60632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 26, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(347)(i)(A)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(347) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Rule 4352, ‘‘Solid Fuel Fired 

Boilers, Steam Generators and Process 

Heaters,’’ amended on May 18, 2006. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–24686 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–0066; SW FRL– 

9208–7] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Direct Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by ExxonMobil 

Refining and Supply Company— 

Beaumont Refinery (Beaumont Refinery) 

to exclude (or delist) a certain solid 

waste generated by its Beaumont, Texas, 

facility from the lists of hazardous 

wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 

3.0 in the evaluation of the impact of the 

petitioned waste on human health and 

the environment. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 30, 2010. Comments must be 

received by November 1, 2010. Your 

requests for a hearing must reach EPA 

by October 18, 2010. The request must 

contain the information described in 

§ 260.20(d). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2010–0066 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Mail: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Requests for a hearing should be 

made to: 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. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2010– 

0066. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

RCRA Branch, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202. The hard copy RCRA 

regulatory docket for this proposed rule, 

EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–0066, is 

available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The public may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages and at a 

cost of $0.15 per page for additional 

copies. EPA requests that you contact 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further technical information 

concerning this document or for 

appointments to view the docket or the 

Beaumont Refinery petition, contact 

Michelle Peace, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division, 

RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–C, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by 

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

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beaumont 

Refinery submitted a petition under 40 

CFR 260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 

260.20 allows any person to petition the 

Administrator to modify or revoke any 

provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 

and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 60633 

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

The Agency bases its proposed 

decision to grant the petition on an 

evaluation of waste-specific information 

provided by the petitioner. This 

proposed decision, if finalized, would 

conditionally exclude the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

If finalized, we would conclude the 

petitioned waste from this facility is 

non-hazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria and that the 

waste process used will substantially 

reduce the likelihood of migration of 

hazardous constituents from this waste. 

We would also conclude that the 

processes minimize short-term and 

long-term threats from the petitioned 

waste to human health and the 

environment. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA approving? 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

C. How will Beaumont Refinery manage 

the wastes, if it is delisted? 

D. When would the delisting exclusion be 

finalized? 

E. How would this action affect States? 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What wastes did Beaumont Refinery 

petition EPA to delist? 

B. Who is Beaumont Refinery and what 

process do they use to generate the 

petitioned wastes? 

C. What information did Beaumont 

Refinery submit to support this petition? 

D. What were the results of Beaumont 

Refinery’s analysis? 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What did EPA conclude about Beaumont 

Refinery’s analysis? 

G. What other factors did EPA consider in 

its evaluation? 

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

B. What happens, if Beaumont Refinery 

violates the terms and conditions? 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA approving? 

EPA is approving the delisting 

petition submitted by Beaumont 

Refinery to have centrifuge solids 

generated from treatment of Tank 

Bottoms from its Lower Park Tank Farm 

excluded, or delisted, from the 

definition of a hazardous waste. The 

centrifuge solids are derived from the 

management and treatment of several Fand K-waste codes. These waste codes 

are F037, F038, K048, K049, K051, 

K052, K169, and K170. 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

Beaumont Refinery’s petition requests 

a delisting for the centrifuge solids 

listed as F037, F038, K048, K049, K051, 

K052, K169, and K170. Beaumont 

Refinery does not believe that the 

petitioned wastes meet the criteria for 

which EPA listed them. Beaumont 

Refinery also believes no additional 

constituents or factors could cause the 

wastes 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 (HSWA). See 

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

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

making the initial 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 

was 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 wastes do 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s 

decision to delist wastes from the 

facility is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the waste and 

analytical data from the Beaumont 

Refinery, Beaumont, Texas facility. 

C. How will Beaumont Refinery manage 

the waste, if it is delisted? 

Beaumont Refinery will dispose of the 

storage containers with the centrifuge 

solids. The centrifuge solids will be 

transported and disposed of at a 

permitted municipal solid waste landfill 

or a commercial industrial waste 

landfill regulated by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ). 

D. When would the delisting exclusion 

be finalized? 

RCRA section 3001(f) specifically 

requires EPA to provide notice and an 

opportunity for comment before 

granting or denying a final exclusion. 

Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion 

unless and until it addresses all timely 

public comments (including those at 

public hearings, if any) on this proposal. 

RCRA section 3010(b)(1), at 42 USCA 

6930(b)(1), allows rules to become 

effective in less than six months after 

EPA addresses public comments when 

the regulated facility does not need the 

six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here, 

because this rule, if finalized, would 

reduce the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

EPA believes that this exclusion 

should be effective immediately upon 

final publication because a six-month 

deadline is not necessary to achieve the 

purpose of section 3010(b), and a later 

effective date would impose 

unnecessary hardship and expense on 

this petitioner. These reasons also 

provide good cause for making this rule 

effective immediately, upon final 

publication, under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

E. How would this action affect the 

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 the 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

60634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

establish the status of their wastes under 

the State law. Delisting petitions 

approved by EPA Administrator under 

40 CFR 260.22 are effective in the State 

of Texas only after the final rule has 

been published in the Federal Register. 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

EPA published an amended list of 

hazardous wastes from nonspecific and 

specific sources on January 16, 1981, as 

part of its final and interim final 

regulations implementing section 3001 

of RCRA. EPA has amended this list 

several times and published it in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. EPA lists these 

wastes as hazardous because: (1) They 

typically and frequently exhibit one or 

more of the characteristics of hazardous 

wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 

261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet 

the criteria for listing contained in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3). 

Individual waste streams may vary, 

however, depending on raw materials, 

industrial processes, and other factors. 

Thus, while a waste described in these 

regulations generally is hazardous, a 

specific waste from an individual 

facility meeting the listing description 

may not be hazardous. 

For this reason, §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

provide an exclusion procedure, called 

delisting, which allows persons to prove 

that EPA should not regulate a specific 

waste from a particular generating 

facility as a hazardous waste. 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a facility to EPA or an authorized State 

to exclude wastes from the list of 

hazardous wastes. The facility petitions 

EPA because it does not believe the 

wastes should be hazardous under 

RCRA regulations. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that wastes generated at a 

particular facility do not meet any of the 

criteria for which the waste was listed. 

The criteria for which EPA lists a waste 

are in part 261 and further explained in 

the background documents for the listed 

waste. 

In addition, under § 260.22, a 

petitioner must prove that the waste 

does not exhibit any of the hazardous 

waste characteristics and present 

sufficient information for EPA to decide 

whether factors other than those for 

which the waste was listed warrant 

retaining it as a hazardous waste. See 

part 261 and the background documents 

for the listed waste. 

Generators remain obligated under 

RCRA to confirm whether their waste 

remains non-hazardous based on the 

hazardous waste characteristics even if 

EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste. 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

Besides considering the criteria in 

§ 260.22(a) and section 3001(f) of RCRA, 

42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background 

documents for the listed wastes, EPA 

must consider any factors (including 

additional constituents) other than those 

for which EPA listed the waste, if a 

reasonable basis exists to determine that 

these additional factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

EPA must also consider as hazardous 

waste mixtures containing listed 

hazardous wastes and wastes derived 

from treating, storing, or disposing of 

listed hazardous waste. See 

§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (c)(2)(i), 

called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ 

rules, respectively. These wastes are 

also eligible for exclusion and remain 

hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 

FR 27266 (May 16, 2001). 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did Beaumont Refinery 

petition EPA to delist? 

Beaumont Refinery petitioned EPA on 

September 9, 2009, to exclude from the 

lists of hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31, and 261.32, from its 

centrifuge solids from the treatment of 

tank bottoms from five tanks from the 

Lower Park Tank Farm. 

The waste stream was generated from 

the Beaumont Refinery facility located 

in Beaumont, Texas. The centrifuge 

solids are listed under EPA Hazardous 

Waste No. F037, F038, K048, K049, 

K051, K052, K169, and K170. 

Specifically, in its petition, Beaumont 

Refinery requested that EPA grant a one 

time exclusion for 8,300 cubic yards of 

the centrifuge solids. 

B. Who is Beaumont Refinery and what 

process do they use to generate the 

petitioned waste? 

Beaumont Refinery is a petroleum 

refinery located at 1795 Burt Street in 

Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. The 

Beaumont Texas Facility is situated on 

approximately 1,200 acres of land. The 

refinery began operations at the current 

location in 1903 as Magnolia Petroleum 

Company. The facility is operated on a 

continuous basis with production 

occurring 24 hours per day, 7 days per 

week, and 365 days per year and 

produces approximately seven 

petroleum products from crude oil, the 

primary raw material. Significant 

production processes/units at the 

Beaumont Refinery include crude units, 

saturated gas plant, fluid catalytic 

cracker, hydrocracker, diesel 

hydrotreater, coker, jet fuel treaters, 

cogeneration, isomerization, continuous 

catalytic reformers, alkylation, sulfur 

recovery plants, and wastewater 

treatment. Tanks 758, 763, 765, 766 and 

771 in the Beaumont Refinery’s Lower 

Park Tank Farm were constructed 

during the early days of the facility, and 

as the tanks aged, the service gradually 

changed from product storage to slop oil 

storage. The slop oil system at a refinery 

entails collecting materials that have 

some degree of recoverable hydrocarbon 

(e.g., crude oil, API separator sludge, 

DAF float, etc.) but also have materials 

that are not readily recoverable (e.g., 

solids, scale, sediment, etc.). Candidate 

oily streams are routed to slop oil 

storage tanks from collection system 

piping and/or from smaller tanks prior 

to being reprocessed within the refinery 

to recovery oil. To initiate the Lower 

Park Tank Farm cleanout project, the 

Beaumont Refinery determined that the 

five tanks were in slop oil service 

beginning in the 1960’s. Since the tank 

bottoms in the five tanks are historical, 

the Beaumont Refinery has elected to 

conservatively assume that the solids 

from the tanks may bear K- and F-waste 

codes associated with petroleum 

refining. Tank 758 was selected as the 

first tank to clean and sample since it is 

expected to have the highest 

concentrations of chemicals and 

hazardous constituents. The Beaumont 

Refinery’s subcontractor Superall 

Products LLP has developed a 

proprietary chemical (Superall 38), 

which acts as a chemical agent for 

treating wastes from oil-related clean-up 

activities that, when coupled with 

centrifuging, reduces the volume and 

toxicity of historical tank bottoms from 

the refinery’s Lower Park Tank Farm. 

The primary function of Superall 38 is 

to facilitate recovery of as much oil and 

associated constituents of concern as 

possible for reintroduction into the 

refinery process. The proprietary 

mixture does not contain RCRA Part 261 

Appendix VIII or Part 264 Appendix IX 

constituents. Historical tank bottoms in 

Tank 758 served as the worst-case 

representation of the five tanks and the 

biggest challenge for performance of the 

Superall 38 treatment process and 

passing delisting criteria. 

The Beaumont Refinery intends to 

dispose of the delisted centrifuge solids 

at an authorized municipal solid waste 

or commercial industrial solid waste 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 60635 

landfill. Treatment of historical tank 

bottoms from Tanks 758, 763, 765, 766 

and 771 in the Beaumont Refinery’s 

Lower Park Tank Farm generate 

centrifuge solids that are classified as 

F037, F038, K048, K049, K051, K052, 

K169 and K170 listed hazardous wastes 

pursuant to 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. 

The 40 CFR part 261 hazardous 

constituents which are the basis for 

listing can be found in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—EPA WASTE CODES FOR

CENTRIFUGE SOLIDS AND THE BASIS

FOR LISTING

Waste code Basis for listing 

F037 ................. Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, 

chrysene, lead, chromium. 

F038 ................. Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, 

chrysene, lead, chromium. 

K048 ................ Hexavalent chromium, lead. 

K049 ................ Hexavalent chromium, lead. 

K051 ................ Hexavalent chromium, lead. 

K052 ................ Lead. 

K169 ................ Benzene. 

K170 ................ Benzo(a)pyrene, 

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 

benzo(a)anthracene, 

benzo(b)fluoranthene, 

benzo(k)fluoranthene, 3- 

methylcholanthrene, 

7,12- 

dimethylbenzo(a)anthracene. 

C. What information did Beaumont 

Refinery submit to support this petition? 

To support its petition, Beaumont 

Refinery submitted: 

1. Analytical results of the toxicity 

characteristic leaching procedure 

(TCLP) analysis for volatile and 

semivolatile organics, and metals for ten 

samples and one duplicate of the 

centrifuge solids; 

2. Analytical results of the total 

constituent analysis for volatile and 

semivolatile organics, and metals for 

three samples of the centrifuge solids; 

3. Analytical results for Appendix IX 

volatile and semivolatile organics, 

pesticides, herbicides, dioxins/furans, 

PCBs, and metals for one sample of the 

centrifuge solids; 

4. Analytical results for the EPA 

Region 6 TCLP analysis for Appendix IX 

metals for one sample of the centrifuge 

solids; 

5. Analytical results for the oily waste 

extraction procedure (OWEP) for 

Beaumont Refinery metals for one 

sample of the centrifuge solids; 

6. Analytical results for total reactive 

cyanides for three samples of the 

centrifuge solids; 

7. Analytical results for total reactive 

sulfides for three samples of the 

centrifuge solids; 

8. Analytical results for total oil and 

grease for ten samples of the centrifuge 

solids; 

9. Description of the operations and 

waste generated from the centrifuging of 

tank bottoms at the Lower Park Tank 

Farm. 

D. What were the results of Beaumont 

Refinery’s analysis? 

EPA believes that the descriptions of 

Beaumont Refinery’s waste, and the 

analytical data submitted in support of 

the petition show that the centrifuge 

solids are non-hazardous. Analytical 

data from Beaumont Refinery’s 

centrifuge solid samples were used in 

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS). The data summaries for 

detected constituents are presented in 

Table 2. EPA has reviewed the sampling 

procedures used by Beaumont Refinery 

and has determined that they satisfy 

EPA’s criteria for collecting 

representative samples of the variations 

in constituent concentrations in the 

Centrifuge solids. The data submitted in 

support of the petition show that 

constituents in Beaumont Refinery’s 

wastes are presently below health-based 

risk levels used in the delisting 

decision-making. EPA believes that 

Beaumont Refinery has successfully 

demonstrated that the Centrifuge solids 

are non-hazardous. 

TABLE 2—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE CENTRIFUGE SOLIDS1

Constituent Maximum total 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum TCLP 

(mg/l) 

Maximum allowable 

TCLP delisting level 

(mg/L) 

Antimony .......................................................................................................... 5.38 0.0224 1.87 

Arsenic ............................................................................................................. 26.9 0.0353 5.0 

Acetone ............................................................................................................ < 0.5 0.65 9080 

Acenaphthene .................................................................................................. 26 0.009 185 

Anthracene ....................................................................................................... 32 0.006 452 

Beryllium .......................................................................................................... 0.289 <0.001 20.44 

Butyl benzene phthalate .................................................................................. 3.7 0.00026 698 

Barium .............................................................................................................. 823 1.94 100 

Benzene ........................................................................................................... 0.8 0.046 0.5

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ................................................................................ < 0.5 0.0058 0.0522 

Benzo(a) anthracene ....................................................................................... 72 < 0.001 1.22 

Benzo(a) pyrene .............................................................................................. 67 < 0.001 461.44 

Benzo(b) fluoranthene ..................................................................................... 28 < 0.001 3916.8 

Benzo(k) fluoranthene ..................................................................................... 10 < 0.001 11.6 

m,p cresol ........................................................................................................ 6 0.16 200 

Cadmium .......................................................................................................... 0.837 < 0.001 1.0 

Chromium ........................................................................................................ 608 0.122 5.0 

Cobalt ............................................................................................................... 20.5 0.0735 3.64 

Copper ............................................................................................................. 302 < 0.001 417.3 

o-cresol ............................................................................................................ 1.5 0.0091 200 

Chrysene .......................................................................................................... 120 0.00014 122 

2,4 Dimethyl phenol ......................................................................................... 9.8 0.066 198 

Di-n-butyl phthalate .......................................................................................... < 0.5 0.0012 429 

7,12 dimethylbenz(a)anthracene ..................................................................... 53 < 0.001 0.08176 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene .................................................................................... 1.7 < 0.001 4.41 

Ethylbenzene ................................................................................................... < 0.5 0.073 189 

Fluorene ........................................................................................................... 54 0.0033 85.6 

Fluoranthrene ................................................................................................... 17 < 0.001 42.96 

Lead ................................................................................................................. 1290 1.44 5.0 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

60636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE CENTRIFUGE SOLIDS1— 

Continued 

Constituent Maximum total 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum TCLP 

(mg/l) 

Maximum allowable 

TCLP delisting level 

(mg/L) 

Mercury ............................................................................................................ 2.65 0.000065 0.2 

Methyl Isobutyl ketone ..................................................................................... < 0.5 0.02 807 

2-Methylnaphthalene ....................................................................................... 570 < 0.001 12.70 

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................... 180 0.15 0.571 

Nickel ............................................................................................................... 195 0.556 231 

Phenanthrene .................................................................................................. 170 0.0041 Not applicable 

Phenol .............................................................................................................. < 0.5 0.0033 3030 

Pyrene .............................................................................................................. 100 0.0057 77.6 

Selenium .......................................................................................................... 20.6 < 0.001 1.0 

Silver ................................................................................................................ 0.194 < 0.001 5.0 

Thallium ........................................................................................................... 0.842 < 0.001 0.639 

Tin .................................................................................................................... 3.46 < 0.001 22.5 

Toluene ............................................................................................................ 0.5 0.032 263 

Vanadium ......................................................................................................... < 0.5 0.138 57.5 

Xylenes ............................................................................................................ 3.3 0.16 167

Zinc .................................................................................................................. 1160 8.41 3530 

1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the 

specific levels found in one sample. 

< # Denotes that the constituent was below the detection limit. 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

The worst case scenario for 

management of the centrifuge solids was 

modeled for disposal in a landfill. EPA 

used such information gathered to 

identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., 

ground water, surface water, soil, air) for 

hazardous constituents present in the 

Centrifuge solids. EPA determined that 

disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the 

most reasonable, worst-case disposal 

scenario for Beaumont Refinery’s 

centrifuge solids. EPA applied the 

DRAS described in 65 FR 58015 

(September 27, 2000), 65 FR 75637 

(December 4, 2000) and 73 FR 28768 

(May 19, 2008), to predict the maximum 

allowable concentrations of hazardous 

constituents that may be released from 

the petitioned wastes after disposal and 

determined the potential impact of the 

disposal of Beaumont Refinery’s 

petitioned wastes on human health and 

the environment. In assessing potential 

risks to ground water, EPA used the 

maximum estimated waste volumes and 

the maximum reported extract 

concentrations as inputs to the DRAS 

program to estimate the constituent 

concentrations in the ground water at a 

hypothetical receptor well down 

gradient from the disposal site. Using 

the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10¥5

and non-cancer hazard index of 0.1), the 

DRAS program can back-calculate the 

acceptable receptor well concentrations 

(referred to as compliance-point 

concentrations) using standard risk 

assessment algorithms and Agency 

health-based numbers. Using the 

maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and EPA Composite 

Model for Leachate Migration with 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP) 

fate and transport modeling factors, the 

DRAS further back-calculates the 

maximum permissible waste constituent 

concentrations not expected to exceed 

the compliance-point concentrations in 

ground water. 

EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate 

and transport model represents a 

reasonable worst-case scenario for 

possible ground water contamination 

resulting from disposal of the petitioned 

waste in a landfill for the centrifuge 

solids. A reasonable worst-case scenario 

is appropriate when evaluating whether 

a waste should be relieved of the 

protective management constraints of 

RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some 

reasonable worst-case scenarios resulted 

in conservative values for the 

compliance-point concentrations and 

ensured that the waste, once removed 

from hazardous waste regulation, will 

not pose a significant threat to human 

health and/or the environment. The 

DRAS also uses the maximum estimated 

waste volumes and the maximum 

reported total concentrations to predict 

possible risks associated with releases of 

waste constituents through surface 

pathways (e.g., volatilization or windblown particulate from the landfill). As 

in the above ground water analyses, the 

DRAS uses the risk level, the healthbased data and standard risk assessment 

and exposure algorithms to predict 

maximum compliance-point 

concentrations of waste constituents at 

a hypothetical point of exposure. Using 

fate and transport equations, the DRAS 

uses the maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and back-calculates the 

maximum allowable waste constituent 

concentrations (or ‘‘delisting levels’’). 

In most cases, because a delisted 

waste is no longer subject to hazardous 

waste control, EPA is generally unable 

to predict, and does not presently 

control, how a petitioner will manage a 

waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA 

currently believes that it is 

inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate 

and transport model. EPA does control 

the type of unit where the waste is 

disposed. 

EPA also considers the applicability 

of ground water monitoring data during 

the evaluation of delisting petitions. In 

this case, the disposal will occur in an 

offsite Landfill, so no ground water 

monitoring data for disposal of this 

waste stream in the landfill is available. 

EPA believes that the descriptions of 

Beaumont Refinery’s Centrifuge solids 

and analytical characterizations of these 

wastes illustrate the presence of toxic 

constituents at lower concentrations in 

these waste streams. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to conclude that the 

likelihood of migration of hazardous 

constituents from the petitioned waste 

will be substantially reduced so that 

short-term and long-term threats to 

human health and the environment are 

minimized. 

The DRAS results, which calculated 

the maximum allowable concentration 

of chemical constituents in the 

Centrifuge solids are presented in Table 

2. Based on the comparison of the DRAS 

results and maximum TCLP 

concentrations found in Table 2, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 60637 

petitioned wastes should be delisted 

because no constituents of concern are 

likely to be present or formed as 

reaction products or byproducts in 

Beaumont Refinery’s wastes as long as 

they are disposed of in a Subtitle D 

Landfill. 

F. What did EPA conclude about 

Beaumont Refinery’s analysis? 

EPA concluded, after reviewing 

Beaumont Refinery’s processes that no 

other hazardous constituents of concern, 

other than those for which Beaumont 

Refinery tested, are likely to be present 

or formed as reaction products or byproducts in Beaumont Refinery’s 

wastes. In addition, on the basis of 

explanations and analytical data 

provided by Beaumont Refinery, 

pursuant to § 260.22, EPA concludes 

that the petitioned wastes: Centrifuge 

solids do not exhibit any of the 

characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. See 

§§ 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24 

respectively. 

G. What other factors did EPA consider 

in its evaluation? 

During the evaluation of this petition, 

in addition to the potential impacts to 

the ground water, EPA also considered 

the potential impact of the petitioned 

waste via non-ground water exposure 

routes (i.e., air emissions and surface 

runoff) for the Centrifuge solids. With 

regard to airborne dispersion in 

particular, EPA believes that exposure 

to airborne contaminants from the 

petitioned waste is unlikely. No 

appreciable air releases are likely from 

the centrifuge solids under any likely 

disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the 

potential hazards resulting from the 

unlikely scenario of airborne exposure 

to hazardous constituents released from 

the solids in an open landfill. The 

results of this worst-case analysis 

indicated that there is no substantial 

present or potential hazard to human 

health and the environment from 

airborne exposure to constituents from 

the centrifuge solids. 

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

The descriptions by Beaumont 

Refinery of the hazardous waste process 

and analytical characterization, with the 

proposed verification testing 

requirements (as discussed later in this 

notice), provide a reasonable basis for 

EPA to grant the petition. The data 

submitted in support of the petition 

show that constituents in the waste are 

below the maximum allowable 

concentrations (See Table 2). EPA 

believes that the Centrifuge solids 

generated by Beaumont Refinery contain 

hazardous constituents at levels which 

will present minimal short-term and 

long-term threats from the petitioned 

wastes to human health and the 

environment. 

Thus, EPA believes that it should 

grant to Beaumont Refinery an 

exclusion from the list of hazardous 

wastes for the Centrifuge solids. EPA 

believes that the data submitted in 

support of the petition show the 

Beaumont Refinery’s Centrifuge solids 

to be non-hazardous. 

EPA has reviewed the sampling 

procedures used by Beaumont Refinery 

and has determined they satisfy EPA’s 

criteria for collecting representative 

samples of variable constituent 

concentrations in the Centrifuge solids. 

The data submitted in support of the 

petition show that constituents in 

Beaumont Refinery’s wastes are 

presently below the compliance-point 

concentrations used in the delisting 

decision-making process and would not 

pose a substantial hazard to the 

environment and the public. EPA 

believes that Beaumont Refinery has 

successfully demonstrated that the 

Centrifuge solids are non-hazardous. 

EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an 

exclusion to Beaumont Refinery for the 

Centrifuge solids described in its 

September 2009 petition. EPA’s 

decision to exclude these wastes is 

based on analysis performed on samples 

taken of the Centrifuge solids. 

If EPA finalizes the rule, EPA will no 

longer regulate 8,300 cubic yards of 

centrifuge solids from Beaumont 

Refinery’s Beaumont facility under parts 

262 through 268 and the permitting 

standards of part 270. 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

The petitioner, Beaumont Refinery, 

must comply with the requirements in 

40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX, Tables 

1 and 2 as amended by this notice. The 

text below gives the rationale and 

details of those requirements. 

(1) Data Submittals 

To provide appropriate 

documentation that the Beaumont 

Refinery facility is correctly managing 

the Centrifuge solids, Beaumont 

Refinery must compile, summarize, and 

keep delisting records on-site for a 

minimum of five years. Beaumont 

Refinery must keep all delisting records 

for five years. Paragraph (1) requires that 

Beaumont Refinery furnish these data 

upon request for inspection by any 

employee or representative of EPA or 

the State of Texas. 

If the exclusion is made final, then it 

will apply only to 8,300 cubic yards of 

centrifuge solids generated at the 

Beaumont Refinery facility after 

successful initial verification testing. 

EPA would require Beaumont 

Refinery to submit additional 

verification data under any of the 

following circumstances: 

(a) Beaumont Refinery 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. EPA will 

publish an amendment to the exclusion 

if the changes are acceptable. 

Beaumont Refinery must manage 

waste volumes greater than 8,300 cubic 

yards of centrifuge solids as hazardous 

waste until EPA grants a revised 

exclusion. When this exclusion becomes 

final, the management by Beaumont 

Refinery of the Centrifuge solids 

covered in this petition would be 

relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction. 

Beaumont Refinery may not classify the 

waste as non-hazardous until the 

revised exclusion is finalized. 

(2) Reopener 

The purpose of paragraph (2) is to 

require Beaumont Refinery 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. 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 

Beaumont Refinery to report differing 

site conditions or assumptions used in 

the petition in addition to failure to 

meet the annual testing conditions 

within 10 days of discovery. 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 Procedures Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551 (1978) 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

60638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

B. What happens, if Beaumont Refinery 

violates the terms and conditions? 

If Beaumont Refinery violates the 

terms and conditions established in the 

exclusion, EPA will start procedures to 

withdraw the exclusion. Where there is 

an immediate threat to human health 

and the environment, EPA will evaluate 

the need for enforcement activities on a 

case-by-case basis. EPA expects 

Beaumont Refinery to conduct the 

appropriate waste analysis and comply 

with the criteria explained above in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving the delisting 

petition for the centrifuge solids 

generated at Beaumont Refinery’s 

Beaumont—Texas facility. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a non-controversial exclusion and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposed rule to 

approve the petition if relevant adverse 

comments are received on this direct 

final rule. We will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

a subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. Please note that if we 

receive adverse comment on a 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, we may adopt as 

final those provisions of the rule that are 

not the subject of an adverse comment. 

VI. 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 

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: September 20, 2010. 

Bill Luthans, 

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed 

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 Tables 1 and 2 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 60639 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company-Beaumont Refinery ....... Beaumont, TX .. Centrifuge Solids (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers 

F037, F038, K048, K049, K051, K052, K169, and 

K170.) generated at a maximum rate of 8,300 cubic 

yards after November 30, 2010 and disposed of in a 

Subtitle D Landfill. 

(1) Reopener V 

(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste 

Beaumont Refinery 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 testing data (and retest, if applicable) of the 

waste does not meet the delisting requirements in 

paragraph 1, Beaumont Refinery 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 Beaumont Refinery fails to submit the information 

described in paragraphs (1)(A) or (1)(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 receipt of the Division Director’s notice to 

present such information. 

(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility 

described in paragraph (1)(D) or (if no information is 

presented under paragraph (1)(D)) the initial receipt 

of information described in paragraphs (1)(A) or 

(1)(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. 

(2) Notification Requirements: 

Beaumont Refinery 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 one-time written notification, if it ships the 

delisted waste into a different disposal facility. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

60640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

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

* * * * * * * 

TABLE 2—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company—Beaumont Refinery ..... Beaumont, TX .. Centrifuge Solids (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers 

F037, F038, K048, K049, K051, K052, K169, and 

K170.) generated at a maximum rate of 8,300 cubic 

yards after November 30, 2010 and disposed of in a 

Subtitle D Landfill. 

Beaumont Refinery must implement the requirements 

in Table 1. Wastes Excluded from Non-Specific 

Sources for the petition to be valid. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–24571 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 412, 413, 415, 424, 440, 

441, 482, 485, and 489 

[CMS–1498–F, and CMS–1498–IFC; CMS– 

1406–F] 

RIN 0938–AP80; RIN 0938–AP33 

Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient 

Prospective Payment Systems for 

Acute Care Hospitals and the LongTerm Care Hospital Prospective 

Payment System Changes and FY 2011 

Rates; Provider Agreements and 

Supplier Approvals; and Hospital 

Conditions of Participation for 

Rehabilitation and Respiratory Care 

Services; Medicaid Program: 

Accreditation for Providers of Inpatient 

Psychiatric Services; Corrections 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of final rules and 

interim final rule with comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical and typographical errors in 

the final rules and interim final rule 

with comment period entitled 

‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient 

Prospective Payment Systems for Acute 

Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care 

Hospital Prospective Payment System 

Changes and FY 2011 Rates; Provider 

Agreements and Supplier Approvals; 

and Hospital Conditions of Participation 

for Rehabilitation and Respiratory Care 

Services; Medicaid Program: 

Accreditation for Providers of Inpatient 

Psychiatric Services’’ that appeared in 

the August 16, 2010 Federal Register. 

DATES: Effective Date: This correction 

notice is effective October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tzvi 

Hefter, (410) 786–4487. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2010–19092 of August 16, 

2010 (75 FR 50042), there were a 

number of technical errors that are 

identified and corrected in the 

Correction of Errors section below. The 

provisions in this correction notice are 

effective as if they had been included in 

the document entitled ‘‘Medicare 

Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective 

Payment Systems for Acute Care 

Hospitals and the Long-Term Care 

Hospital Prospective Payment System 

Changes and FY 2011 Rates; Provider 

Agreements and Supplier Approvals; 

and Hospital Conditions of Participation 

for Rehabilitation and Respiratory Care 

Services; Medicaid Program: 

Accreditation for Providers of Inpatient 

Psychiatric Services’’ (hereinafter 

referred to as the fiscal year (FY) 2011 

IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule) that 

appeared in August 16, 2010 Federal 

Register. Accordingly, the corrections 

are effective October 1, 2010. 

II. Summary of Errors 

The following is a summary of the 

errors identified in the FY 2011 IPPS/ 

LTCH PPS final rule and corrected in 

section III. of this notice: 

A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble 

On page 50099, we are correcting 

errors in the present on admission 

(POA) indicator ‘‘Y’’ percentage for two 

previously considered hospital acquired 

conditions (HACs) that are listed in 

Chart H ‘‘POA Status of Previously 

Considered ‘Candidate’ HAC 

Conditions—October 2008 Through 

September 2009.’’ 

On page 50161, we are correcting a 

website reference error in the first 

footnote to the table regarding the 

Frontier States identified for the FY 

2011 wage index floor adjustment. 

On page 50224, in our discussion of 

the data submission and reporting 

requirements for the Reporting Hospital 

Quality Data for Annual Payment 

Update (RHQDAPU) program, we 

inadvertently indicated that the Central 

Line Associated Blood Stream Infection 

(CLABSI) measure would be part of the 

measure set for the FY 2012 payment 

determination rather than the FY 2013 

payment determination. We had 

previously, on page 50202, finalized the 

CLABSI measure for the FY 2013 

payment determination and the 

information on page 50224 should have 

reflected this policy. 

B. Summary of Errors in the Addendum 

On page 50432, in the table 

‘‘Comparison of FY 2010 Standardized 

Amounts to the FY 2011 Standardized 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES