58312 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS—Continued 

CO date Title SIP rule EPA approval Explanation 

10/12/1999 ........ Crane Naval .................... 8–2–9 .............................. 12/31/2002, 67 FR 79859 .................... Exemption. 

2/11/2004 .......... Eli Lilly ............................. 8–5–3 .............................. 11/8/2004, 69 FR 64661 ...................... Exemption. 

12/22/2004 ........ Transwheel ...................... 8–3–5(a)(5)(C) ................. 4/12/2005, 70 FR 19000 ...................... Equivalent control. 

(e) EPA approved nonregulatory and 

quasi-regulatory provisions. 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation 

Carbon Monoxide Control Strategy—Lake and Porter Co ........... .................... 1/19/2000, 65 FR 2883 .......... Paragraph (b).

Carbon Monoxide Control Strategy—Lake and Marion Cos ........ 1 1/12/2009 10/15/2009, 74 FR 52891 ...... Paragraph (c). 

Chicago Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ........................................ .................... 8/26/2004, 69 FR 52427 ........ Paragraph (aa). 

Chicago-Gary Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ............................... .................... 12/30/2008, 73 FR 79652 ...... Paragraph (kk). 

Control Strategy: Particulate Matter .............................................. .................... 11/27/2009, 74 FR 62243 ...... Paragraph (s). 

Evansville Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ..................................... .................... 12/29/2005, 70 FR 77026 ...... Paragraph (ee). 

Fluoride Emission Limitations for Existing Primary Aluminum 

Plants.

.................... 3/11/2003, 68 FR 11472 ........ Removed from SIP, replaced 

by NESHAP. 

Fort Wayne Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ................................... .................... 1/11/2007, 72 FR 1292 .......... Paragraph (ff). 

Greene and Jackson Counties Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ..... .................... 11/14/2005, 70 FR 69085 ...... Paragraph (bb). 

Indianapolis Hydrocarbon Control Strategy .................................. .................... 10/19/2007, 72 FR 59210 ...... Paragraph (jj). 

LaPorte Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ......................................... .................... 7/19/2007, 72 FR 39574 ........ Paragraph (gg). 

Lead Control Strategy—Marion County ........................................ .................... 5/10/2000, 65 FR 29959 ........ Paragraph (d). 

Lead Control Strategy—Marion County ........................................ 1 4/1/2009 9/24/2009, 74 FR 48659 ........ Paragraph (e). 

Louisville Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ....................................... .................... 9/20/2004, 69 FR 56171 ........ Paragraph (z). 

Louisville Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ....................................... .................... 7/19/2007, 72 FR 39571 ........ Paragraph (ii). 

Muncie Hydrocarbon Control Strategy .......................................... .................... 11/16/2005, 70 FR 69443 ...... Paragraph (cc). 

Ozone Monitoring Season ............................................................. 2/19/1991 12/10/1991, 56 FR 64482. 

PM10 Maintenance Plan for Lake County ..................................... 9/25/2002 1/10/2003, 68 FR 1370 .......... Paragraph (r), also redesignation. 

Particulate Control Strategy—Vermillion County .......................... .................... 8/26/1997, 62 FR 45168 ........ Paragraph (q). 

Small Business Compliance Assistance Program ........................ .................... 9/2/1993, 58 FR 46541. 

South Bend-Elkhart Hydrocarbon Control Strategy ...................... .................... 7/19/2007, 72 FR 39577 ........ Paragraph (hh). 

Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy—LaPorte, Marion, Vigo, and 

Wayne Counties.

.................... 11/15/1996, 61 FR 58482 ...... Paragraph (f) and (g). 

Terre Haute Hydrocarbon Control Strategy .................................. .................... 1/5/2006, 71 FR 541 .............. Paragraph (dd). 

[FR Doc. 2010–23802 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0477; FRL–9204–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of 

the Allegan County Areas to 

Attainment for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Michigan’s 

request to redesignate the Allegan 

County, Michigan nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard because the request meets the 

statutory requirements for redesignation 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources and Environment (MDNRE) 

submitted this request on May 12, 2010, 

and supplemented it on June 16, 2010. 

This approval involves several related 

actions. EPA is making a determination 

under the CAA that the Allegan County 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This determination is based 

on three years of complete, qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained 

in the area. Preliminary data available 

for 2010 is consistent with continued 

attainment. EPA is also approving, as a 

revision to the Michigan State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the State’s 

plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2021 in the area. EPA 

is approving the 2005 emissions 

inventory submitted with the 

redesignation request as meeting the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of the CAA for the Allegan 

County area. Finally, EPA found 

adequate and is approving the State’s 

2021 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Allegan County area. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 24, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action: Docket ID No. 

EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0477. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(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 in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58313 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for these actions? 

II. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed rule? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is the background for these 

actions? 

The background for today’s actions is 

discussed in detail in EPA’s July 20, 

2010, proposal (75 FR 42018). In that 

rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 

three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm. (See 69 FR 23857 

(April 30, 2004) for further information.) 

Under the CAA, EPA may redesignate 

nonattainment areas to attainment if 

sufficient complete, quality-assured data 

are available to determine that the area 

has attained the standard and if it meets 

the other CAA redesignation 

requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). 

The MDNRE submitted a request to 

redesignate the Allegan County area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard on May 12, 2010, and 

supplemented it on June 16, 2010. The 

redesignation request is based on three 

years of complete, quality-assured, 

certified data for the period of 2007 

through 2009, indicating the 8-hour 

NAAQS for ozone, as promulgated in 

1997, has been attained in the Allegan 

County area. Preliminary monitoring 

data available for 2010 is consistent 

with continued attainment. The July 20, 

2010, proposed rule provides a detailed 

discussion of how Michigan met this 

and other CAA requirements. 

II. What comments did we receive on 

the proposed rule? 

EPA provided a 30-day review and 

comment period. The comment period 

closed on August 19, 2010. EPA 

received comments in support of the 

redesignation from Consumers Energy. 

EPA received no adverse comments on 

the proposed rule. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is making a determination that 

the Allegan County area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

approving the maintenance plan SIP 

revisions for the Allegan County area. 

EPA’s approval of the maintenance plan 

is based on the State’s demonstration 

that the plan meets the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA. After 

evaluating the redesignation requests 

submitted by MDNRE, EPA believes that 

the request meets the redesignation 

criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) 

of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is approving 

the redesignation of the Allegan County 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

is also approving MDNRE’s 2005 base 

year emissions inventory for the Allegan 

County area as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. Finally, EPA has found adequate 

and is approving Michigan’s 2021 

MVEBs for the Allegan County area. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 

EPA finds there is good cause for this 

action to become effective immediately 

upon publication. This is because a 

delayed effective date is unnecessary 

due to the nature of a redesignation to 

attainment, which relieves the area from 

certain CAA requirements that would 

otherwise apply to it. The immediate 

effective date for this action is 

authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1), which provides that 

rulemaking actions may become 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction,’’ and section 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ The 

purpose of the 30-day waiting period 

prescribed in section 553(d) is to give 

affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, 

however, does not create any new 

regulatory requirements such that 

affected parties would need time to 

prepare before the rule takes effect. 

Rather, today’s rule relieves the state of 

various requirements for this 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. For these 

reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to 

become effective on the date of 

publication of this action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. These actions do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law and the CAA. For 

that reason, these actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58314 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because 

redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on the tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone NAAQS in tribal lands. 

However, because there are tribal lands 

located in Allegan County, we provided 

the affected tribe with the opportunity 

to consult with EPA on the 

redesignation. The affected tribe raised 

no concerns with the proposed rule. 

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 action 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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 23, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: September 11, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart X—Michigan 

■ 2. Section 52.1174 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (aa) and (bb) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1174 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(aa) Approval—On May 12, 2010, 

Michigan submitted 2005 VOC and NOX

base year emissions inventories for the 

Allegan County area. Michigan’s 2005 

inventories satisfy the base year 

emissions inventory requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for 

the Allegan County area under the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. 

(bb) Approval—Michigan submitted a 

request to redesignate the Allegan 

County area to attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard on May 12, 2010, 

and supplemented the submittal on June 

16, 2010. As part of the redesignation 

request, the State submitted a 

maintenance plan as required by section 

175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of 

the section 175 maintenance plan 

include a contingency plan and an 

obligation to submit a subsequent 

maintenance plan revision in 8 years as 

required by the Clean Air Act. The 

ozone maintenance plan also establishes 

2021 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the area. The 2021 MVEBs 

for the Allegan County area is 3.93 tons 

per day (tpd) for VOC and 6.92 tpd for 

NOX. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 81.323 is amended by 

revising the entry for Allegan Co., MI in 

the table entitled ‘‘Michigan-Ozone (8- 

Hour Standard)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.323 Michigan. 

* * * * * 

MICHIGAN—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

Allegan County, MI: 

Allegan County ........... September 24, 2010 ......... Attainment.

*******

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58315 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–23708 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0312; SW FRL– 

9206–8] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Direct Final 

Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Eastman Chemical 

Company-Texas Operations (Eastman) 

to exclude (or delist) certain solid 

wastes generated by its Longview, 

Texas, facility from the lists of 

hazardous wastes. EPA used the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 23, 2010 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives relevant 

adverse comment by October 25, 2010. 

If adverse comment is received, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2009–0312 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

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

3. Mail: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2009– 

0312. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

RCRA Branch, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202. The hard copy of the 

RCRA regulatory docket for this 

proposed rule, EPA–R06–RCRA–2009– 

0312, is available for viewing from 8 

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

excluding Federal holidays. The public 

may copy material from any regulatory 

docket at no cost for the first 100 pages 

and at a cost of $0.15 per page for 

additional copies. EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further technical information 

concerning this document or for 

appointments to view the docket or the 

Eastman facility petition, contact 

Michelle Peace, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division, 

RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–C, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by 

calling (214) 665–7430 or by e-mail at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

Your requests for a hearing must 

reach EPA by October 12, 2010. The 

request must contain the information 

described in 40 CFR 260.20(d) 

(hereinafter all sectional references are 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Eastman 

submitted a petition under 40 CFR 

260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 

allows any person to petition the 

Administrator to modify or revoke any 

provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 

and 273. Section 260.22 (a) specifically 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

The Agency bases its proposed 

decision to grant the petition on an 

evaluation of waste-specific information 

provided by the petitioner. This 

proposed decision, if finalized, would 

conditionally exclude the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

If finalized, we would conclude the 

petitioned waste from this facility is 

non-hazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria and that the 

waste process used will substantially 

reduce the likelihood of migration of 

hazardous constituents from this waste. 

We would also conclude that the 

processes minimize short-term and 

long-term threats from the petitioned 

waste to human health and the 

environment. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA approving? 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

C. How will Eastman manage the wastes, 

if it is delisted? 

D. When would the delisting exclusion be 

finalized? 

E. How would this action affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What wastes did Eastman petition EPA 

to delist? 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES