56558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

10–2.040 ........................ Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.9/4/84 1/24/85, 50 FR 3337 ..... Rescinded. 

* * * * * * * 

10–3.060 ........................ Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.11/30/02 3/18/03, 68 FR 12831 ... Rescinded. 

* * * * * * * 

10–4.040 ........................ Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.11/30/02 3/18/03, 68 FR 12831 ... Rescinded. 

* * * * * * * 

10–5.030 ........................ Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.9/4/84 1/24/85, 50 FR 3337 ..... Rescinded. 

* * * * * * * 

10–6.405 ........................ Restriction of Particulate Matter Emissions From 

Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect 

Heating.

10/30/11 9/13/12 [insert Federal 

Register page number where the document begins].

Replaces 10–2.040, 10– 

3.060, 10–4.040, and 

10–5.030 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–22471 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0447; FRL–9727–2] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting the petition 

submitted by International Business 

Machines Corporation (IBM) to exclude 

or ‘‘delist’’ a certain wastewater 

treatment sludge generated by its facility 

in Essex Junction, Vermont from the 

lists of hazardous wastes. This final rule 

responds to a petition submitted by IBM 

to delist F006 waste. The F006 waste is 

sludge generated from IBM’s Industrial 

Waste Treatment Plant (IWTP). 

After careful analysis and use of the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS), EPA has concluded the 

petitioned waste is not hazardous waste. 

The F006 exclusion is a conditional 

exclusion for 3,150 cubic yards per year 

of the F006 wastewater treatment 

sludge. 

Accordingly, this final rule excludes 

the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on September 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0447. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

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, 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office 

Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912; by appointment only; tel: (617) 

918–1990. The public may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages and at a 

cost of $0.15 per page for additional 

copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste 

Management and UST Section, Office of 

Site Remediation and Restoration, (Mail 

Code: OSRR07–01), EPA Region 1, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

MA 02109–3912; telephone number: 

(617) 918–1647; fax number (617) 918– 

0647; email address: 

leitch.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Why is EPA approving this action? 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

D. How will IBM manage the waste, when 

delisted? 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did IBM petition EPA to 

delist? 

B. How much waste did IBM propose to 

delist? 

C. How did IBM sample and analyze the 

waste data in this petition? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 56559 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rules? 

B. What was the comment and what was 

EPA’s response? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

After evaluating the petition for IBM, 

EPA proposed, on July 16, 2012 (77 FR 

41720), to exclude the waste from the 

lists of hazardous waste under § 261.31. 

EPA is finalizing the decision to grant 

IBM’s delisting petition to have its F006 

wastewater treatment sludge excluded, 

or delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste, once it is disposed in 

a Subtitle D landfill. 

B. Why is EPA approving this action? 

IBM’s petition requests a delisting 

from the F006 waste listing under 40 

CFR 260.20 and 260.22. IBM does not 

believe that the petitioned waste meets 

the criteria for which EPA listed it. IBM 

also believes no additional constituents 

or factors could cause the waste to be 

hazardous. 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)–(4) (hereinafter all sectional 

references are to 40 CFR unless 

otherwise indicated). In making the 

final delisting determination, EPA 

evaluated the petitioned waste against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 

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

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is nonhazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. (If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition). 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 wastes to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the waste is 

acutely toxic, the concentrations 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. EPA 

believes that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s final 

decision to delist the waste from IBM’s 

facility is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including a description of the waste and 

analytical data from the Essex Junction, 

Vermont facility. 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

This exclusion applies to the waste 

described in IBM’s petition only if the 

requirements described in 40 CFR part 

261, Appendix IX, Table 1 and the 

conditions contained herein are 

satisfied. 

D. How will IBM manage the waste, 

when delisted? 

The delisted F006 wastewater 

treatment sludge will be disposed of in 

a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, 

licensed or otherwise authorized by a 

state to manage industrial waste. 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

This rule is effective September 13, 

2012. The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended Section 

3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), 

allow rules to become effective in less 

than six months after the rule is 

published when the regulated 

community does not need the six-month 

period to come into compliance. That is 

the case here because this rule reduces, 

rather than increases, the existing 

requirements for persons generating 

hazardous waste. This reduction in 

existing requirements also provides a 

basis for making this rule effective 

immediately, upon publication, under 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

EPA is issuing this exclusion under 

the federal RCRA delisting program. 

Thus, upon the exclusion being 

finalized, the wastes covered will be 

removed from Subtitle C control under 

the federal RCRA program. This will 

mean, first, that the wastes will be 

delisted in any State or territory where 

the EPA is directly administering the 

RCRA program (e.g., Iowa, Indian 

Country). However, whether the wastes 

will be delisted in States which have 

been authorized to administer the RCRA 

program will vary depending upon the 

authorization status of the States and 

the particular requirements regarding 

delisted wastes in the various States. 

While Vermont has been authorized 

to generally administer the federal 

RCRA program, it has not sought or 

obtained authorization to delist federal 

listed wastes. See 58 FR 26243 (May 3, 

1993). Instead, the Vermont Hazardous 

Waste Regulation section 7–217(c) 

specifies that ‘‘the Administrator of EPA 

shall retain the authority to exclude 

such wastes.’’ By letter dated April 12, 

2012, the Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation has 

confirmed that Vermont interprets this 

regulation to mean that upon the EPA 

making a delisting determination 

(regarding a federally regulated waste), 

the delisting determination takes effect 

within that State. Thus, this delisting 

determination will apply within 

Vermont with no further action required 

by the State. 

Like Vermont, some other generally 

authorized States have not received 

authorization for delisting. Thus, the 

EPA makes delisting determinations for 

such States. However, RCRA allows 

states to impose their own regulatory 

requirements that are more stringent 

than EPA’s, under § 3009 of RCRA. 

These more stringent requirements may 

include a provision that prohibits a 

federally issued exclusion from taking 

effect in the state, or that requires a 

State concurrence before the federal 

exclusion takes effect, or that allows the 

State to add conditions to any federal 

exclusion. We urge the petitioner to 

contact the state regulatory authority in 

each State to or through which it may 

wish to ship its wastes to establish the 

status of its wastes under the state’s 

laws. 

EPA has also authorized some states 

to administer a delisting program in 

place of the federal program, that is, to 

make state delisting decisions. In such 

states, the state delisting requirements 

operate in lieu of the federal delisting 

requirements. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

states unless the state makes the rule 

part of its authorized program. If IBM 

transports the federally excluded waste 

to or manages the waste in any state 

with delisting authorization, IBM must 

obtain a delisting authorization from 

that state before it can manage the waste 

as non-hazardous in that state. 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA or to an authorized 

state to exclude or delist, from the 

RCRA list of hazardous wastes, waste 

the generator believes should not be 

considered hazardous under RCRA. 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22, facilities 

may petition EPA to remove their 

wastes from hazardous waste regulation 

by excluding them from the lists of 

hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition 

the Administrator to modify or revoke 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

56560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 

through 265 and 268. Section 260.22 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste from a particular generating 

facility from the hazardous waste lists. 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

Petitioners must provide sufficient 

information to EPA to allow EPA to 

determine that the waste to be excluded 

does not meet any of the criteria under 

which the waste was listed as a 

hazardous waste. In addition, the 

Administrator must determine, where 

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe 

that factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed could cause the 

waste to be a hazardous waste and that 

such factors do not warrant retaining the 

waste as a hazardous waste. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did IBM petition EPA to 

delist? 

IBM petitioned EPA on July 11, 2008, 

to exclude from the lists of hazardous 

waste contained in §§ 261.31 and 

261.32, F006 wastewater treatment 

sludge, generated from its facility in 

Essex Junction, Vermont. 

B. How much waste did IBM propose to 

delist? 

IBM requested that EPA grant an 

exclusion for 3,150 cubic yards per year 

of F006 wastewater treatment sludge. 

C. How did IBM sample and analyze the 

waste data in this petition? 

To support its petition, IBM 

submitted: (1) Facility information on 

production processes and waste 

generation processes; (2) Historical 

sampling data of the IWTP sludge; (3) 

Analytical results from four samples for 

total concentrations for volatiles (SW– 

846 Method 8260B), semi volatiles (SW– 

846 Method 8270C) and metals (SW– 

846 Method 6010B except for mercury— 

SW–846 Method 7471A and selenium— 

SW–846 Method 7010), for compounds 

of concern (COCs); and (4) Analytical 

results from four samples for Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP) extract values for volatiles (SW– 

846 Method 8260B), semi volatiles (SW– 

846 Method 8270C) and metals (SW– 

846 Method 6010B except for mercury— 

SW–846 Method 7470 and selenium— 

SM 3113B) for COCs. 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

EPA received one email comment 

from a consultant regarding the petition. 

B. What was the comment and what was 

EPA’s response? 

Comment: Based on the condition that 

the resultant sludge is a combination of 

three (3) independent waste streams (i.e. 

it appears each waste stream is being 

diluted by two(2) other waste streams) 

it would be prudent to require IBM to 

submit to EPA, or the landfill, monthly 

waste rates from each of the three (3) 

independent waste streams to ensure 

the contribution ratios are not 

dramatically changing. 

The removal of one waste process 

could potentially increase the hazardous 

components by 50% from the other 2 

waste streams. If volume of sludge waste 

is a component in EPA’s calculations 

related to overall impact, then the 

increase, or reduction of a waste stream 

could impact the results. 

Response: EPA believes that the 

requirements found in Conditions 4, 5 

and 6 of the final exclusion adequately 

address any changes in operations or 

processes at the facility that could have 

an impact on the composition of the 

delisted sludge. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to Sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

Section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

final rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

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

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. Similarly, because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rule. This rule 

also is not subject to Executive Order 

13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

children, to calculate the maximum 

allowable concentrations for this rule. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. This rule does 

not involve technical standards; thus, 

the requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report which includes a 

copy of the rule to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from Section 801 the following 

types of rules (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 56561 

parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under Section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Executive Order (EO) 

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. The Agency’s risk 

assessment did not identify risks from 

management of this material in a 

Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA 

believes that any populations in 

proximity of the landfills used by this 

facility should not be adversely affected 

by common waste management 

practices for this delisted waste. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

6921(f). 

Dated: August 22, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, 6924(y) and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part 

261 add the following waste stream in 

alphabetical order by facility to read as 

follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

IBM Corporation ..... Essex Junction, VT Wastewater Treatment Sludge (Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated at a maximum annual rate 

of 3,150 cubic yards per calendar year and disposed of in a Subtitle D Landfill which is licensed, 

permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge. 

IBM must implement a testing program that meets the following conditions for the exclusion to be 

valid: 

1. Delisting Levels: (A) All leachable concentrations for the following constituents must not exceed 

the following levels (mg/L for TCLP): Arsenic—5.0; Barium—100.0; Cadmium—1.0; Chromium— 

5.0; Lead—5.0; Mercury—0.2; and, Nickel—32.4. 

2. Waste Handling and Holding: (A) IBM must manage as hazardous all WWTP sludge generated 

until it has completed initial verification testing described in paragraph (3)(A) and valid analyses 

show that paragraph (1) is satisfied and written approval is received by EPA. 

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

levels set forth in paragraph (1) for two consecutive quarterly sampling events are non-hazardous. 

After approval is received from EPA, IBM can manage and dispose of the non-hazardous WWTP 

sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(C) Not withstanding having received the initial approval from EPA, if constituent levels in a later 

sample exceed any of the Delisting Levels set in paragraph (1), from that point forward, IBM must 

treat all the waste covered by this exclusion as hazardous until it is demonstrated that the waste 

again meets the levels in paragraph (1). IBM must manage and dispose of the waste generated 

under Subtitle C of RCRA from the time that it becomes aware of any exceedance. 

3. Verification Testing Requirements: IBM must perform sample collection and analyses in accordance with the approved Quality Assurance Project Plan dated January 27, 2011. All samples shall 

be representative composite samples according to appropriate methods. As applicable to the 

method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the 

SW–846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 

0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 

9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods 

must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the IBM sludge are representative for all constituents 

listed in paragraph (1). To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting concentrations, for one year after the final exclusion is granted, IBM must perform quarterly analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the WWTP sludge as follows: 

(A) Quarterly Testing: (i) Collect two representative composite samples of the WWTP sludge at 

quarterly intervals after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples must be 

taken within 30 days after EPA grants the final approval. The second set of samples must be 

taken at least 30 days after the first set. 

(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any waste regarding which a 

composite sample is taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the sludge 

must be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements from the time that IBM becomes aware of any exceedance. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

56562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking each quarterly sample, IBM will report its analytical test data 

to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the sludge do not exceed the levels 

set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for two consecutive quarters, and EPA concurs with 

those findings, IBM can manage and dispose the non-hazardous sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(B) Annual Testing: (i) If IBM completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above and 

no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), 

IBM may begin annual testing as follows: IBM must test two representative composite samples of 

the wastewater treatment sludge (following the same protocols as specified for quarterly sampling, above) for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. 

(ii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events 

shall be taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample taken. 

(iii) IBM shall submit an annual testing report to EPA with its annual test results, within thirty (30) 

days after taking each annual sample. The annual testing report also shall include the total 

amount of waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year. 

4. Changes in Operating Conditions: If IBM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment 

process described in the petition, or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, it must notify the EPA in writing and may no longer handle the wastes generated from the 

new process as non-hazardous unless and until the wastes are shown to meet the delisting levels 

set in paragraph (1), IBM demonstrates that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII 

of part 261 have been introduced, and IBM has received written approval from EPA to manage 

the wastes from the new process under this exclusion. While the EPA may provide written approval of certain changes, if there are changes that the EPA determines are highly significant, the 

EPA may instead require IBM to file a new delisting petition. 

5. Data Submittals and Recordkeeping: IBM must submit the information described below. If IBM 

fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site 

for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (6). IBM must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Chief, RCRA Waste Management & UST 

Section, U.S. EPA Region 1, (OSRR07–1), 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or some comparable electronic media; 

(B) Compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years and make available for 

inspection records of operating conditions, including monthly and annual volumes of WWTP 

sludge generated, analytical data, including quality control information, and copies of the notification(s) required in paragraph (7); 

(C) Submit with all data a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). 

6. Reopener Language—(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, IBM possesses or is 

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

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

constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration, 

then IBM must report such data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator and to the Vermont 

Agency of Natural Resources Secretary within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware 

of that data. 

(B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from 

any source, the Regional Administrator 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. 

(C) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify IBM in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator 

believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a 

statement of the proposed action and a statement providing IBM with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. IBM shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the 

information. 

(D) If after 30 days IBM presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the Regional Administrator 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 Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless 

the Regional Administrator provides otherwise. 

7. Notification Requirements: IBM must do the following before transporting the delisted waste: 

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

it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such 

activities; 

(B) Update the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted waste to a different disposal facility. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. 

*******

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 56563 

[FR Doc. 2012–22571 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 100812345–2142–03] 

RIN 0648–XC229 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic; Reopening of the 2012 

Commercial Sector for Yellowtail 

Snapper in the South Atlantic 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reopening. 

SUMMARY: NMFS reopens the 2012 

commercial sector for yellowtail 

snapper in the South Atlantic exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ). NMFS previously 

determined the commercial ACL for 

yellowtail snapper would be reached by 

September 11, 2012, and closed the 

commercial sector for yellowtail 

snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ at 

12:01 a.m. on September 11, 2012. 

Updated landings estimates indicate the 

ACL will not be reached by that date. 

Therefore, NMFS is reopening the 

commercial sector for yellowtail 

snapper. The purpose of this action is to 

allow the commercial sector to 

maximize harvest benefits and at the 

same time protect the yellowtail 

snapper resource. 

DATES: The reopening is effective 12:02 

a.m., local time, September 11, 2012, 

through December 31, 2012, the end of 

the fishing season, unless the ACL is 

reached before that date, at which time 

the Assistant Administrator may file a 

notification to that effect with the Office 

of the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Hayslip, telephone: 727–824– 

5305, or email: 

Catherine.Hayslip@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery of the South 

Atlantic includes yellowtail snapper 

and is managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region. The FMP was prepared 

by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and is 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. 

Background 

The 2007 reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act implemented 

new requirements that established ACLs 

and AMs to end overfishing and prevent 

overfishing from occurring. AMs are 

management controls to prevent ACLs 

from being exceeded, and to correct or 

mitigate overages of the ACL if they 

occur. 

The Comprehensive ACL Amendment 

to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the 

Golden Crab Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region FMP, the Dolphin and 

Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States 

FMP, and the Pelagic Sargassum Habitat 

of the South Atlantic Region FMP 

published March 16, 2010 (77 FR 

15916). In part, the final rule for the 

Comprehensive ACL Amendment 

specified ACLs and AMs for species in 

the Snapper-Grouper FMP that are not 

undergoing overfishing, including 

yellowtail snapper. Implementation of 

ACLs and AMs for yellowtail snapper is 

intended to prevent overfishing from 

occurring in the future, while 

maintaining catch levels consistent with 

achieving optimum yield for the 

resource. 

The AM at § 622.49(b)(14)(i) requires 

NMFS to close the commercial sector for 

yellowtail snapper for the remainder of 

the fishing year when the ACL is 

reached, or is projected to be reached, 

by filing a notification to that effect with 

the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS 

projected the commercial ACL for 

yellowtail snapper of 1,142,589 lb 

(518,270 kg), round weight, would be 

reached on or before September 11, 

2012, and closed the commercial sector 

for yellowtail snapper on that date (77 

FR 53776, September 4, 2012). However, 

based on updated landings estimates, 

NMFS has determined that only 75 

percent of the available commercial 

ACL will be landed by September 11, 

2012. Therefore, NMFS will reopen the 

commercial sector to allow the 

remainder of the ACL to be harvested. 

Under the reopening procedures 

located at § 622.43(c), when a sector has 

been closed based on a projection of 

when the ACL specified in § 622.49 has 

been reached and subsequent data 

indicate that the ACL was not reached, 

the Assistant Administrator may file a 

notification to that effect with the Office 

of the Federal Register. Such 

notification may reopen the sector to 

provide an opportunity for the ACL to 

be harvested. Accordingly, NMFS is 

reopening the commercial sector for 

yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic 

EEZ from 12:02 a.m., local time, 

September 11, 2012, through December 

31, 2012, the end of the fishing year, 

unless the ACL is reached before that 

date. If the ACL is reached before that 

date, the Assistant Administrator may 

file a notification to that effect with the 

Office of the Federal Register. 

Classification 

The Regional Administrator, 

Southeast Region, NMFS, has 

determined this temporary rule is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of South Atlantic 

yellowtail snapper and is consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

other applicable laws. 

This action is taken under § 622.43(c) 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

These measures are exempt from the 

procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act because the temporary rule is issued 

without opportunity for prior notice and 

comment. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there 

is good cause to waive the requirements 

to provide prior notice and the 

opportunity for public comment on this 

temporary rule. Such procedures are 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest because the commercial ACL for 

yellowtail snapper established in the 

Comprehensive ACL Amendment and 

located at § 622.49(b)(14)(i)(A) and the 

reopening procedures located at 

§ 622.43(c) have already been subject to 

notice and comment and all that 

remains is to notify the public that 

additional harvest is available under the 

established ACL and, therefore, the 

commercial sector for yellowtail 

snapper will reopen. 

Additionally, there is a need to 

immediately notify the public of the 

reopening of the commercial sector for 

yellowtail snapper because the closure 

is set for September 11, 2012, and this 

reopening will allow fishers to continue 

their fishing practices with minimal 

disruption to business practices. 

Therefore, this temporary rule is 

intended to minimize economic harm to 

fishermen while still protecting the 

yellowtail snapper resource. 

For the aforementioned reasons, the 

AA also finds good cause to waive the 

30-day delay in the effectiveness of this 

action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 10, 2012. 

Lindsay Fullenkamp, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22586 Filed 9–10–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES