052. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 and with any 

disk or CD–ROM 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. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

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. Publicly 

available docket materials may be 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in electronic or 

hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, RCRA Branch, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. The 

hard copy RCRA regulatory docket for 

this proposed rule, EPA–R06–RCRA– 

2010–1052, is available for viewing from 

8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The 

public may copy material from any 

regulatory docket at no cost for the first 

100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page 

for additional copies. EPA requests that 

you contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information regarding the 

Republic Services, Inc./BFI Gulf West 

Landfill petition, contact Michelle Peace 

at 214–665–7430 or by e-mail at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

Your requests for a hearing must 

reach EPA by February 14, 2011. The 

request must contain the information 

described in § 260.20(d). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Gulf West 

submitted a petition under 40 CFR 

260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 

allows any person to petition the 

Administrator to modify or revoke any 

provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 

and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

EPA bases its proposed decision to 

grant the petition on an evaluation of 

waste-specific information provided by 

the petitioner. This decision, if 

finalized, would conditionally exclude 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS