UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN - 7 2011 The Honorable Bill Owens U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Owens: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure of control to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 0Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank youfor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, 

# ~

4,"~j4 Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 JAN ` 7 

## 2011 The Honorable JimMoran U .S. Houseof Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Moran: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTEAND EMERGENCYRESPONSE

Thankyoufor your letter ofDecember 7, 2010, to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule mayseriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid wastewhen burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 Clean AirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators ofused oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) e http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable e Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyou for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# -isA .-5j&r ~"_ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~SEDSTqT~s

i 3 UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 .Z w Q z 

## 4~1 I-l" qt PROSJAN ® (1 2011 The Honorable Elton Gallegly U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Gallegly: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank youfor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112CleanAir Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level of contaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. Thedefinition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators ofused oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourself oil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (DRL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank youfor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, 

# )~2 Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~SED STqJ.cc`p UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN - 7 2011 The Honorable Bill Posey U .S. Houseof Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Posey: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators . This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level of contaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. The definition ofprocessing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# A,Stx~e1~ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ01EOsrqr~s UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN - 7 1011 The Honorable Mike Rogers U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Rogers: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thankyou for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid wastewhen burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 CleanAir Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFR Part 279 ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment . Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost of testing oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFR Part 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourself oil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyou for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



### ~o- :~-2~c C~` r Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~~EOsrqT~s 

# z~A~0 i 3 z

w e 2 qt PROW

The Honorable Pete Olson U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Olson: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCYRESPONSE

Thankyoufor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 CleanAir Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burningoff-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. Thedefinition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can useother information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN °~ 7 2011

Internet Address (URL) 9 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable e Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyoufor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, 

# A~ k-LMathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~~EOsrqr~s UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

o Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 ~11~~0 Z~~~lq4 PROt~G~ _ 

## JAN - 7 2011 The Honorable Wally Herger U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTEAND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Dear Congressman Herger: Thankyou for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure of control to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFR Part 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourself oil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank youfor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# -1s~~~~ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~'1EDST,q,, S UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY `" WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



# JAN -7 2011 The HonorableTodd Platts U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Dear Congressman Platts: Thankyoufor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure of control to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyoufor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# -PASw Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~ZED STqT~s 

# z A z

~1 w " c5 e UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN - a 2011 The HonorableJohn Duncan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Duncan: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thankyoufor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. Thedefinition of processing includes the blending of off-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can useother information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) e http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 9 Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyou for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, inthe Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# & s0-A 

# -R A4-ft, Mathy Stanislaus Assistant Administrator~, ~ED J STqJ .~S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN - 7 2011 The Honorable Michael Conaway U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Conaway: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule mayseriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, andwant to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burningoff-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can useother information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 1001 Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# 35,Cl- ~j Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~SED STqT~S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN -7 2011 The Honorable JimCooper U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Cooper: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thankyoufor your letter ofDecember 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule mayseriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, andwant to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279management standards, as well as the management standards for off= specification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwastewhen burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level of contaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. Thedefinition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can useother information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 9 Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inkson 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyoufor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# ::~sC'-wj-~-~r" Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN - 7 2011 The Honorable Pete Sessions U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Sessions: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thankyoufor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, andwant to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. Offspecification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriatestandards under section 129ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFR Part 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFR Part 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourself oil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable e Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank youfor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorUNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN -° 7 2011 The Honorable GlennThompson U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Thompson: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTEAND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thankyoufor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste underthe proposed rule, and combustion units burningoff-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFR Part 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank youfor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,

FCL

# Mathy Stanislaus Assistant Administrator,0"SFD Sr,q) .~SS "S 

## A

rqt PROZ~G z

Q 02

The Honorable John Barrow U .S. Houseof Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Barrow : OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 CleanAir Act (CAA) standards. Offspecification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure of control to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. Thedefinition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can useother information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. InternetAddress (URL) 0 http://www .epa .gov Recycled/Recyclable 9 Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper

UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN - 7 2011Again, thankyoufor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staff contact Raquel Snyder, in the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ,,ISOS%~, s 2n' 

## A yU UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

# JAN - 7 2011 w Q

The Honorable Robert Aderholt U .S. Houseof Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Aderholt : OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCYRESPONSE

Thankyou for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling ofused oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure of control to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFR Part 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyou for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJEDSTqT~S UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

55 lu o Y, =

2 z 0 ~~rqt PROT~G~\

The Honorable Jim

Costa U .S. Houseof Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Costa: WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## J 7 2011 AN °

OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil .

on-specification Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. Thedefinition of processing includes the blending of off-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279 ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost of testing oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourself oil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. 0 * 100%

Internet Address (URL) http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank youfor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# icoU-1

# 3-Q-tAj- - 

# ~ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~1oEosr,yl~s UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN °- 7 2011 The Honorable Dan Burton U .S. Houseof Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Burton: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTEAND EMERGENCYRESPONSE

Thankyoufor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, andwant to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators ofused oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyou for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# & -5C'- (~ .Qcu- ~ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~s~~srqr~ UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 JAN ®7 20 The Honorable Marsha Blackburn U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Blackburn: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thankyoufor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid wastewhen burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 Clean AirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level of contaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. Thedefinition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279require such testing . Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorUNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 JAN " 7 

## 2011 The Honorable Frank Wolf U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear CongressmanWolf: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTEAND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, andwant to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could bepresent in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can useother information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) 9 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 1001 Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyou for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# ~sw ~S~ ~ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~-tED STqT~

c~ ~ A ~/syz o \\ // ,,~\'/` Q Z?,~2 F ~o ~Tq~ PROTEGt UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

JAN ® The Honorable Randy Neugebauer U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Neugebauer: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank youfor your letter ofDecember 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, andwant to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for off- specification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 2

.79require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address 9 9 100% (URL) http://www

.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on Postconsumer, ProcessChlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, 

### 1-k5(L-- .JEX-A~ Y~ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~ FS

~-~IED sTqr UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

' r~ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 Q 2 

## JAN - 7 2011 The Honorable Joseph R . Pitts U .S. House ofRepresentatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Pitts: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTEAND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thankyou for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, andwant to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid wastewhen burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 Clean AirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFR Part 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) e http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable e Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 1001 Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyou for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, ~-R'5tt- 3d CU-- Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~~ED srqrFs UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN ®7 2011

The Honorable Mike Ross U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Ross: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank youfor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. 1 appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level of contaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. Thedefinition ofprocessing includes the blending of off-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, ProcessChlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank youfor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorJ~~~EDSTqr~s UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 ~F ~o ~rq4 PFIoSE~'~ 

## JAN -7 2011 The Honorable Sue Myrick U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Dear Congresswoman Myrick: Thankyoufor your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid wastewhen burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 Clean AirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFR Part 279 ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment . Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost of testing oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFR Part 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourself oil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyoufor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# 2"--U-U ~~ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorjED STq,,s

' A yZ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 0 w WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Q Z~~~O? ~r41 PROSEG~

The Honorable Bill Shuster U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Shuster: J

## AN ® p 2011

OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCYRESPONSE

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solidwastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. Thedefinition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279 ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost of testing oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFR Part 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourself oil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable e Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staff contact Raquel Snyder, in the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,

# &A

' ~ ~ Mathy Stanislaus Assistant Administrator

### X

S~ LLJ 

### "W/1 0 "it PRO-t'r-' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## JAN - 7 2011

The Honorable Thaddeus McCotter U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman McCotter: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thankyou for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, andwant to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule andwould be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solidwaste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level of contaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. Thedefinition ofprocessing includes the blending of off-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does notrequire testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 279 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourself oil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification. Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thankyou for your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. If you have further questions, please contact me or have your staff contact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely, Mathy Stanislaus Assistant AdministratorUNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

# JAN -7 2011

The HonorableTimothy J. Ryan U .S. House of Representatives Washington, D

.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Ryan: OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, youexpress concerns that the rule may seriously impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended negative consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discussed used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the 40 CFR Part 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for offspecification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels, in the proposal, are considered those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil is considered a solidwaste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level ofcontaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solidwaste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil . The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the regulations that have been promulgated in 40 CFRPart 279ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Your letter also states that small businesses will be unwilling to incur the cost oftesting oil . However, the proposed rule does not require testing for generators of used oil, nor does the used oil management standards promulgated under 40 CFRPart 2,79 require such testing. Rather, generators of used oil, including those that collect used oil for do-it-yourselfoil changers, can use other information, such as existing data or process knowledge, to determine whether or not the used oil they generate would be considered on-specification or off-specification.Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa .gov Recycled/Recyclable e Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank youfor your letter. We are continuing to evaluate all ofthe comments we

received on the proposed rule. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staffcontact Raquel Snyder, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-9586. Sincerely,



# ~s~~a~ ~w Mathy Stanislaus Assistant Administrator