Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49187

ANE MA D Worcester, MA [Revised] 

Worcester Regional Airport, MA 

(Lat. 42°16′02′′ N, long. 71°52′32′′ W) 

Spencer Airport, MA 

(Lat. 42°17′26′′ N, long. 71°57′53′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 3,500 feet MSL 

within a 4.2-mile radius of Worcester 

Regional Airport, excluding that airspace 

from the surface up to but not including 

1,900 feet MSL within a 1-mile radius of the 

Spencer Airport. This Class D airspace area 

is effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Airport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Issued in Jamaica, New York, on August 

17, 2005. 

John G. McCartney, 

Acting Area Director, Eastern Terminal 

Operations.

[FR Doc. 05–16740 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA–2005–21226; Airspace 

Docket No. 05–ASO–8] 

Establishment of Class E Airspace; 

Marion, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class 

E airspace at Marion, KY. Area 

Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning 

System (GPS) Standard Instrument 

Approach Procedures (SIAP) Runway 

(RWY) 7 and RWY 25 have been 

developed for Marion-Crittenden 

County Airport. As a result, controlled 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is 

needed to contain the SIAPs and for 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations 

at Marion-Crittenden County Airport. 

The operating status of the airport will 

change from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) 

to include IFR operations concurrent 

with the publication of the SIAP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 27, 

2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Ward, Manager, Airspace and 

Operations Branch, Eastern En Route 

and Oceanic Service Area, Federal 

Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 

20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; 

telephone (404) 305–5586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On June 8, 2005, the FAA proposed to 

amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by 

establishing Class E airspace at Marion, 

KY, (70 FR 33403). This action provides 

adequate Class E airspace for IFR 

operations at Marion-Crittenden County 

Airport. Designations for Class E 

airspace areas extending upward from 

700 feet or more above the surface of the 

earth are published in FAA Order 

7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, and 

effective September 16, 2004, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

part 71.1. The Class E designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in this Order. 

Interested parties were invited to 

participate in this rulemaking 

proceeding by submitting written 

comments on the proposal to the FAA. 

No comments objecting to the proposal 

were received. 

The Rule 

This amendment to part 71 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 71) establishes Class E airspace at 

Marion, KY. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as 

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; 

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING 

POINTS

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 71 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 

CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9L, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated September 2, 2003, and effective 

September 16, 2003, is amended as 

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward from 700 feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Marion, KY [NEW] 

Marion-Crittenden County Airport, KY 

(Lat. 37°20′04′′ N, long. 88°06′54′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.7—radius of 

Marion-Crittenden County Airport; excluding 

that airspace within the Sturgis, KY, Class E 

airspace area.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 29, 

2005. 

Mark D. Ward, 

Acting Area Director, Air Traffic Division, 

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 05–16746 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–7957–6] 

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 petitions 

submitted by Shell Oil Company (Shell 

Oil Company) to exclude (or delist) 

certain wastes generated by its Houston, 

TX Deer Park facility from the lists of 

hazardous wastes. This final rule 

responds to petitions submitted by Shell 

Oil Company to delist F039 and F037 

wastes. The F039 waste is generated 

from the refinery wastewater treatment 

plant, North Effluent Treater (NET) and 

49188 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

primary solids from Shell Chemical and 

the South Effluent Treatment (SET). The 

F037 waste North Pond Sludge is 

generated from the process wastewater, 

gravel and road base that has settled 

from storm water flow to the pond. 

After careful analysis and use of the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS), EPA has concluded the 

petitioned wastes are not hazardous 

waste. The F039 exclusion applies to 

3.36 million gallons per year (16,619 

cubic yards) of multi-source landfill 

leachate. The F037 exclusion is a one 

time exclusion for 15,000 cubic yards of 

the sludge. Accordingly, this final rule 

excludes the petitioned wastes from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23, 2005.

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 

9 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 F–

04–TEXDEL–Shell Oil. 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 Michelle 

Peace, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202, at (214) 665–7430, or 

peace.michelle@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 Shell Oil Company manage 

the wastes, if they are 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 Shell Oil Company 

petition EPA to delist? 

B. How much waste did Shell Oil 

Company propose to delist? 

A. How did Shell Oil Company sample and 

analyze the waste data in these petitions? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusions 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rules? 

B. Where were the comments and what are 

EPA’s responses to them? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing? 

After evaluating the petitions for Shell 

Oil Company, EPA proposed, on 

December 28, 2004 and February 9, 

2005, respectively, to exclude the 

wastes from the lists of hazardous waste 

under § 261.31. EPA is finalizing: 

(1) The decision to grant Shell Oil 

Company’s delisting petition to have its 

F039 multi-source landfill leachate 

underlying the Minimum Technology 

Requirements (MTR) hazardous waste 

landfill excluded, or delisted, from the 

definition of a hazardous waste; and 

subject to certain verification and 

monitoring conditions; and 

(2) The decision to grant Shell Oil 

Company’s delisting petition to have its 

North Pond F037 sludge excluded, or 

delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste, once it is disposed in 

a Subtitle D landfill. 

B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action? 

Shell Oil Company’s petitions request 

a delisting from the F039 and F037 

wastes listing under 40 CFR 260.20 and 

260.22. Shell Oil Company does not 

believe that the petitioned waste meets 

the criteria for which EPA listed it. 

Shell Oil Company also believes no 

additional constituents or factors could 

cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA’s 

review of these petitions included 

consideration of the original listing 

criteria, and the additional factors 

required by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4) 

(hereinafter all sectional references are 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 

In making the final delisting 

determination, EPA evaluated the 

petitioned wastes 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 wastes are nonhazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. (If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition.) EPA 

evaluated the wastes with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the wastes to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the wastes are 

acutely toxic, the concentrations of the 

constituents in the wastes, 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 wastes do not meet the listing 

criteria and thus should not be listed 

wastes. EPA’s final decision to delist 

wastes from Shell Oil Company’s 

facility is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical data from the Deer Park, TX 

facility. 

C. What Are the Limits of This 

Exclusion? 

This exclusion applies to the waste 

described in the Shell Oil Company 

petitions only if the requirements 

described in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix 

IX, Table 1 and the conditions 

contained herein are satisfied.

D. How Will Shell Oil Company Manage 

the Wastes, If They Are Delisted? 

If the multi-source landfill leachate is 

delisted, Shell Oil Company will make 

piping modifications to allow the 

leachate to be routed to the North 

Effluent Treater (NET) for treatment. 

After its treatment, the multi-source 

landfill leachate will be discharged 

through a TPDES-permitted outfall in 

compliance with its TPDES permit. If 

F037 North Pond Sludge is delisted, 

Shell Oil Company will dispose of it in 

a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, 

licensed, or registered by a state to 

manage industrial waste. 

E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion 

Effective? 

This rule is effective August 23, 2005. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended section 

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

allow rules to become effective in less 

than six months after the rule is 

published when the regulated 

community does not need the six-month 

period to come into compliance. That is 

the case here because this rule reduces, 

rather than increases, the existing 

requirements for persons generating 

hazardous waste. This reduction in 

existing requirements also provides a 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49189

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 would 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, 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 Shell 

Oil Company transports the petitioned 

waste to or manages the waste in any 

state with delisting authorization, Shell 

Oil Company must obtain delisting 

authorization from that state before it 

can manage the waste as nonhazardous 

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, 

waste the generator believes should not 

be considered hazardous under RCRA. 

B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To 

Delist a Waste? 

Under 40 CFR 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. In addition, the 

Administrator must determine, where 

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe 

that factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed could cause the 

waste to be a hazardous waste and that 

such factors do not warrant retaining the 

waste as a hazardous waste. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What Wastes Did Shell Oil Company 

Petition EPA To Delist? 

On January 29, 2003, Shell Oil 

Company petitioned EPA to exclude 

from the lists of hazardous waste 

contained in § 261.31, multi-source 

landfill leachate (F039) generated from 

its facility located in Deer Park, TX. 

Then on December 30, 2003, Shell Oil 

Company petitioned EPA to exclude 

from the lists of hazardous waste 

contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, F037 

North Pond Sludge. 

B. How Much Waste Did Shell Oil 

Company Propose To Delist? 

Shell Oil Company requested that 

EPA grant an exclusion for 3.36 million 

gallons (16,619 cu. yards) per year of the 

multi-source landfill leachate in its 

January 29, 2003 petition. In the 

December 30, 2003 petition, Shell Oil 

Company requested that EPA grant a 

one time exclusion for 15,000 cubic 

yards of the F037 North Pond Sludge. 

C. How Did Shell Oil Company Sample 

and Analyze the Waste Data in These 

Petitions? 

To support its petitions, Shell Oil 

Company submitted: 

(1) Historical information on past 

waste generation and management 

practices including analytical data from 

eleven samples collected in September 

2003 for the F037 North Pond Sludge 

and four samples of combined leachate 

data for the F039 multi-source landfill 

leachate; 

(2) Results of the total constituent list 

for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX 

volatiles, semivolatiles, metals, 

pesticides, herbicides, dioxins and PCBs 

for the F037 North Pond Sludge and the 

F039 multi-source landfill leachate; 

(3) Results of the constituent list for 

40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX on 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles, 

semivolatiles, and metals for the F037 

North Pond Sludge and the F039 multisource landfill leachate; 

(4) Analytical constituents of concern 

for F037 and F039; 

(5) Results from total oil and grease 

analyses; 

(6) Multiple pH testing for the 

petitioned wastes. 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusions 

A. Who Submitted Comments on the 

Proposed Rules? 

No comments were received on the 

proposed rule for the F037 wastes. 

Comments were submitted by Shell 

Deer Park Refining Company (Shell) to 

correct information contained in the 

proposed rule for F039.

B. What Were the Comments and What 

Are EPA’s Responses to Them? 

Shell noted that Chloronated Plate 

Interceptor should be Corrugated Plate 

Interceptor. EPA has noted this and 

made appropriate changes in the final 

rule and exclusion language to reflect 

this change. 

Shell noted that: (1) the compound pcresol (4-methlyphenol) should be 

added to Table I; and (2) the compound 

trichloropropane should be deleted from 

Table I as this constituent was not 

detected in any of the samples above the 

reporting level. 

The compound p-cresol (4-

methlyphenol) appears in Table 1.—

Waste Excluded From the Non-Specific 

Sources as ‘‘Cresol, p.’’ EPA has made 

the appropriate change to read p-Cresol. 

The compound trichloropropane 

estimated value of 0.00025 mg/l was 

reported in the revised analyses on 

October 11, 2004, Combined Leachate 

Data, and thus it will not be deleted. 

Shell requested: (1) that the following 

constituents be deleted from Table 1—

Wastes Excluded from Non-Specific 

Sources in the exclusion language to be 

consistent with Table I in Section III. D 

in the preamble of the proposed rule: 

Thallium, Acrylonitrile, Bis (2-

chlorethyl) ether, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) 

phthlate, Dichlorobenzene 1,3, 

Dimethoate, Dimethylphenol 2,4, 

Dinitrophenol, Dinitrotoluene 2,6, 

Diphenylhydrazine, Dichloroethylene 

1,1, Kepone, Methacrylonitrile, 

Methanol, Nitrobenzene, 

Nitrosodiethylamine, 

Nitrosodimethylamine, Nitrosodi-nbutylamine, N-Nitrodi-n-propylamine, 

N-Nitrosopiperdine, NVerDate jul<14>2003 16:13 Aug 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1
49190 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Nitrosopyrrolidine, NNitrosomethylethylamine, PCBs, 

Pentachlorophenol, Pyridine, 

Trichloropropane, Vinyl Chloride; and 

(2) that the compound phenanthrene 

should be added with a delisting level 

of 1.36 mg/L to be consistent with Table 

I in Section III. D. 

EPA has made the deletions as 

prescribed. EPA has added the 

compound phenanthrene with a 

delisting level of 1.36 mg/L to Table 1.—

Waste Excluded From Non-Specific 

Sources. EPA also added compounds 

toluene, fluorene, and vanadium 

because they were inadvertently left off 

of Table 1—Wastes Excluded from NonSpecific Sources. 

Shell noted that in the exclusion 

language paragraph (3)(A)(i) of Table 

1—Waste Excluded from Non-Specific 

Sources, the number of samples to be 

collected within the first 60 days should 

be changed from eight to four. Also in 

paragraph (3)(B) for subsequent 

verification sampling, Shell Oil 

Company requested that the number of 

samples per quarter be changed from 

two to one. Previous discussions 

between EPA and Shell Oil Company 

were based on two different waste 

streams. Since this is one stream, EPA 

will allow the changes in the number of 

samples collected and the number of 

samples taken per quarter. 

In addition, on October 30, 2002, (67 

FR 66251), EPA proposed the Methods 

Innovation Rule to remove from the 

regulations unnecessary requirements 

other than those considered to be 

Method Defined Parameters (MDP). An 

MDP is a method that, by definition or 

design, is the only one capable of 

measuring the particular property (e.g.

Method 1311–TCLP). Therefore, EPA is 

no longer generally requiring the use of 

only SW–846 methods for regulatory 

applications other than those involving 

MDPs. The general purpose of this rule 

is to allow more flexibility when 

conducting RCRA-related sampling and 

analysis activities. We retained only 

those methods considered to be MDPs 

in the regulations and incorporate them 

by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. EPA is 

changing Shell’s delisting exclusion 

language found in paragraph (3) of the 

F039 exclusion language to reflect the 

generic language placed in all delisting 

exclusions as a result of the Methods 

Innovation Rule (70 FR 34537) which 

was finalized on June 14, 2005.

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). Because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as specified in section 203 

of UMRA. Because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this final rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. Similarly, 

because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this final rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

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

6921(f)

Dated: August 10, 2005. 

Carl E. Edlund, 

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, Region 6.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

40 CFR part 261 is to be 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

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49191

TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Shell Oil Company .... Deer Park, TX .. North Pond Sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F037) generated one time at a volume of 15,000 

cubic yards August 23, 2005 and disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. This is a one time exclusion and 

applies to 15,000 cubic yards of North Pond Sludge. 

(1) Reopener: 

(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Shell 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 Shell fails to submit the information described in paragraph (A) 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 or the environment. Further 

action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary 

to protect human health and the environment. 

(C) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require EPA action, 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. 

(D) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (C) or if no information is presented under paragraph (C), the Division Director will issue a final written determination 

describing the actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, 

unless the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(2) Notification Requirements: Shell 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 

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

activities. 

(B) Update the one-time written notification, if they ship the delisted waste to 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. 

Shell Oil Company .... Deer Park, TX .. Multi-source landfill leachate (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F039) generated at a maximum annual rate 

of 3.36 million gallons (16,619 cu. yards) per calendar year after August 23, 2005 and disposed in 

accordance with the TPDES permit. 

The delisting levels set do not relieve Shell Oil Company of its duty to comply with the limits set in its 

TPDES permit. For the exclusion to be valid, Shell Oil Company must implement a verification testing program that meets the following paragraphs: 

(1) Delisting Levels: All total concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/l). The petitioner must analyze the aqueous waste on a total basis to measure constituents 

in the multi-source landfill leachate. 

Multi-source landfill leachate (i) Inorganic Constituents Antimony-0.0204; Arsenic-0.385; Barium-2.92; 

Copper-418.00; Chromium-5.0; Cobalt-2.25; Nickel-1.13; Selenium-0.0863; Thallium-0.005; Vanadium-0.838

(ii) Organic Constituents Acetone-1.46; Acetophenone-1.58; Benzene-0.0222; p-Cresol-0.0788; Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthlate-15800.00; Dichloroethane, 1,2–0.0803; Ethylbenzene-4.51; Fluorene-1.87; 

Napthalene-1.05; Phenol-9.46; Phenanthrene-1.36; Pyridine-0.0146; 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents as 

TEQ–0.0000926; Toluene-4.43; Trichloropropane-0.000574; Xylenes (total)-97.60

(2) Waste Management: 

(A) Shell Oil Company must manage as hazardous all multi-source landfill leachate generated, until it 

has completed initial verification testing described in paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, and 

valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied. 

(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the multi-source landfill leachate that do not 

exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. Shell Oil Company can manage 

and dispose of the non-hazardous multi-source landfill leachate according to all applicable solid 

waste regulations. 

(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels set in paragraph (1), Shell Oil 

Company can collect one additional sample and perform expedited analyses to verify if the constituent exceeds the delisting level. If this sample confirms the exceedance, Shell Oil Company 

must, from that point forward, treat the waste as hazardous until it is demonstrated that the waste 

again meets the levels in paragraph (1). 

(D) If the facility has not treated the waste, Shell Oil Company must manage and dispose of the 

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

49192 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(E) Upon completion of the Verification Testing described in paragraph 3(A) and (B) as appropriate 

and the transmittal of the results to EPA, and if the testing results meet the requirements of paragraph (1), Shell Oil Company may proceed to manage its multi-source landfill leachate as non-hazardous waste. If Subsequent Verification Testing indicates an exceedance of the delisting levels in 

paragraph (1), Shell Oil Company must manage the multi-source landfill leachate as a hazardous 

waste until two consecutive quarterly testing samples show levels below the delisting levels in 

Table I. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: Shell Oil Company must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, using 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 used must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives demonstrate that 

representative samples of the Shell-Deer Park multi-source landfill leachate are collected and meet 

the delisting levels in paragraph (1). 

(A) Initial Verification Testing: After EPA grants the final exclusion, Shell Oil Company must do the 

following: 

(i) Within 60 days of this exclusions becoming final, collect four samples, before disposal, of the 

multi-source landfill leachate. 

(ii) The samples are to be analyzed and compared against the delisting levels in paragraph (1). 

(iii) Within sixty (60) days after this exclusion becomes final, Shell Oil Company will report initial 

verification analytical test data for the multi-source landfill leachate, including analytical quality control information for the first thirty (30) days of operation after this exclusion becomes final. If levels 

of constituents measured in the samples of the multi-source landfill leachate that do not exceed 

the levels set forth in paragraph (1) are also non-hazardous in two consecutive quarters after the 

first thirty (30) days of operation after this exclusion become effective, Shell Oil Company can 

manage and dispose of the multi-source landfill leachate according to all applicable solid waste 

regulations. 

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following written notification by EPA, Shell Oil Company may 

substitute the testing conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A). Shell Oil Company must continue to monitor 

operating conditions, and analyze one representative sample of the multi-source landfill leachate 

for each quarter of operation during the first year of waste generation. The sample must represent 

the waste generated during the quarter. After the first year of analytical sampling verification sampling can be performed on a single annual sample of the multi-source landfill leachate. The results 

are to be compared to the delisting levels in paragraph (1). 

(C) Termination of Testing: 

(i) After the first year of quarterly testing, if the delisting levels in paragraph (1) are being met, Shell 

Oil Company may then request that EPA not require quarterly testing. After EPA notifies Shell Oil 

Company in writing, the company may end quarterly testing. 

(ii) Following cancellation of the quarterly testing, Shell Oil Company must continue to test a representative sample for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) annually. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Shell Oil Company significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could significantly affect the composition or type of waste generated as established under paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing; it may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new 

process as nonhazardous until the wastes meet the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and it has 

received written approval to do so from EPA. 

(5) Data Submittals: Shell Oil Company must submit the information described below. If Shell Oil 

Company 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. Shell Oil Company must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, Region 6 Corrective Action 

and Waste Minimization Section, EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Mail Code, 

(6PD–C) within the time specified. 

(B) Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and 

maintained on-site for a minimum of five years. 

(C) Furnish these records and data when EPA or the state of Texas request 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49193

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) Reopener: 

(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Shell Oil Company possesses or is otherwise 

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

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

identified for the delisting verification testing is at a 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 the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, Shell 

Oil Company 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 Shell Oil Company 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 does require action, he 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 

action by EPA 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 Division Director will issue a final written determination describing the 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: Shell Oil Company 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 exclusion and a possible 

revocation of the decision. 

*******

[FR Doc. 05–16688 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

45 CFR Part 2102

Procedures and Policies Amendment

AGENCY: The Commission of Fine Arts.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

procedures and policies governing the 

administration of the U.S. Commission 

of Fine Arts. This document serves to 

establish a Consent Calendar and to 

clarify the functions and requirements 

of a Consent Calendar and Appendices 

for the review of projects submitted to 

the Commission in order to address 

more efficiently the needs of the Federal 

government and the public.

DATES: Effective September 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Luebke, Secretary, (202) 504–

2200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

established by Congress in 1910, the 

Commission of Fine Arts is a small 

independent advisory body made up of 

seven Presidentially appointed ‘‘well 

qualified judges of the arts’’ whose 

primary role is architectural review of 

designs for buildings, parks, monuments 

and memorials erected by the Federal or 

District of Columbia governments in 

Washington, DC. In addition to 

architectural review, the Commission 

considers and advises on the designs for 

coins, medals and U.S. memorials on 

foreign soil. The Commission also 

advises the District of Columbia 

government on private building projects 

within the Georgetown Historic District, 

the Rock Creek Park perimeter and the 

Monumental Core area. The 

Commission advises Congress, the 

President, Federal agencies, and the 

District of Columbia government on the 

general subjects of design, historic 

preservation and on orderly planning on 

matters within its jurisdiction. 

The regulations amended with this 

rule were last published in the Federal 

Register on January 31, 1997 (45 CFR 

Parts 2101, 2102, 2103). Specific items 

this document amends include 

providing the current address and 

telephone number of the agency, and 

clarifying a series of procedural 

functions. Therefore, as these changes 

clarify established and new procedures, 

and are minor in nature, the 

Commission determines that notice and 

comment are unnecessary and that, in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

good cause to waive notice and 

comment is established.