22226 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE DELAWARE SIP—Continued 

State regulation (7 

DNREC 1100) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 37.0 ............ Graphic Art Systems .............................. 3/11/11 4/13/12 [Insert page 

number where 

the document begins].

Amended to add ‘‘flexible packaging 

printing’’ to the regulated category. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 45.0 ............ Industrial Cleaning Solvents .................. 3/11/11 4/13/12 [Insert page 

number where 

the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–8854 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808; FRL 9658–3] 

RIN–2050–AE78 

Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous 

Secondary Materials From the 

Petroleum Refining Industry 

Processed in a Gasification System To 

Produce Synthesis Gas; Final 

Determination To Deny Administrative 

Petition 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; final determination 

to deny administrative petition. 

SUMMARY: EPA is providing notice of a 

final determination to deny an 

administrative petition submitted by 

Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club 

and the Louisiana Environmental 

Action Network under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. The 

petition requested EPA to review the 

final rule, ‘‘Regulation of Oil-Bearing 

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. 

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: 

I. General Information 

A. How can I get copies of this 

document and other related 

information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room 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. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the Federal Register listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

II. Summary of the Action 

EPA is providing notice of a final 

determination to deny an administrative 

petition submitted by Earthjustice on 

behalf of the Sierra Club and the 

Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA 

issued an earlier notice tentatively 

denying this same petition in January 

2011 and solicited written comments on 

this tentative decision (76 FR 5107, Jan. 

28, 2011). The petition requested EPA to 

review the final rule, ‘‘Regulation of OilBearing 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 

(73 FR 57). The EPA has considered the 

petition, along with information 

contained in the rulemaking docket, as 

well as the five public comments 

received on the tentative denial. After 

evaluating all of this information, EPA 

has decided to issue a final 

determination denying the petition. In a 

letter from EPA Assistant Administrator 

Mathy Stanislaus dated April 3, 2012, 

EPA provided the petitioner with its 

final decision to deny the administrative 

petition. The letter, which is included 

as an Appendix to this Federal Register 

document explains EPA’s reasons for 

denying the petition, as well as 

discussing the other comments received 

on the tentative denial. 

Appendix: Letter to Earthjustice 

Denying Administrative Petition 

Ms. Lisa Gollin Evans 

Earthjustice 

21 Ocean Avenue 

Marblehead, MA 01945 

Dear Ms. Evans: 

This letter is written to inform you of our 

final determination to deny the April 1, 2008 

administrative petition you submitted to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 

or the agency) 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) (hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘Sierra Club’’). Sierra Club requested that 

EPA review the final rule, ‘‘Regulation of OilBearing 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.). The petition 

raised both procedural (notice and comment) 

and substantive grounds for seeking the 

agency’s review of the Gasification Rule. EPA 

has made a final determination to deny the 

petition and in accordance with the 

regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 260.20, 

EPA is providing notice of this determination 

to deny the petition in the Federal Register. 

A tentative denial was issued on January 

19, 2011, and published in the Federal 

Register on January 28, 2011 (76 FR 5107). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22227 

1See docket item EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808– 

0017. 

2We note that § 7004(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 6974, provides that any person may petition the 

Administrator for the promulgation, amendment or 

repeal of any regulation under the Act. While your 

original petition failed to state whether you were 

requesting that EPA amend or repeal the 

Gasification Rule, the SC Comments request the 

agency ‘‘revoke the Rule in its entirety.’’ SC 

Comments at p. 2. EPA also received another 

comment from a number of environmental 

organizations and persons (EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008– 

0808–0018) requesting that the agency revoke the 

rule. This comment is regarded by the agency as 

general support for the SC comments, in that it 

mirrored the concerns raised in the comments 

submitted by Earthjustice. (See comment EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2008–0808–0018 for a complete list of the 

environmental organizations and persons that 

submitted this comment.) 

3Letters to Lisa Gollin Evans and James S. Pew, 

Earthjustice, from Susan Parker Bodine, EPA 

Assistant Administrator, dated November 14, 2008. 

This letter is available in the docket (docket item 

EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808–0004 and EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2008–0808–0006). 

4The American Petroleum Institute (API) (docket 

item EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808–0010) and the 

Metals Industries Recycling Coalition (MIRC) 

(docket item EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808–0013) 

also filed comments supporting the Gasification 

Rule. EPA accepts the reasoning in the comments 

in support of the decision with the exception that 

the agency does not agree that the residuals inserted 

into the gasification process ‘‘may not be 

considered solid or hazardous wastes under 

controlling case law.’’ API comments at p. 9. Rather, 

EPA has determined that it has the discretion to 

exclude the residuals from the definition of solid 

waste. A comment submitted by Industry 

Professionals for Clean Air and Air Alliance 

Houston (docket item EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0808– 

0012) expresses concern regarding monitoring and 

regulation of gasification processes. This is simply 

a general comment that EPA acknowledges 

regarding the appropriate monitoring and regulation 

under both RCRA and the Clean Air Act for these 

facilities. 

5Notice of Data Availability (NODA), 63 FR 

38139 (July 15, 1998). 

6 ‘‘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; Proposed Rule,’’ 67 FR 13684 (March 

25, 2002). 

Sierra Club filed comments on this tentative 

denial (hereafter referred to as ‘‘SC 

Comments’’).1 This final denial responds to 

the additional points raised in the SC 

Comments that were not raised in previous 

submittals and incorporates all previous 

agency responses to your original petition.2

This final denial to your petition adopts all 

of the reasoning stated in our letter of 

November 2008 3 and the January 2011 

tentative denial, both of which are 

incorporated into this reply. We find no new 

substantive arguments in your comments that 

would cause the agency to grant your 

administrative petition. 

In general, you argue that EPA has 

improperly and arbitrarily removed 

hazardous wastes from RCRA’s 

comprehensive cradle-to-grave regulatory 

system and that EPA’s Gasification Rule is 

directly contrary to what you describe as 

RCRA’s statutory mandate to regulate the 

treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous 

waste derived fuels and the burning of 

hazardous wastes. For the first time, in the 

proceeding on this rule, you also claim that 

it frustrates the Clean Air Act. You argue, 

furthermore, that EPA’s ‘‘finding’’ that this 

rule will not jeopardize human health and 

the environment is unsupported by the 

administrative record for this rulemaking. 

Finally, you argue that the Gasification Rule 

was promulgated in violation of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

EPA disagrees with your comments. The 

agency has properly excluded the materials 

in question from RCRA Subtitle C regulation 

and does not expect adverse effects on 

human health or the environment from this 

regulation. EPA finds that you have not 

presented any new information that would 

suggest or otherwise require that we review 

the Gasification Rule, nor have you raised 

any issues that have not already been raised 

by the comments in the rulemaking process. 

EPA also finds that the Gasification Rule 

meets the notice and comment requirements 

of the APA and, therefore, disagrees 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.4

Legal Arguments 

EPA has discussed in earlier responses that 

it disagrees with Sierra Club’s legal argument 

that the final rule does not comport with 

RCRA § 3004(q), 42 U.S.C. § 6924(q). Because 

EPA is providing an exclusion from the 

definition of solid waste for oil-bearing 

hazardous secondary materials fed to 

gasifiers subject to this rule, EPA does not 

implicate the provisions of section 3004(q), 

which requires that the hazardous secondary 

material first be a solid waste. Nothing cited 

in your legal argument refutes this point. 

Discussion in SC Comments at pp. 6–7 

merely provides a cumulative argument that 

burning of hazardous wastes must be 

regulated. Since the oil-bearing hazardous 

secondary materials are not considered solid 

wastes, they cannot be hazardous wastes. 

Further, Sierra Club raises a legal argument 

that has already been considered and rejected 

by the D.C. Circuit. In American Mining 

Congress (AMC) v. EPA, 824 F2d. 1177, 

1187–89, the agency relied upon section 

3004(q) to defend a broad definition of solid 

waste. The court specifically considered 

whether the exemption in section 

3004(q)(2)(A) for ‘‘petroleum refinery wastes 

containing oil which are converted into 

petroleum coke at the same facility at which 

such wastes were generated’’ implies that the 

term ‘‘solid waste’’ may include materials 

that have not been disposed of, but that are 

destined for reuse in another process. The 

court concluded that the exemption does not 

carry that implication, and section 3004(q) 

only applies to materials that have already 

become hazardous. See AMC at 1188 & n.16. 

Plainly, section 3004(q) directs EPA to 

regulate all facilities that ‘‘produce a fuel 

from hazardous wastes’’ or ‘‘burn, for 

purposes of energy recovery’’ any such fuel. 

42 U.S.C. § 3004. Moreover, EPA agrees with 

the thrust of your comment that a recycled 

material does not become a non-waste simply 

because it is burned or processed to produce 

a fuel. Rather, the issue is whether the 

recycled material is discarded. 

The SC Comments (pp. 8–10) seem to 

imply that case law says that burning of 

recycled secondary materials is a waste 

activity, regardless. However, none of the 

cases cited deal with burning of material. In 

fact, the only case in the United States Court 

of Appeals that deals with whether certain 

burning of material is a waste found that the 

burning was not a waste activity. See Safe Air 

For Everyone v. Waynemeyer (‘‘Safe Air’’), 

373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (Kentucky 

bluegrass stubble burned to return nutrients 

to the soil is not a solid waste). 

Your argument, including your discussions 

of the Clean Air Act, is ultimately based on 

your ‘‘assertion’’ that, in turn, EPA believes 

material inserted into a gasifier is not 

discarded. EPA disagrees. The agency, 

however, stands on the record developed in 

the rule for its determination that the 

recycled oil-bearing hazardous secondary 

material excluded from the definition of solid 

waste in this rule is not discarded. 

For the first time in the SC Comments, you 

claim that the gasification rule is ‘‘contrary 

to and frustrates the purposes’’ of the Clean 

Air Act. EPA does not understand the 

relevance of the Clean Air Act to this 

proceeding, although coverage under the 

Clean Air Act may be an issue in other 

proceedings. As noted above, the issue in this 

case is simply whether the recycled oilbearing hazardous secondary material 

inserted into the gasifier is discarded. As a 

result of the Gasification Rule, the gasifiers 

would be subject to Clean Air Act § 112 (42 

U.S.C. § 7412) because EPA has determined 

that the material has not been discarded. 

At least one of the arguments on the Clean 

Air Act is taken out of context. See SC 

Comments at pp. 10–12. As one aspect of its 

determination that gasification is not discard, 

EPA responded to public comments, which 

argued that ‘‘gasification * * * is more a 

waste management process involving 

incineration than a petroleum refining 

process’’ by comparing gasification to true 

waste management incineration. See 73 FR at 

61. The SC Comments, however, discuss 

whether gasification involves combustion—a 

matter not relevant to the Gasification Rule. 

See SC Comments at pp. 11–12. Even if 

combustion occurs, the issue is whether this 

is a waste management activity or, as EPA 

found, a ‘‘component of fuel manufacturing 

operations at a petroleum refinery.’’ Id. The 

occurrence of combustion, by itself, does not 

render material a solid waste, if the Agency 

determines that this aspect is part of the 

manufacturing process and does not involve 

discard of the material. 

Notice and Comment Issues 

Your petition states that the rule violates 

the notice and comment requirements of the 

APA. Your basis for this assertion is that EPA 

‘‘relied on’’ a proposal suggested in a 1998 

Federal Register notice 5 and ‘‘not on the 

2002 proposed rule’’ 6 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 p. 7) and, therefore, ‘‘the public 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
22228 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7For example, see footnote 2 of the preamble 

found at 67 FR 13685, footnote 9 of the preamble 

found at 67 FR 13688, and the discussion in Section 

VI of the preamble found at 67 FR 13689. 

8Waste Gasification—Impact on the Environment 

and Public Health. The Blue Ridge Environmental 

Defense League. February 2009. An Industry 

Blowing Smoke. 10 Reasons Why Gasification, 

Pyrolysis and Plasma Incineration are Not Green 

Solutions. Global Alliance for Incinerator 

Alternatives Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance. June 

2009. 

9This number is based on data from the 2003 

RCRA Biennial Reporting System (BRS) using the 

following waste codes K048–K052, K169–K172, 

F037 and F038. This is hazardous waste that was 

reported to EPA that was generated and managed 

in 2003. The BRS reported 324,371 tons of 

hazardous waste generated by 153 sites (Standard 

Industrial Classification 2911). The average 

generation rate was calculated at 2,314 tons per 

year, with a maximum generation rate of 76,582 

tons per year and a minimum of less than 1 ton per 

year. Information from the report, Refinery 

Technology Profiles: Gasification and Supporting 

Technologies. U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Energy Technology Laboratory, June 2003, suggests 

that growth in petroleum refinery gasification will 

most likely be driven by future supply and demand 

of petroleum coke with approximately 40 refineries 

within the U.S. producing sufficient quantities of 

petroleum coke to be considered candidates for the 

addition of gasification to their production process. 

The report suggests a market penetration rate of one 

plant every two years. EPA’s analysis shows that 

both waste characterization data and waste 

generation rates indicate that industry would 

probably not build a gasification unit dedicated to 

gasifying oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials 

and the most probable gasification scenario would 

be a petroleum refinery building a gasification unit 

for petroleum coke gasification with oil-bearing 

hazardous secondary materials possibly used as a 

supplemental feed (accounting for between 0.1 and 

10 percent of the total feed rate) (docket item EPA– 

HQ–RCRA–2002–0002–0110). Given these 

assumptions, EPA would estimate that with an 

average generation rate of 10,000 tons per year of 

oil-bearing hazardous secondary material, a total of 

no more than 50,000 tons per year of oil-bearing 

hazardous secondary material would be placed into 

a gasification unit as part of the petroleum refining 

process. 

10See: Assessment of the Potential Costs, 

Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Exclusion for 

Gasification of Petroleum Oil-bearing Secondary 

Materials—Final Rule (docket item EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2002–0002–0089). 

was denied the opportunity for notice and 

comment in several critical areas.’’ (Petition 

at p. 8) 

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

the petition 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 pp. 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. The SC 

Comments reiterate this issue at pp. 14–15. 

(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 p. 10). These 

comments were reiterated in the SC 

Comments at pp. 15–17. 

(3) You assert that the Gasification Rule 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 pp. 10–12). The SC 

Comments discuss these issues at pp. 17–18. 

The SC Comments (at p. 18) acknowledge 

that the original petition ‘‘enumerated’’ these 

APA violations. EPA responded to these 

arguments in both the November 2008 letter 

and the January 2011 tentative denial, and 

believes it is not necessary to repeat those 

responses in this final denial, and simply 

incorporates by reference those responses in 

this denial. In summary, in the Gasification 

Rule, EPA scaled back on its plans for a more 

‘‘ambitious’’ exclusion than proposed in 

March 2002 and returned largely to its 

original views regarding an exclusion for oilbearing hazardous secondary materials 

returned to the petroleum refining system. 

See 73 FR 58–59. The final Gasification Rule 

retained some conditions and removed others 

as a result of the agency’s deliberations on 

each condition that took into account all of 

the comments received. EPA had 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. 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. 

EPA’s November 2008 and January 2011 

documents stated that the March 2002 

Gasification Proposal specifically provided 

notice that the provisions of the 1998 NODA 

were still being considered and noted that it 

is significant that your original 

administrative petition ignores this 

discussion in the March 2002 proposal. The 

SC Comments (at p. 18), for the first time, 

respond to this notice argument. EPA 

continues to defend its position that this 

discussion in the March 2002 Gasification 

Proposal is supportive of the agency’s 

position that adequate notice and comment 

was provided.7

Arbitrary and Capricious Issues 

The SC Comments (at pp. 19–28) provide 

a longer discussion than the original petition 

on your argument that the Gasification Rule 

is arbitrary and capricious. However, the 

arguments for the most part are simply those 

reiterated in comments on the rule and fail 

to cite information not provided in the 

rulemaking record which EPA has already 

considered. EPA understands that you may 

disagree with the agency’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 relevant 

information, it would not be useful for the 

agency to revisit evidence and arguments it 

has already carefully considered. Moreover, 

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. In fact, 

the SC Comments do not point to any 

information which EPA lacks to make its 

decision. 

Additional Issues 

The SC Comments do cite two reports 

issued after the Gasification Rule was 

published.8 However, the information in 

these studies are cumulative at best and deal 

with the management of municipal solid 

waste and the role that incinerators, 

gasification and pyrolytic processes have on 

potentially affecting the use of waste 

reduction and recycling activities. Neither 

report specifically explores the subject of 

recycling of oil-bearing hazardous secondary 

materials at a petroleum refinery through 

gasification. Furthermore, the Gasification 

Rule applies only to gasification operations 

occurring at petroleum refineries for the 

recycling of oil-bearing hazardous materials 

and does not apply to other secondary 

materials, including municipal solid waste. 

In addition, Sierra Club alleges that EPA 

predicted that ‘‘over 150 refineries * * * 

could potentially exploit’’ the Gasification 

Rule and thereby burn over 320,000 tons of 

hazardous waste without adequate 

protections. As discussed in the final rule, 

the agency’s cost-benefits analysis was based 

on two scenarios drawn from 

U.S. Department of Energy projections on the 

future of gasification operations at petroleum 

refineries: A low capacity analysis (three 

gasifiers employed at three different 

refineries) and a high capacity analysis (five 

gasifiers at five refineries). This is far 

different than the 150 refineries Sierra Club 

argues would ‘‘exploit’’ the exclusion.9 As for 

the 320,000 tons of hazardous waste being 

burned, this number represents the total 

amount of hazardous waste generated by 

petroleum refineries in 2003 as reported to 

the RCRA Biennial Reporting System (BRS) 

and in no way represents the amount of oilbearing hazardous secondary material which 

would be fed into a gasifier at a petroleum 

refinery.10

Finally, Sierra Club introduces yet another 

new issue, not raised in the original 

administrative petition, regarding EPA’s 

failure to adequately assess environmental 

justice as part of its cost assessment and the 

agency’s lack of effort to ascertain the full 

range of threats the Gasification Rule would 

present to disadvantaged, low-income and 

minority communities living nearby the 

exempted refineries. The agency concluded, 

based on its technical analysis supporting the 

rule, that the gasification of hazardous 

secondary materials at petroleum refineries 

does not represent a greater risk to the public 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22229 

11The rule is projected to result in benefit-cost 

savings for petroleum refineries using the 

exclusion. Petroleum refineries choosing not to take 

advantage of the exclusion would experience no 

direct impact from the rule. The benefit-cost 

analysis showed between $5.2 million and $48.7 

million in net social benefits per year with avoided 

waste management costs constituting the most 

significant share of the benefits, followed by the 

energy savings from increased fuel production. The 

analysis further showed that the areas potentially 

affected by the rule showed disproportionately high 

minority/low income populations, but that 

gasification of oil-bearing hazardous secondary 

materials does not represent a greater risk to the 

public than baseline management, and that as less 

material is received by hazardous waste 

management facilities, low income and minority 

populations would likely experience a potential 

reduction in risk under the rule. 

1See the public docket for this rule regarding the 

specific comments that were submitted on the four 

amendments that are not being finalized today. 

than the baseline used to develop the 

analysis.11

As previously stated, a document will be 

published in the Federal Register 

announcing the agency’s final decision to 

deny your administrative petition. If you 

should have any questions, please 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: April 3, 2012. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8921 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 261 and 266 

[EPA–RCRA–2008–0678; FRL–9659–7] 

RIN 2050–AG52 

Hazardous Waste Technical 

Corrections and Clarifications Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is taking 

final action on two of six technical 

amendments that were withdrawn in a 

June 4, 2010, Federal Register partial 

withdrawal notice. The two 

amendments that are the subject of 

today’s final rule are: A correction of the 

typographical error in the entry ‘‘K107’’ 

in a table listing hazardous wastes from 

specific sources; and a conforming 

change to alert certain recycling 

facilities that they have existing 

certification and notification 

requirements under the Land Disposal 

Restrictions regulations. The other four 

amendments that were withdrawn in 

the June 2010 partial withdrawal notice 

will remain withdrawn unless and until 

EPA determines action is warranted in 

the future. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–RCRA–2008–0678. 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., Confidential Business Information 

(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 are available 

either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OSWER Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

O’Leary, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery, MC 5304P, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (703) 

308–8827; or email: oleary.jim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is EPA publishing this final 

rule? 

On March 18, 2010, EPA published in 

the Federal Register a Direct Final rule 

entitled, Hazardous Waste Technical 

Corrections and Clarifications Rule (75 

FR 12989) (hereafter the Direct Final 

rule). This Direct Final rule included 

approximately 90 specific technical 

amendments to correct or clarify parts of 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste 

regulations. At the same time, EPA also 

published a parallel proposed rule (75 

FR 13006) that requested comment on 

the same changes. 

We stated in that Direct Final rule that 

if we received adverse comment on any 

of the amendments by May 3, 2010, the 

affected amendments would not take 

effect and we would publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register of 

those specific amendments. We received 

some adverse comments and as a result 

withdrew six amendments on June 4, 

2010 (75 FR 31716). The remaining 

amendments for which we did not 

receive adverse comment became 

effective on June 16, 2010. 

The six amendments that were 

withdrawn are: 

• 40 CFR 262.34(a)—related to the 

hazardous waste accumulation time for 

large quantity generators; 

• 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2)—related to the 

date upon which each period of 

accumulation begins and which must be 

clearly marked and visible for 

inspection on each container and tank; 

• 40 CFR 262.34(a)(5)—related to the 

closure requirements for tanks, 

containers, drip pads and containment 

buildings; 

• 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(iv)(B)—also 

related to the closure requirements for 

tanks, containers, drip pads and 

containment buildings; 

• 40 CFR 266.20(b)—related to 

recyclable materials used in a manner 

constituting disposal; and 

• 40 CFR 261.32(a)—related to the 

entry for hazardous waste number K107 

in a table. 

EPA is publishing today’s final rule to 

address the adverse comments received 

on the last two amendments listed 

above and to finalize these amendments. 

The amendments we are finalizing are: 

(1) Making the conforming change to 40 

CFR 266.20(b); and (2) correcting the 

entry ‘‘K107’’ in the table at 40 CFR 

261.32(a). The other four amendments 

that were withdrawn will remain 

withdrawn unless and until EPA 

decides to take action on them in the 

future.1

II. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action include facilities subject to the 

RCRA hazardous waste regulations and 

states implementing the RCRA 

hazardous waste regulations. 

III. Acronyms 

Acronym Definition 

CFR ............. United States Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

EPA ............. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

HSWA .......... Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments. 

OMB ............ Office of Management and 

Budget. 

RCRA .......... Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act. 

U.S.C ........... United States Code. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES