Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 17419 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(B) Update the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted 

waste into a different disposal facility. 

(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the 

delisting variance and possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–8646 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0457; SW–FRL– 

8787–8] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting a petition 

submitted by Cooper Crouse-Hinds to 

exclude (or delist) the sludge and filter 

sand (called sludge hereinafter) from its 

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) 

generated by Cooper Crouse-Hinds in 

Amarillo, Texas from the lists of 

hazardous wastes. This final rule 

responds to the petition submitted by 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds, to delist the 

WWTP sludge with Hazardous Waste 

Number, F006. After careful analysis 

and use of the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS), EPA has 

concluded the petitioned waste is not 

hazardous waste. This exclusion applies 

to 816 cubic yards per year of the 

WWTP sludge with Hazardous Waste 

Number: F006. Accordingly, this final 

rule excludes the petitioned waste from 

the requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when it is disposed in a Subtitle D 

Landfill. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this 

final rule is located at the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202, and is available for 

viewing in EPA Freedom of Information 

Act review room on the 7th floor from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call 

(214) 665–6444 for appointments. The 

reference number for this docket is 

EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0457. The 

public may copy material from any 

regulatory docket at no cost for the first 

100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page 

for additional copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Banipal, Section Chief of the Corrective 

Action and Waste Minimization 

Section, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division (6PD–C), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202. For technical information 

concerning this notice, contact 

Youngmoo Kim, Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, (6PD–C), Dallas, Texas 75202, 

at (214) 665–6788, or 

kim.youngmoo@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Why is EPA approving this action? 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

D. How will Cooper Crouse-Hinds manage 

the waste if it is delisted? 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting? 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did Cooper Crouse-Hinds 

petition EPA to delist? 

B. How much waste did Cooper CrouseHinds propose to delist? 

C. How did Cooper Crouse-Hinds sample 

and analyze the waste data in this 

petition? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

After evaluating the petition, EPA 

proposed on September 23, 2008, to 

exclude the WWTP sludge from the lists 

of hazardous waste under 40 CFR 

261.31 and 261.32 (see 73 FR 54770). 

EPA is finalizing the decision to grant 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds’ delisting petition 

to have its WWTP sludge managed and 

disposed as non-hazardous waste 

provided certain verification and 

monitoring conditions are met. 

B. Why is EPA approving this action? 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds’ petition 

requests a delisting from the F006 waste 

listing under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds does not believe 

that the petitioned waste meets the 

criteria for which EPA listed it. Cooper 

Crouse-Hinds also believes no 

additional constituents or factors could 

cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA’s 

review of this petition included 

consideration of the original listing 

criteria and the additional factors 

required by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984. See section 

3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 

40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4) (hereinafter all 

sectional references are to 40 CFR 

unless otherwise indicated). In making 

the final delisting determination, EPA 

evaluated the petitioned waste against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 

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

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is non-hazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

as originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition. EPA 

evaluated the waste with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the waste is 

acutely toxic, the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste, their tendency 

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 

persistence in the environment once 

released from the waste, plausible and 

specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 

generated, and waste variability. EPA 

believes that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s final 

decision to delist waste from Cooper 

Crouse-Hinds’ facility is based on the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17420 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

information submitted in support of this 

rule, including descriptions of the 

wastes and analytical data from the 

Amarillo, Texas facility. 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

This exclusion applies to the waste 

described in the petition only if the 

requirements described in 40 CFR part 

261, Appendix IX, Table 1 and the 

conditions contained herein are 

satisfied. 

D. How will Cooper Crouse-Hinds 

manage the waste if it is delisted? 

The sludge from Cooper Crouse-Hinds 

will be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle 

D landfill. 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

This rule is effective April 15, 2009. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended Section 

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

allows rules to become effective less 

than six months after the rule is 

published when the regulated 

community does not need the six-month 

period to come into compliance. That is 

the case here because this rule reduces, 

rather than increases, the existing 

requirements for persons generating 

hazardous waste. This reduction in 

existing requirements also provides a 

basis for making this rule effective 

immediately, upon publication, under 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 

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

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program, only states subject to Federal 

RCRA delisting provisions will be 

affected. This would exclude states 

which have received authorization from 

EPA to make their own delisting 

decisions. 

EPA allows states to impose their own 

non-RCRA regulatory requirements that 

are more stringent than EPA’s, under 

section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. 

These more stringent requirements may 

include a provision that prohibits a 

Federally issued exclusion from taking 

effect in the state. Because a dual system 

(that is, both Federal (RCRA) and State 

(non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a 

petitioner’s waste, EPA urges petitioners 

to contact the State regulatory authority 

to establish the status of their wastes 

under the State law. 

EPA has also authorized some states 

(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma, 

Georgia, and Illinois) to administer a 

RCRA delisting program in place of the 

Federal program; that is, to make state 

delisting decisions. Therefore, this 

exclusion does not apply in those 

authorized states unless that state makes 

the rule part of its authorized program. 

If Cooper Crouse-Hinds transports the 

petitioned waste to or manages the 

waste in any state with delisting 

authorization, Cooper Crouse-Hinds 

must obtain delisting authorization from 

that state before it can manage the waste 

as non-hazardous in the state. 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA, or another agency 

with jurisdiction, to exclude or delist 

from the RCRA list of hazardous waste, 

certain wastes the generator believes 

should not be considered hazardous 

under RCRA. 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22, facilities 

may petition EPA to remove their 

wastes from hazardous waste regulation 

by excluding them from the lists of 

hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition 

the Administrator to modify or revoke 

any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 

through 265 and 268. Section 260.22 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste from a particular generating 

facility from the hazardous waste lists. 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

Petitioners must provide sufficient 

information to EPA to allow EPA to 

determine that the waste to be excluded 

does not meet any of the criteria under 

which the waste was listed as a 

hazardous waste. Based on the 

information supplied by the generator, 

the Administrator must determine 

whether factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed could cause the 

waste to be a hazardous waste. The 

generator must also supply information 

to demonstrate that the waste does not 

exhibit any of the characteristics 

defined in § 261.21–§ 261.24. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did Cooper Crouse-Hinds 

petition EPA to delist? 

On March 13, 2008, Cooper CrouseHinds petitioned EPA to exclude from 

the lists of hazardous wastes contained 

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, WWTP sludge 

listed as F006 generated by its facility 

located in Amarillo, Texas. The waste 

falls under the classification of listed 

waste pursuant to § 261.31. 

B. How much waste did Cooper CrouseHinds propose to delist? 

Specifically, in its petition, Cooper 

Crouse-Hinds requested that EPA grant 

an exclusion for 816 cubic yards per 

year of WWTP sludge. 

C. How did Cooper Crouse-Hinds 

sample and analyze the waste data in 

this petition? 

To support its petition, Cooper 

Crouse-Hinds submitted: 

• Historical information on waste 

generation and management practices; 

• Results of the total constituents list 

for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX 

volatile and semi-volatile organic 

compounds and metals. These wastes 

were also analyzed for cyanide and 

sulfide. 

• Results of the constituent list for 

appendix IX on Toxicity Characteristic 

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for 

volatiles, semi-volatiles, and metals. 

• Results from total oil and grease 

analyses and multiple pH 

measurements, and 

• Results from four samples for total 

concentrations of compounds of 

concern (COCs). 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

No comments were received on the 

Proposed Rule during the comment 

period. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review ’’ (58 

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

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 17421 

final rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’, 

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

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Similarly, because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this final rule 

does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report which includes a 

copy of the rule to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

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

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

6921(f). 

Dated: March 13, 2009. 

Connie Suttice, 

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division Region 6. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 

261, add the following waste stream (in 

alphabetical order by facility to read as 

follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds .............. Amarillo, TX ...... Wastewater Treatment Sludge (Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated at a maximum annual rate of 816 cubic yards per calendar year after April 15, 2009 and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill. 

For the exclusion to be valid, Cooper Crouse-Hinds must implement a verification testing 

program that meets the following Paragraphs: 

(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum 

allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph. 

WWTP Sludge Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): 

(i) Inorganic Constituents: 

Arsenic-0.0759; Barium-100; Cadmium-0.819; Copper-216; Iron-1.24; Manganese-145; 

Nickel-119; Zinc-18. 

(ii) Organic Constituents: 

Benzene-0.5. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous can not begin until compliance with the limits set 

in paragraph (1) for WWTP sludge has occurred for two consecutive quarterly sampling 

events. 

(B) If constituent levels in any sample taken by Cooper Crouse-Hinds exceed any of the 

delisting levels set in paragraph (1) for the WWTP sludge, Cooper Crouse-Hinds must do 

the following: 

(i) Notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and 

(ii) Manage and dispose WWTP sludge as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C 

of RCRA. 

(3) Testing Requirements: 

Upon this exclusion becoming final, Cooper Crouse-Hinds may perform quarterly analytical 

testing by sampling and analyzing the WWTP sludge as follows: 

(A) Quarterly Testing: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17422 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(i) Collect two representative composite samples of the sludge at quarterly intervals 

after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples may be taken at any 

time after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling must be performed in accordance 

with the sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion. 

(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any composite sample taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the sludge must 

be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste 

requirements. 

(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking its first quarterly sample, Cooper Crouse-Hinds 

will report its first quarterly analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the sludge do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) 

of this exclusion for two consecutive quarters, Cooper Crouse-Hinds can manage and 

dispose the non-hazardous WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(B) Annual Testing: 

(i) If Cooper Crouse-Hinds completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) 

above and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set 

forth in paragraph (1), Cooper Crouse-Hinds may begin annual testing as follows: 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds must test two representative composite samples of the WWTP 

sludge for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. 

(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative composite sample according to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of 

concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 

40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 

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

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

Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the 

Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the WWTP sludge is representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). 

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

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

(iv) The annual testing report should include the total amount of delisted waste in cubic 

yards disposed as non-hazardous waste during the calendar year. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Cooper Crouse-Hinds significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or 

could affect the composition or type of waste generated (by illustration, but not limitation, 

changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), it must notify 

EPA in writing and it may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process 

as non-hazardous until the wastes meet the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and it has 

received written approval to do so from EPA. 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds must submit a modification to the petition, complete with full sampling 

and analysis, for circumstances where the waste volume changes and/or additional waste 

codes are added to the waste stream, if it wishes to dispose of the material as non-hazardous. 

(5) Data Submittals: 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds must submit the information described below. If Cooper Crouse-Hinds 

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

on-site for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (6). Cooper Crouse-Hinds must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Chief, Corrective Action and 

Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas, 75202, within the 

time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or comparable electronic media. 

(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained onsite for a minimum of five years. 

(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests them 

for inspection. 

(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest 

to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted: 

‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent 

statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, 

which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify 

that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and 

complete. 

‘‘As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify 

its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that 

this information is true, accurate and complete. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 17423 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

‘‘If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate 

or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree 

that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by 

EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void 

exclusion.’’ 

(6) Re-opener: 

(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste Cooper Crouse-Hinds possesses or is 

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

data or ground water monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher 

than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the 

facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) If either the quarterly or annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph (1), Cooper Crouse-Hinds must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(C) If Cooper Crouse-Hinds fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), 

(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires 

EPA action to protect human health and/or the environment. Further action may include 

suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect 

human health and the environment. 

(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information requires action by EPA, 

the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The 

facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present such 

information. 

(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (6)(D) or (if 

no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written 

determination describing EPA actions that are necessary to protect human health and/or 

the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination 

shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(7) Notification Requirements: 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds must do the following before transporting the delisted waste. Failure 

to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible 

revocation of the decision. 

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

through which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days 

before beginning such activities. 

(B) Update the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted waste into a different disposal facility. 

(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a 

possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–8651 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R05–RCRA–2008–0711; FRL–8788–9] 

Wisconsin: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is granting Wisconsin 

final authorization of the changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). The agency published a 

proposed rule on November 24, 2008 at 

73 FR 70931 and provided for public 

comment. The public comment period 

ended on December 24, 2008. We 

received no comments. No further 

opportunity for comment will be 

provided. EPA has determined that 

these changes satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for final authorization, 

and is proposing to authorize the State’s 

changes. This final rule authorizes the 

renumbering and revision of 

Wisconsin’s previously authorized 

regulations. 

DATES: The final authorization will be 

effective on April 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2008–0711. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some of 

the information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES