50622 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

CROP GROUP 14–12: TREE NUT GROUP—Continued 

Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.) 

Butternut (Juglans cinerea L.) 

Cajou nut (Anacardium giganteum Hance ex Engl.) 

Candlenut (Aleurites moluccanus (L.) Willd.) 

Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) 

Chestnut (Castanea crenata Siebold & Zucc.; C. dentata (Marshall) Borkh.; C. mollissima Blume; C. sativa Mill.) 

Chinquapin (Castaneapumila (L.) Mill.) 

Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) 

Coquito nut (Jubaea chilensis (Molina) Baill.) 

Dika nut (Irvingia gabonensis (Aubry-Lecomte ex O’Rorke) Baill.) 

Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba L.) 

Guiana chestnut (Pachira aquatica Aubl.) 

Hazelnut (Filbert) (Corylus americana Marshall; C. avellana L.; C. californica (A. DC.) Rose; C. chinensis Franch.) 

Heartnut (Juglans ailantifolia Carrie`re var. cordiformis (Makino) Rehder) 

Hickory nut (Carya cathayensis Sarg.; C. glabra (Mill.) Sweet; C. laciniosa (F. Michx.) W. P. C. Barton; C. myristiciformis (F. Michx.) Elliott; C. 

ovata (Mill.) K. Koch; C. tomentosa (Lam.) Nutt.) 

Japanese horse-chestnut (Aesculus turbinate Blume) 

Macadamia nut (Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche; M. tetraphylla L.A.S. Johnson) 

Mongongo nut (Schinziophyton rautanenii (Schinz) Radcl.-Sm.) 

Monkey-pot (Lecythis pisonis Cambess.) 

Monkey puzzle nut (Araucaria araucana (Molina) K. Koch) 

Okari nut (Terminalia kaernbachii Warb.) 

Pachira nut (Pachira insignis (Sw.) Savigny) 

Peach palm nut (Bactris gasipaes Kunth var. gasipaes) 

Pecan (Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch) 

Pequi (Caryocar brasiliense Cambess.; C. villosum (Aubl.) Pers; C. nuciferum L.) 

Pili nut (Canarium ovatum Engl.; C. vulgare Leenh.) 

Pine nut (Pinus edulis Engelm.; P. koraiensis Siebold & Zucc.; P. sibirica Du Tour; P. pumila (Pall.) Regel; P. gerardiana Wall. ex D. Don; P. 

monophylla Torr. & Fre ́m.; P. quadrifolia Parl. ex Sudw.; P. pinea L.) 

Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) 

Sapucaia nut (Lecythis zabucaja Aubl.) 

Tropical almond (Terminalia catappa L.) 

Walnut, black (Juglans nigra L.; J. hindsii Jeps. ex R. E. Sm.; J. microcarpa Berland.) 

Walnut, English (Juglans regia L.) 

Yellowhorn (Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge) 

Cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–20667 Filed 8–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 268 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0851; FRL–9715–3] 

Land Disposal Restrictions: SiteSpecific Treatment Variance for 

Hazardous Selenium-Bearing Waste 

Treated by U.S. Ecology Nevada in 

Beatty, NV 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA (or the Agency) is 

granting a site-specific treatment 

variance, under the Land Disposal 

Restrictions program, to U.S. Ecology 

Nevada in Beatty, Nevada for the 

treatment of a hazardous seleniumbearing waste generated by the OwensBrockway Glass Container Company in 

Vernon, California. The Agency has 

determined that the chemical properties 

of the waste generated by the OwensBrockway Glass Container Corporation 

differ significantly from the waste used 

in developing the Land Disposal 

Restrictions treatment standard for 

selenium-bearing wastes, and as such 

cannot be treated to the specified 

treatment level of 5.7 mg/L for 

selenium, as measured by the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP). The site-specific treatment 

variance provides an alternative 

treatment standard of 59 mg/L TCLP for 

selenium, with the condition that the 

waste-to-reagent ratio not exceed 1:0.45. 

DATES: This final rule will be effective 

August 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0851. 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/DC, EPA 

West, 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more information on this rulemaking, 

contact Jesse Miller, Materials Recovery 

and Waste Management Division, Office 

of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(MC 5304 P), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone (703) 308–1180; fax (703) 

308–0522; or miller.jesse@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action applies only to U.S. Ecology 

Nevada located in Beatty, Nevada. 

B. Table of Contents 

I. Background 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50623 

1According to § 268.44(a)(1), a petitioner may 

obtain a site-specific variance if ‘‘it is not physically 

possible to treat the waste to the level specified in 

the treatment standard, or by the method specified 

as the treatment standard. To show that this is the 

case, the petitioner must demonstrate that the 

physical or chemical properties of the waste differ 

significantly from waste analyzed in developing the 

treatment standard, the waste cannot be treated to 

the specified level or by the specified method.’’ 

2Because selenium is a non-renewable resource, 

and because the wastes in question contain high 

selenium concentrations, EPA’s preference would 

be to recover the selenium in an environmentally 

sound manner. However, based on information 

contained in the Mineral Commodity Summaries 

2010 published by the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, the amount of 

domestic production of secondary selenium is 

estimated to be very small because most of the 

materials eligible for possible secondary smelting 

(e.g., scrap xerographic and electronic materials) 

were exported for recovery of the contained 

selenium. 

3The calculation of the LDR treatment standard 

was based on a specific method, sometimes called 

‘‘C 99,’’ which has been used in other LDR 

rulemakings. This methodology seeks to account for 

process variability (including variability that may 

be attributed to sampling and analytical processes). 

See 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 and the document, 

Final—Best Demonstrated Available Technology 

(BDAT) Background Document for Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control Procedures and 

Methodology, USEPA. October 23, 1991. 

A. Basis for Land Disposal Restrictions 

Treatment Variances 

B. Basis of the Current Selenium Treatment 

Standard 

II. Basis for Today’s Determination 

III. Development of This Variance 

A. U.S. Ecology Nevada Petition 

B. Notices on Granting a Site Specific 

Treatment Variance to USEN 

IV. Granting USEN a Site Specific Treatment 

Variance 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. Basis for Land Disposal Restrictions 

Treatment Variances 

Under sections 3004(d) through (g) of 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), the land disposal 

of hazardous wastes is prohibited unless 

such wastes are able to meet the Land 

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment 

standards (or treatment standards) 

established by EPA (or the Agency). 

Under section 3004(m) of RCRA, EPA is 

required to set ‘‘levels or methods of 

treatment, if any, which substantially 

diminish the toxicity of the waste or 

substantially reduce the likelihood of 

migration of hazardous constituents 

from the waste so that short-term and 

long-term threats to human health and 

the environment are minimized.’’ EPA 

interprets this language to authorize 

treatment standards based on the 

performance of the best demonstrated 

available technology (BDAT). This 

interpretation was upheld by the D.C. 

Circuit in Hazardous Waste Treatment 

Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 

1989). 

The Agency recognizes, however, that 

there may be wastes that cannot be 

treated to the levels specified in the 

regulations (see 40 CFR 268.40) because 

an individual waste matrix or 

concentration can be substantially more 

difficult to treat than those wastes 

evaluated in establishing the treatment 

standard (51 FR 40576, November 7, 

1986) .1 For such wastes, EPA has a 

process by which a generator or treater 

may seek a treatment variance (see 40 

CFR 268.44). If granted, the terms of the 

variance establish an alternative 

treatment standard for the particular 

waste at issue. 

B. Basis of the Current Selenium 

Treatment Standard 

Treatment of selenium poses special 

difficulties. In particular, it can be 

technically challenging to treat wastes 

containing selenium in combination 

with other metals e.g., cadmium, lead 

and/or chromium because of their 

different chemical properties and 

solubility curves (62 FR 26041, May 12, 

1997). 

The current treatment standard for a 

waste exhibiting the toxicity 

characteristic for selenium (RCRA 

Hazardous Waste D010) is based upon 

the performance of stabilization on low 

concentration selenium wastes. When 

the Agency developed the treatment 

standard for selenium, EPA believed 

that wastes containing high 

concentrations of selenium were rarely 

generated and land disposed (59 FR 

47980, September 19, 1994). The 

Agency also stated that it believed that, 

for most wastes containing high 

concentrations of selenium, recovery of 

the selenium would be feasible using 

recovery technologies currently 

employed by copper smelters and 

copper refining operations (Id.). The 

Agency further stated in 1994, that it 

did not have any performance data for 

selenium recovery, but available 

information indicated that some 

recovery of elemental selenium out of 

certain types of scrap material and other 

wastes was practiced in the United 

States.2

In 1994, the Agency used performance 

data from the stabilization of a mineral 

processing waste, that was 

characteristically hazardous (RCRA 

Hazardous Waste D010), to set the 

national treatment standard for 

selenium. At that time, we determined 

that this characteristically-hazardous 

mineral processing waste represented 

the most difficult-to-treat selenium 

waste. This untreated waste contained 

up to 700 ppm total selenium and 3.74 

mg/L selenium, as measured by the 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP). The resulting posttreatment levels of selenium in the 

TCLP leachate were between 0.154 mg/ 

L and 1.80 mg/L, which (after 

considering the range of treatment 

process variability) led to EPA 

establishing a national treatment 

standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP for D010 

selenium nonwastewaters.3 In the Phase 

IV LDR final rule, the Agency 

determined that a treatment standard of 

5.7 mg/L TCLP, continued to be 

appropriate for D010 nonwastewaters 

(63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998). The 

Agency also changed the universal 

treatment standard (UTS) for selenium 

nonwastewaters from 0.16 mg/L to 5.7 

mg/L TCLP. 

II. Basis for Today’s Determination 

Under 40 CFR 268.44, facilities can 

apply for a site-specific treatment 

variance in cases where a waste that is 

generated under conditions specific to 

only one site cannot be treated to the 

specified LDR treatment standards. In 

such cases, the generator(s) or the 

treatment facility may apply to the 

Administrator, or to EPA’s designated 

representative, (in this case the 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response) for a sitespecific variance. The applicant for a 

site-specific variance must demonstrate 

that, because the physical or chemical 

properties of the waste differ 

significantly from the waste analyzed in 

developing the treatment standard, the 

waste cannot be treated to the specified 

levels or by the specified methods. 

There are other grounds for obtaining 

variances, but this is the only provision 

relevant to this action. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50624 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4Total selenium concentrations in the 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) dust generated at the 

Owens-Brockway facility range from 2,400 mg/kg to 

5,700 mg/kg. The untreated waste has a leachable 

selenium concentration ranging from 228 mg/L to 

440 mg/L TCLP. In addition, the untreated waste 

has a leachable arsenic concentration ranging from 

3.3 mg/L to 8.6 mg/L TCLP, a leachable cadmium 

concentration ranging from 3.9 mg/L to 11.0 mg/L 

TCLP, and a leachable lead concentration ranging 

from <0.10 mg/L to 16.3 mg/L TCLP. 

5The selenium concentrations used to calculate 

the alternative treatment standard were (in mg/L 

TCLP) 49.34, 51.39, 49.39, 43.91, and 54.34. The 

most effective treatment recipe was determined 

using a 50 gram sample of waste where reagents 

were listed as a percent of waste sample weight. For 

example, 20% ferrous sulfate, 15% quick lime, and 

10% sodium sulfide flakes would measure out as 

10 grams of ferrous sulfate, 7.5 grams of quick lime, 

and 5 grams of sodium sulfide flakes for a total of 

22.5 grams of total reagent. The waste to reagent 

ratio was then calculated by dividing 22.5 by 50 to 

get a waste to reagent ratios of 1:0.45. 

6EPA considered that technology-based treatment 

standards, whether adopted by generally applicable 

rule or through a variance to the generally 

applicable rule, serve as the measure of when 

threats posed by land disposal of the hazardous 

waste are ‘‘minimized,’’ as required by RCRA 

section 3004(m). See 55 FR 6640 (February 26, 

1990). Thus, EPA has typically limited the 

standards adopted by a variance to a single 

standard. See 70 FR 44505 (August 3, 2005). We 

continued this practice by issuing a Direct Final 

rule and parallel Proposal to withdraw the current 

variance granted to CWM (69 FR 6567, February 11, 

2004), determining that the treatment standard 

issued to CWM is less stringent than the standard 

we would be granting, both with respect to 

potential concentrations of selenium released to the 

environment and also the waste to reagent ratios. 

7 It should be noted that EPA is making a 

conforming change to footnote 7 of the table in 

section 40 CFR 268.44. The footnote originally read, 

‘‘D010 wastes generated by these two facilities must 

be treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. at 

their Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City, 

California.’’ The two facilities referred to OwensBrockway and a second facility, St. Gobain 

Containers, El Monte, CA, that also has an existing 

variance for selenium waste. The footnote now 

reads, ‘‘D010 wastes generated by this facility must 

be treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. at 

its Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City, 

California.’’ 

III. Development of This Variance 

A. U.S. Ecology Nevada Petition 

On September 16, 2008, U.S. Ecology 

Nevada (USEN) in Beatty, Nevada 

submitted a petition requesting a sitespecific treatment variance from the 

LDR treatment standards for hazardous 

selenium-bearing waste generated by the 

Owens-Brockway Glass Container 

Company (Owens-Brockway) in Vernon, 

California. Owens-Brockway operates a 

glass manufacturing facility that 

generates approximately 50 to 100 tons 

per year of electrostatic precipitator 

(ESP) dust requiring management as a 

hazardous waste. The ESP dust is 

generated by the glass furnace air 

emissions control system and is 

hazardous due to its high concentrations 

of leachable arsenic (RCRA Hazardous 

Waste D004), cadmium (RCRA 

Hazardous Waste D006), lead (RCRA 

Hazardous Waste D008), and selenium 

(RCRA Hazardous Waste D010). USEN 

submitted analytical data demonstrating 

that the chemical properties of the waste 

differed significantly from the waste 

analyzed in developing the LDR 

treatment standard.4 They also 

submitted data demonstrating that the 

waste could not be treated to the 

specified level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP for 

selenium. USEN requested an 

alternative treatment standard of 59 mg/ 

L TCLP, which was calculated using 

analytical treatment data from a 

stabilization mixture of ferrous sulfate, 

quick lime and sodium sulfide flakes 

with a 1:0.45 waste to reagent ratio.5

B. Notices on Granting a Site Specific 

Treatment Variance to USEN 

On April 6, 2011, the Agency issued 

a Direct Final rule (76 FR 18921) and a 

parallel Proposal (76 FR 19003) granting 

a site-specific treatment variance to 

USEN for the treatment and disposal of 

hazardous selenium-bearing waste 

generated by Owens-Brockway. The 

site-specific treatment variance 

provided for an alternative treatment 

standard of 59 mg/L TCLP with the 

condition that the waste to reagent ratio 

not exceed 1:0.45. The Agency 

concluded that USEN had demonstrated 

that the chemical properties of the waste 

generated by Owens-Brockway differed 

significantly from the waste analyzed in 

developing the LDR treatment standard, 

and that the waste could not be treated 

to the specified level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP 

for selenium, necessitating an 

alternative treatment standard. 

The Direct Final rule and the parallel 

Proposal also included an action to 

withdraw the site-specific treatment 

variance issued to Chemical Waste 

Management (CWM) in Kettleman Hills, 

California for this same waste.6 The 

Agency issued both a Direct Final and 

a parallel Proposal because EPA 

considered these actions to be noncontroversial. However, EPA stated that 

if adverse comment was received, the 

Direct Final rule would be withdrawn 

and we would proceed with a 

subsequent final rule. The Agency 

received no comments on granting a 

site-specific treatment variance to 

USEN, however, one adverse comment 

was received on withdrawing the CWM 

variance. As a result, on May 24, 2011, 

the Direct Final rule was withdrawn (76 

FR 30027). The comment can be found 

in the docket supporting this rule. 

EPA is not taking action on the 

proposal to withdraw the existing sitespecific treatment variance granted to 

CWM. EPA has authorized the State of 

California to grant and administer sitespecific treatment variances under 40 

CFR 268.44. [See 75 FR at 60401 

(September 10, 2010)]. As a result, 

California now has sole authority to deal 

with issues pertaining to treatment 

variances for entities within its borders, 

including whether to withdraw the 

treatment variance to CWM for OwensBrockway selenium-bearing waste, and 

any other issues related to that 

treatment variance.7 Necessarily, 

therefore, EPA is not responding to any 

of the comments submitted on this 

issue, since all comments pertain to 

issues within the scope of the 

authorized California program. 

IV. Granting USEN a Site-Specific 

Treatment Variance 

EPA is promulgating, as proposed, a 

site-specific treatment variance, from 

the LDR treatment standards, for 

hazardous selenium bearing waste 

generated by Owens-Brockway and 

managed by USEN of Beatty, Nevada. 

With the information provided to the 

Agency as part of their petition, EPA has 

concluded that the chemical properties 

of Owen-Brockway’s selenium-bearing 

waste differ significantly from the waste 

used in developing the LDR treatment 

standard and that the generated waste 

cannot be treated to the specified 

treatment level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP. The 

site-specific treatment variance provides 

an alternative treatment standard of 59 

mg/L for selenium with the condition 

that the waste to reagent ratio not 

exceed 1:0.45 when the waste is treated 

and disposed at USEN’s permitted 

hazardous waste facility. The Agency 

received no comments disagreeing with 

the Agency’s proposal. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory 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 Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

action grants a site-specific treatment 

variance to USEN for the treatment of 

hazardous selenium-bearing waste 

generated by Owens-Brockway under 

RCRA’s LDR program. The Office of 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50625 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations at 40 CFR 268.42 

and .44 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2050–0085. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the Agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This site-specific treatment variance 

does not create any new requirements. 

Rather, it establishes an alternative 

treatment standard for a specific waste 

that applies to only one facility, USEN 

located in Beatty, Nevada. Therefore, we 

hereby certify that this rule will not add 

any new regulatory requirements to 

small entities. This rule, therefore, does 

not require a regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

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. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. This action would not 

impose any new duties on the states 

hazardous waste program. EPA has 

determined, therefore, that this rule 

would not contain regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments in 

that the authority for this action exists 

with the Federal government. Therefore, 

this action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the UMRA. 

This rule 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. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. This rule 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 action 

grants a site-specific treatment variance 

applicable to one facility. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 would not apply 

to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action would not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action is a site-specific 

treatment variance that applies to only 

one facility, which is not a tribal facility 

or located on tribal lands. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 would not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 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 Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it would 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

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 

would not be a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 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. 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 

(February 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 rule will 

not have a 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 

site-specific treatment variance being 

finalized applies to a selenium bearing 

waste that will be treated and disposed 

in an existing, permitted RCRA facility, 

ensuring protection to human health 

and the environment. Therefore, the 

rule will not result in any 

disproportionately negative impacts on 

minority or low-income communities 

relative to affluent or non-minority 

communities. 

K. 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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule, when 

finalized, and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50626 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268 

Environmental Protection, Hazardous 

Waste, and Variances. 

Dated: August 10, 2012. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL 

RESTRICTIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 268 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

and 6924. 

■ 2. In § 268.44, the table in paragraph 

(o) is amended as follows: 

■ a. By revising the existing entry for 

‘‘Owens Brockway Glass Container 

Company, Vernon, CA.’’ 

■ b. By adding in alphabetical order an 

additional entry for ‘‘Owens Brockway 

Glass Container Company, Vernon, CA.’’ 

■ c. Republishing the entry for ‘‘St. 

Gobain Containers, El Monte, CA.’’ 

■ d. By revising footnote 7. 

■ e. By adding a new footnote 15. 

■ f. By adding a new footnote 16. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 268.44 Variance from a treatment 

standard. 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

TABLE—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE TREATMENT STANDARDS UNDER § 268.40 

Facility name1 and address Waste 

code See also 

Regulated 

hazardous 

constituent 

Wastewaters Nonwastewaters 

Concentration 

(mg/L) Notes Concentration (mg/kg) Notes 

*******

Owens Brockway Glass Container 

Company, Vernon, CA6.

D010 Standards under 

§ 268.40.

Selenium ..... NA .................... NA ........... 51 mg/L TCLP .. (15) 

Owens Brockway Glass Container 

Company, Vernon, CA6.

D010 Standards under 

§ 268.40.

Selenium ..... NA .................... NA ........... 59 mg/L TCLP .. (16) 

* * * * * * * 

St. Gobain Containers, El Monte, 

CA5 7.

D010 Standards under 

§ 268.40.

Selenium ..... NA .................... NA ........... 25 mg/L TCLP .. NA 

* * * * * * * 

1A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7. 

*******

5Alternative D010 selenium standard only applies to dry scrubber solid from glass manufacturing wastes. 

6Alternative D010 selenium standard only applies to electrostatic precipitator dust generated during glass manufacturing operations. 7 D010 wastes generated by this facility must be treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. at its Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City, 

California. 

*******

15This alternative standard applies only to D010 wastes generated by this facility and treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. at its 

Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City, California. 16This alternative standard applies only to D010 wastes generated by this facility and treated by U.S. Ecology Nevada at its facility in Beatty, 

Nevada. This alternative treatment standard is conditioned on the waste-to-reagent ratio not exceeding 1 to 0.45. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–20504 Filed 8–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

[Docket ID FEMA–2012–0003] 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are 

finalized for the communities listed 

below. These modified BFEs will be 

used to calculate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

their contents. 

DATES: The effective dates for these 

modified BFEs are indicated on the 

following table and revise the Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect 

for the listed communities prior to this 

date. 

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) Luis.

Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final determinations 

listed below of the modified BFEs for 

each community listed. These modified 

BFEs have been published in 

newspapers of local circulation and 

ninety (90) days have elapsed since that 

publication. The Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Mitigation has 

resolved any appeals resulting from this 

notification. 

The modified BFEs are not listed for 

each community in this notice. 

However, this final rule includes the 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES