Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54713 

must be printed on each piece claimed 

at the respective price. The basic 

required marking must be placed in the 

postage area (printed or produced as 

part of, or directly below or to the left 

of, the permit imprint indicia or meter 

stamp or impression). Optionally, the 

basic required marking may be printed 

on the shipping address label as service 

indicators composed of a service icon 

and service banner (see Exhibit 2.2.1): 

a. The service icon that identifies the 

marking will be a 1-inch solid black 

square. If the service icon is used, it 

must appear in the upper left corner of 

the shipping label. 

b. The service banner must appear 

directly below the postage payment area 

and the service icon, and it must extend 

across the shipping label. If the service 

banner is used, the appropriate marking 

(e.g., ‘‘PARCEL SELECT’’, ‘‘MEDIA 

MAIL’’) must be preceded by the text 

‘‘USPS’’ and must be printed in 

minimum 20-point bold sans serif 

typeface, uppercase letters, centered 

within the banner, and bordered above 

and below by minimum 1-point 

separator lines. There must be a 1⁄16- 

inch clearance above and below the text. 

[Revise the heading of exhibit 2.2.1 as 

follows:] 

Exhibit 2.2.1 Marking Indicator 

Examples 

[Revise Exhibit 2.2.1 by replacing 

‘‘USPS PARCEL POST’’ WITH ‘‘USPS 

PARCEL SELECT’’.] 

2.2.2 Parcel Select Markings 

[Revise the text in 2.2.2 as follows:] 

Each piece in a Parcel Select mailing 

must bear a price marking. Markings 

must appear in either the postage area 

described in 2.2.1 or in the address area 

on the line directly above or two lines 

above the address if the marking 

appears alone (when no other 

information appears on that line). The 

‘‘Parcel Post’’ marking is not allowed on 

any Parcel Select mailpiece. The 

following product markings are 

required: 

a. Destination Entry—‘‘Parcel Select’’. 

b. BMC Presort—‘‘Parcel Select BMC 

Presort’’ or ‘‘Parcel Select BMC PRSRT’’. 

c. OBMC Presort (Inter-BMC)— 

‘‘Parcel Select OBMC Presort’’ or 

‘‘Parcel Select OBMC PRSRT’’. 

d. Barcoded Intra-BMC and Barcoded 

Inter-BMC—‘‘Parcel Select Barcoded’’ or 

‘‘Parcel Select BC’’. 

[Delete 2.2.3 in its entirety and 

renumber current 2.2.4 through 2.2.7 as 

2.2.3 through 2.2.6] 

* * * * * 

450 Parcel Select 

* * * * * 

455 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

1.0 General Information for Mail 

Preparation 

* * * * * 

1.8 Parcel Select Markings 

[Revise text of 1.8 as follows:] 

Each piece in a Parcel Select mailing 

must bear a price marking. Markings 

must appear in either the postage area 

described in 402.2.2.1 or in the address 

area on the line directly above or two 

lines above the address if the marking 

appears alone (when no other 

information appears on that line). The 

‘‘Parcel Post’’ marking is not allowed on 

any Parcel Select mailpiece. The 

following product markings are 

required: 

a. Destination Entry—‘‘Parcel Select’’. 

b. BMC Presort—‘‘Parcel Select BMC 

Presort’’ or ‘‘Parcel Select BMC PRSRT’’. 

c. OBMC Presort (Inter-BMC)— 

‘‘Parcel Select OBMC Presort’’ or 

‘‘Parcel Select OBMC PRSRT’’. 

d. Barcoded Intra-BMC and Barcoded 

Inter-BMC—‘‘Parcel Select Barcoded’’ or 

‘‘Parcel Select BC’’. 

* * * * * 

Neva Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. E8–22075 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0455; SW–FRL– 

8713–3] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is issuing a final rule to 

add the name of Structural Metals, Inc, 

to the exclusion granted to Conversion 

Systems Inc., (CSI) on June 13, 1995. As 

described in the exclusion issued to CSI 

in paragraph (1)(B), the Agency shall 

add the location of the treatment facility 

and the name of the steel mill 

contracting CSI’s services. This rule 

adds the location of U.S. Ecology, Texas 

Ecology in Robstown, Texas as the 

treatment facility and Structural Metals, 

Inc. as the steel mill contracting the 

services of CSI. This rule also updates 

the 1995 exclusion to include 

Paragraphs (6) and (7), the Delisting 

Reopener language and Notification 

Requirements; and other updates 

regarding the disposal and submission 

of Quality Assurance Plan prior to 

submission of data for a new facility. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

23, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this 

direct final rule is located at 1445 Ross 

Avenue in the FOIA Review Room, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2008–0455. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

RCRA Branch, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202. The hard copy RCRA 

regulatory docket for this direct final 

rule, EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0455, is 

available for viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The public may copy 

material from the regulatory docket at 

$0.15 per page. EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 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: For 

further technical information 

concerning this document or for 

appointments to view the docket, 

contact Michelle Peace, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division, 

RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–C, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by 

calling 214–665–7430 or by e-mail at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

13, 1995 (60 FR 31107), EPA finalized 

a conditional multiple site exclusion to 

Conversion Systems Inc., in Horsham, 

Pennsylvania. In 1995, CSI petitioned 

EPA for a multiple site exclusion for 

chemically stabilized electric arc 

furnace dust (CSEAFD) resulting from 

the Super DetoxTM process as modified 

by CSI. The original Super DetoxTM


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
54714 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

process was developed by Bethlehem 

Steel Corporation and used at its 

Johnstown and Steelton, Pennsylvania 

facilities. Specifically, CSI was granted 

the exclusion for CSEAFD generated at 

the existing Sterling, Illinois facility at 

Northwestern Steel and future facilities 

to be constructed. CSI initially planned 

to construct twelve other facilities 

nationwide. The resulting CSEAFD is 

classified as K061 hazardous waste by 

virtue of the derived from rule. 

On March 20, 2006, CSI submitted a 

K061 Delisting Initial Verification 

Testing Report to EPA Region 6 in 

accordance with paragraph 1(A) of the 

exclusion. It lists Structural Metals Inc, 

as the new source and U.S. Ecology in 

Robstown, TX as the treatment location. 

The data package included sampling 

results from four (4) representative 

composite samples of the waste. This 

data was reviewed by EPA and also 

evaluated using the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS) currently 

used to evaluate new petitions. All 

constituent concentrations are below the 

delisting levels published in the 

exclusion and meet the current DRAS 

delisting exit levels. 

The Agency is also taking this time to 

update the 1995 CSI exclusion to make 

the following corrections and additions 

to the exclusion: 

(1) The address of the CSI facility has 

changed from Horsham, PA and is now 

located in Willow Grove, PA; 

(2) Reports should be submitted to the 

appropriate Regional Director or his/her 

designee and no longer the EPA 

Administrator; 

(3) New facilities added to this 

petition should submit and get EPA 

approval of their Quality Assurance 

Project Plans for the verification testing 

prior to requesting addition to the 

existing petition; and 

(4) Paragraphs (6) and (7) are added to 

the exclusion language. 

The purpose of paragraph (6), the 

Delisting Reopener Language, is to 

require the facility to disclose new or 

different information related to a 

condition at the facility or disposal of 

the waste, if it is pertinent to the 

delisting. The petitioner must also use 

this procedure, if the waste samples fail 

to meet the levels found in paragraph 

(3). This provision will allow EPA to 

reevaluate the exclusion, if a source 

provides new or additional information 

to EPA. EPA will evaluate the 

information on which it based the 

decision to see if it is still correct or if 

circumstances have changed so that the 

information is no longer correct or 

would cause EPA to deny the petition, 

if presented. 

This provision expressly requires the 

petitioner to report differing site 

conditions or assumptions used in the 

petition. Additionally, it requires the 

petitioner to report within 10 days of 

discovery, instances where testing 

indicates that delisting levels were not 

achieved and the waste was 

subsequently managed as nonhazardous waste. If EPA discovers such 

information itself or from a third party, 

it can act on it as appropriate. The 

language being proposed is similar to 

those provisions found in RCRA 

regulations governing no-migration 

petitions at § 268.6. 

It is EPA’s position that it has the 

authority under RCRA and the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551, et seq., to reopen a delisting 

decision. EPA may reopen a delisting 

decision when it receives new 

information that calls into question the 

assumptions underlying the delisting. 

EPA believes a clear statement of its 

authority in delisting is merited in light 

of EPA’s experience. See the Federal 

Register notice regarding Reynolds 

Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July 

14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December 

1, 1997) where the delisted waste 

leached at greater concentrations into 

the environment than the 

concentrations predicted when 

conducting the TCLP, leading EPA to 

repeal the delisting. If an immediate 

threat to human health and the 

environment presents itself, EPA will 

continue to address these situations on 

a case-by-case basis. Where necessary, 

EPA will make a good cause finding to 

justify emergency rulemaking. See APA 

section 553 (b)(3)(B). 

EPA is also adding paragraph (7), 

Notification Requirements. The 

treatment facility is required to notify 

State environmental agencies at least 60 

days before beginning the transport and 

disposal of delisted wastes. This 

notification would be require for the 

state where the treated waste is 

generated as well as states through 

which the waste is transported and 

disposed. 

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 

proposed 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 

proposed 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54715 

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 this 

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: August 29, 2008. 

Bill Luthans, 

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division, EPA Region 6. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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. Appendix IX to Part 261, Table 2— 

Wastes Excluded from Specific Sources 

is amended by adding the following 

entry in alphabetical order to 

‘‘Conversion Systems Inc.,’’ to read as 

follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

* * * * * 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

Conversion Systems, Inc.Willow Grove, PA Chemically Stabilized Electric Arc Furnace Dust (CSEAFD) that is generated by Conversion Systems Inc. 

(CSI) using the Super DetoxTM process as modified by CSI to treat EAFD (EPA Hazardous Waste No. 

K061) at the following sites and that is disposed of in Subtitle C landfills: 

Northwestern Steel, Sterling, Illinois after June 13, 1995. 

Structural Metals, Inc. treated at U.S. Ecology, Robstown, Texas after September 23, 2008. 

(1) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures must be performed 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. 

(A) Initial Verification Testing: During the first 20 operating days of full scale operation of a newly constructed Super DetoxTM treatment facility, CSI must analyze a minimum of four (4) composite samples 

of CSEAFD representative of the full 20-day period. Composites must be comprised of representative 

samples collected from every batch generated. The CSEAFD samples must be analyzed for the constituents listed in Condition (3). CSI must report the operational and analytical test data, including quality control information, obtained during this initial period no later than 60 days after the generation of 

the first batch of CSEAFD. 

(B) Addition of New Super DetoxTM Treatment Facilities to Exclusion: If the Agency’s review of the data 

obtained during initial verification testing indicates that the CSEAFD generated by a specific Super 

DetoxTM treatment facility consistently meets the delisting levels specified in Condition (3), the Agency 

will publish a notice adding to this exclusion the location of the new Super DetoxTM treatment facility 

and the name of the steel mill contracting CSI’s services. If the Agency’s review of the data obtained 

during initial verification testing indicates that the CSEAFD generated by a specific Super DetoxTM

treatment facility fails to consistently meet the conditions of this exclusion, the Agency will not publish 

the notice adding the new facility. 

(C) Subsequent Verification Testing: For the Sterling, Illinois facility and any new facility subsequently 

added to CSI’s conditional multiple-site exclusion, CSI must collect and analyze at least one composite 

sample of CSEAFD each month. The composite samples must be composed of representative samples collected from all batches treated in each month. The composite samples must be composed representative samples collected from all batches treated in each month. These monthly representative 

samples must be analyzed, prior to disposal of the CSEAFD, for the constituents listed in Condition 

(3). CSI may, at its discretion, analyze composite samples gathered more frequently to demonstrate 

that smaller batches of waste are non-hazardous. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: CSI must store as hazardous all CSEAFD generated until verification 

testing as specified in Conditions (1)(A) and (1)(C), as appropriate, is completed and valid analyses 

demonstrate that Condition (3) is satisfied. If the levels of constituents measured in the samples of 

CSEAFD do not exceed the levels set forth in Condition (3), then the CSEAFD is non-hazardous and 

may be managed and disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of 

the delisting levels set in Condition (3), the CSEAFD generated during the time period corresponding 

to this sample must be retreated until it meets these levels, or managed and disposed of in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA. CSEAFD generated by a new CSI treatment facility must be managed 

as a hazardous waste prior to the addition of the name and location of the facility to the exclusion. 

After addition of the new facility to the exclusion, CSEAFD generated during the verification testing in 

Condition (1)(A) is also non-hazardous, if the delisting levels in Condition (3) are satisfied. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
54716 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(3) Delisting Levels: All leachable constituents for those metals must not exceed the following levels 

(ppm): Antimony-0.06; Arsenic-0.50; Barium-7.6; Beryllium-0.010; Cadmium-0.050; Chromium-0.33; 

Lead-0.15; Mercury-0.009; Nickel-1.00; Selenium-0.16; Silver-0.30; Thallium-0.020; Vanadium-2.0; 

Zinc-70. Metal concentrations must be measured in the waste leachate by the method specified in 40 

CFR 261.24. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: After initiating subsequent testing described in Condition (1)(C), if 

CSI significantly changes the stabilization process established under Condition (1) (e.g., use of new 

stabilization reagents), CSI must notify the Agency in writing. After written approval by EPA, CSI may 

handle CSEAFD generated from the new process as non-hazardous, if the wastes meet the delisting 

levels set in Condition (3). 

(5) Data Submittals: CSI must submit the information described below. If CSI 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). CSI 

must: 

(A) At least one month prior to operation of a new Super DetoxTM treatment facility, CSI must notify, in 

writing, the EPA Regional Administrator or his designee, when the new Super DetoxTM treatment facility is scheduled to be on-line. The data obtained through paragraph 1(A) must be submitted to the Regional Administrator or his designee within the time period specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or some comparable electronic media. 

(B) CSI shall submit and receive EPA approval of the Quality Assurance Project Plan for data collection 

for each new facility added to this exclusion prior to conducting sampling events in paragraph 1(A). 

(C) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a 

minimum of five years. 

(D) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State agency requests them for inspection. 

(E) 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. 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 CSI, the treatment facility, or the steel 

mill possess or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or 

ground water monitoring 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 EPA in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to EPA within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) If subsequent verification testing of the waste as required by paragraph 1(C) does not meet the 

delisting requirements in paragraph 3 and the waste is subsequently managed as non-hazardous 

waste, CSI must report the data, in writing, to EPA within 10 days of first possessing or being made 

aware of that data. 

(C) If CSI fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, EPA will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires 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 EPA determines that the reported information requires action, EPA will notify the facility in writing of 

the actions it 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 explaining why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 

10 days from the date of EPA’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), EPA 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 EPA’s determination 

shall become effective immediately, unless EPA provides otherwise. 

(7) Notification Requirements: CSI or the treatment facility 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. 

* * * * * * * 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54717 

1When the 2007 cost recovery fee update rule 

was issued, we did not update this fee because it 

had been in effect less than one year. 72 FR 50884 

n.9 (table). 

[FR Doc. E8–22170 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 3000 

[WO–310–1310–PP–24 1A] 

RIN 1004–AE01 

Minerals Management: Adjustment of 

Cost Recovery Fees 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

mineral resources regulations to update 

some fees that cover the BLM’s cost of 

processing certain documents relating to 

its mineral programs and some filing 

fees for mineral-related documents. 

These updates include fees for actions 

such as lease applications, name 

changes, corporate mergers, and lease 

consolidations. 

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is 

effective October 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Spisak, Chief, Division of Fluid 

Minerals, 202–452–5061, or Cynthia 

Ellis, Regulatory Affairs Specialist, (202) 

452–5012. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may leave a message for these 

individuals with the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week. 

ADDRESSES: You may send inquiries or 

suggestions to Director (630), Bureau of 

Land Management, MS–LS 401, 1849 C 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; 

Attention: RIN 1004–AE01. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The BLM has specific authority to 

charge fees for processing applications 

and other documents relating to public 

lands under Section 304 of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1734. In 2005, 

the BLM published a final cost recovery 

rule (70 FR 58854) establishing or 

revising certain fees and service charges, 

and establishing the method it would 

use to adjust those fees and service 

charges on an annual basis. 

At 43 CFR 3000.12(a), the regulations 

provide that the BLM will annually 

adjust fees established in Subchapter C 

according to changes in the Implicit 

Price Deflator for Gross Domestic 

Product (IPD–GDP), which is published 

quarterly by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. (See also 43 CFR 3000.10.) 

Because the fee recalculations are 

simply based on a mathematical 

formula, we have changed the fees in a 

final rule without providing opportunity 

for notice and comment. This final rule 

will allow the BLM to update these fees 

and service charges by October 1 of this 

year, as required by the 2005 regulation. 

The public had an opportunity to 

comment on this procedure during the 

comment period on the original cost 

recovery rule, and this new rule simply 

administers the procedure set forth in 

those regulations. The Department of 

the Interior, therefore, for good cause 

finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) 

that notice and public comment 

procedures are unnecessary, and that 

the rule may be effective less than 30 

days after publication. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

BLM’s first fee update rule became 

effective on October 1, 2007. 72 FR 

50882 (Sept. 5, 2007). The fee updates 

effective each October 1 are based on 

the IPD–GDP for the 4th Quarter of the 

preceding calendar year. See 72 FR 

50882. This fee update is based on the 

IPD–GDP for 4th Quarter 2007, thus 

reflecting inflation over the four 

calendar quarters since 4th Quarter 

2006. 

This rule also includes a minor 

amendment to BLM’s stated method of 

rounding numbers to arrive at the final 

fee. The final 2005 and 2007 rules stated 

that values would be rounded ‘‘to the 

nearest $5.00.’’ 70 FR 58855; 72 FR 

50884. In this rule we adjust for the first 

time the geothermal nomination fee of 

$100 plus $0.10 per acre nominated.1

Because rounding the adjusted value for 

a fee of $0.10 to the nearest $5.00 cannot 

be sensibly implemented, we will round 

values for fees under $1.00 to the 

nearest penny. Pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

section 553(b)(B), BLM finds that notice 

and public comment procedure on this 

point are unnecessary because this is a 

minor revision that is consistent with 

general business practices. Moreover, 

BLM did not receive any comments on 

rounding when it proposed to round 

fees down or up to the nearest $5.00 in 

the 2005 proposed rule. 70 FR 41540. 

The Attorney General’s Manual on the 

APA states that the term ‘‘unnecessary’’ 

in 5 U.S.C. section 553(b)(B) ‘‘refers to 

the issuance of a minor rule or 

amendment in which the public is not 

particularly interested.’’ FEDERAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 

SOURCEBOOK 63 (William F. Funk, 

Jeffrey S. Lubbers & Charles Pou, Jr., 

eds., ABA Publishing 3d ed. 2000). BLM 

has determined that this amendment 

falls within that category. 

The calculations that resulted in the 

new fees are included in the table 

below. 

FIXED COST RECOVERY FEES FY09 

Document/action Existing 

fee 2

Existing 

value 3

IPD–GDP 

increase 4 New value 5 New fee 6

Oil & Gas (parts 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 3150): 

Noncompetitive lease application ..................................................... $360 $357.88 $9.20 $367.08 $365 

Competitive lease application ........................................................... 140 138.88 3.57 142.45 140 

Assignment and transfer of record title or operating rights .............. 80 80.12 2.06 82.18 80 

Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production .................... 10 10.68 0.27 10.95 10 

Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee ........... 185 186.95 4.80 191.75 190 

Lease consolidation .......................................................................... 395 395.27 10.16 405.43 405 

Lease renewal or exchange ............................................................. 360 357.88 9.20 367.08 365 

Lease reinstatement, Class I ............................................................ 70 69.44 1.78 71.22 70 

Leasing under right-of-way ............................................................... 360 357.88 9.20 367.08 365 

Geophysical exploration permit application—Alaska ....................... 25 .................... .................... .................... 7 25 

Renewal of exploration permit—Alaska ........................................... 25 .................... .................... .................... 8 25 

Geothermal (part 3200): 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES