Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49533 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART VVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVV— 

Continued 

General provisions 

reference Applicable to subpart VVV Explanation 

§ 63.12 ...................... Yes .......................................... State authority and designation. 

§ 63.13 ...................... Yes .......................................... Addresses of State air pollution control agencies and EPA Regional Offices. 

§ 63.14 ...................... Yes .......................................... Incorporation by reference. 

§ 63.15 ...................... Yes .......................................... Availability of information and confidentiality. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART VVV OF PART 63—COMPLIANCE DATES AND REQUIREMENTS

If the construction/reconstruction 

date is Then the owner or operator must comply with And the owner or operator must achieve compliance 

Group 1 POTW: 

(1) After December 27, 2016 .......... (i) New source requirements in §§ 63.1583(b); 63.1586(b) or (c); and 

63.1588 through 63.1591.

Upon initial startup. 

(2) After December 1, 1998 but on 

or before December 27, 2016.

(i) New source requirements in § 63.1583(b) but instead of complying 

with both requirements (industrial user(s) NESHAP and the POTW 

standards in §§ 63.1586(b) or (c)), you must comply with the most 

stringent requirement1.

Upon initial startup through October 26, 2020. 

(ii) New source requirements in §§ 63.1586(b) or (c); and 63.1588 

through 63.1591.

On or before October 26, 2020. 

(3) On or before December 1, 1998 (i) Existing source requirements in §§ 63.1583(a) ................................. By the compliance date specified 

in the other applicable NESHAP. 

(ii) Existing source requirements in §§ 63.1588 through 63.1591 ......... On or before October 26, 2018. 

Group 2 POTW: 

(4) After December 27, 2016 .......... (i) New source requirements in §§ 63.1586(b) or (c); and 63.1588 

through 63.1591.

Upon initial startup. 

(5) After December 1, 1998 but on 

or before December 27, 2016.

(i) New source requirements in § 63.1586(b) or (c)1 ............................. Upon initial startup through October 26, 2020. 

(ii) New source requirements in §§ 63.1586(b) or (c); and 63.1588 

through 63.1591.

On or before October 26, 2020. 

(6) On or before December 1, 1998 (i) Existing source requirements in §§ 63.1586(a); and 63.1591(a) ...... On or before October 26, 2018. 

1 Note: This represents the new source requirements in the original 1999 NESHAP, which are applicable until October 26, 2020. Between October 26, 2017 and October 26, 2020, you must transition to the new requirements in Table 2 (2)(ii) and (5)(ii) for Group 1 and Group 2 POTW, 

respectively. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23067 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0153; SW–FRL– 

9969–73–Region 6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting a petition 

submitted by ExxonMobil Oil 

Corporation Beaumont Refinery 

(ExxonMobil) to exclude from 

hazardous waste control (or delist) a 

certain solid waste. This final rule 

responds to the petition submitted by 

ExxonMobil to have the secondary 

impoundment basin (SIB) solids 

excluded, or delisted from the definition 

of a hazardous waste. The SIB solids are 

listed as F037 (primary oil/water/solids 

separation sludge); and F038 (secondary 

oil/water/solids separation sludge). 

After careful analysis and evaluation 

of comments submitted by the public, 

the EPA has concluded that the 

petitioned wastes are not hazardous 

waste when disposed of in Subtitle D 

landfills. This exclusion applies to the 

surface impoundment solids generated 

at ExxonMobil’s Beaumont, Texas 

facility. Accordingly, this final rule 

excludes the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills 

but imposes testing conditions to ensure 

that the future-generated wastes remain 

qualified for delisting. 

DATES: Effective October 26, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0153. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information regarding the 

ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery 

petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214– 

665–7430 or by email at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

D. How will Beaumont Refinery manage 

the waste if it is delisted? 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is a ‘‘delisting’’? 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49534 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What waste and how much did 

Beaumont Refinery petition EPA to 

delist? 

B. How did Beaumont Refinery sample and 

analyze the waste data in this petition? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

B. Comments and Responses 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

The EPA is finalizing: 

(1) The decision to grant 

ExxonMobil’s Beaumont Refinery’s 

petition to have its surface 

impoundment basin solids excluded, or 

delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste, subject to certain 

continued verification and monitoring 

conditions; and 

(2) to use the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software to evaluate the 

potential impact of the petitioned waste 

on human health and the environment. 

The Agency used this model to predict 

the concentration of hazardous 

constituents released from the 

petitioned waste, once it is disposed. 

After evaluating the petition, EPA 

proposed rule, on May 31, 2017, to 

exclude the ExxonMobil Beaumont 

Refinery waste from the lists of 

hazardous wastes under §§ 261.31 and 

261.32. The comments received on this 

rulemaking will be addressed as part of 

this decision. 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

ExxonMobil’s petition requests an 

exclusion from the F037 and F038 waste 

listings pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 

260.22. ExxonMobil does not believe 

that the petitioned waste meets the 

criteria for which EPA listed it. 

ExxonMobil also believes no additional 

constituents or factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. EPA’s review of 

this petition included consideration of 

the original listing criteria and the 

additional factors required by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

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

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

(hereinafter, all sectional references are 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 

In making the 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 waste does 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s 

proposed decision to delist waste from 

ExxonMobil is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical data from the Beaumont, 

Texas facility. 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

This exclusion applies to the waste 

described in the petition only if the 

requirements described in Table 1 of 

part 261, Appendix IX, and the 

conditions contained herein are 

satisfied. The one-time exclusion 

applies to 400,000 cubic yards of surface 

impoundment basin solids. 

D. How will Beaumont Refinery manage 

the waste if it is delisted? 

Storage containers with SIB solids 

will be transported to an authorized 

solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle 

D landfill, commercial/industrial solid 

waste landfill, etc.) for disposal. 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

This rule is effective October 26, 

2017. The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended Section 

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become 

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated community does not need 

the six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here 

because this rule reduces, rather than 

increases, the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

These reasons also provide a basis for 

making this rule effective immediately, 

upon publication, under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant 

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

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program, only states subject to Federal 

RCRA delisting provisions would be 

affected. This would exclude two 

categories of States: States having a dual 

system that includes Federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements, and States who have 

received our authorization to make their 

own delisting decisions. 

Here are the details: We allow states 

to impose their own non-RCRA 

regulatory requirements that are more 

stringent than EPA’s, under section 

3009 of RCRA. 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, we urge petitioners to contact the 

State regulatory authority to establish 

the status of their wastes under the State 

law. 

EPA has also authorized some States 

(for example, Louisiana, Georgia, 

Illinois) to administer a delisting 

program in place of the Federal 

program, that is, to make State delisting 

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

States. If Beaumont Refinery transports 

the petitioned waste to or manages the 

waste in any State with delisting 

authorization, Beaumont Refinery must 

obtain delisting authorization from that 

State before they can manage the waste 

as nonhazardous in the State. 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA or another agency 

with jurisdiction to exclude from the list 

of hazardous wastes, wastes the 

generator does not consider hazardous 

under RCRA. 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, 

facilities may petition the EPA to 

remove their wastes from hazardous 

waste control by excluding them from 

the lists of hazardous wastes contained 

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition 

the Administrator to modify or revoke 

any provision of Parts 260 through 266, 

268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. Section 260.22 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator-specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

Petitioners must provide sufficient 

information to EPA to allow the EPA to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49535 

determine that the waste to be excluded 

does not meet any of the criteria under 

which the waste was listed as a 

hazardous waste. In addition, the 

Administrator must determine, where 

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe 

that factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed could cause the 

waste to be a hazardous waste, that such 

factors do not warrant retaining the 

waste as a hazardous waste. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What waste and how much did 

Beaumont Refinery petition EPA to 

delist? 

In August 2016, ExxonMobil 

petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists 

of hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32, SIB solids (F037, 

F038) generated from its facility located 

in Beaumont, Texas. The waste falls 

under the classification of listed waste 

pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32. 

Specifically, in its petition, ExxonMobil 

requested that EPA grant a one-time 

exclusion for 400,000 cubic yards of SIB 

solids. 

The 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VII 

hazardous constituents which are the 

basis for listing can be found in Table 

1. 

TABLE 1—EPA WASTE CODES FOR

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT BASIN 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. 

B. How did Beaumont Refinery sample 

and analyze the waste data in this 

petition? 

To support its petition, ExxonMobil 

submitted: 

(1) Historical information on waste 

generation and management practices; 

and 

(2) analytical results from thirty-nine 

samples for total and TCLP 

concentrations of compounds of 

concern (COC)s; 

TABLE 2—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION

[Secondary Impoundment Basin (SIB) Solids ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery, Beaumont, Texas] 

Constituent 

Maximum total 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

delisting 

level 

(mg/L) 

Antimony ................................................................................................................................ 4.84 0.023 .109 

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................... 33.6 0.077 .424 

Barium .................................................................................................................................... 455 1.47 36 

Beryllium ................................................................................................................................ 1.38 <0.002 2.0 

Cadmium ................................................................................................................................ 2.05 <0.002 0.09 

Chromium .............................................................................................................................. 697 0.205 2.27 

Cobalt ..................................................................................................................................... 19.4 0.0371 0.214 

Lead ....................................................................................................................................... 400 0.656 0.702 

Mercury .................................................................................................................................. 3.61 0.000049 0.068 

Nickel ..................................................................................................................................... 68.2 0.152 13.5 

Selenium ................................................................................................................................ 28.7 0.0177 0.890 

Silver ...................................................................................................................................... 1.23 0.002 5.0 

Vanadium ............................................................................................................................... 90.7 0.0815 3.77 

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................ 2,470 5.43 197 

2,4 Dimethylphenol ................................................................................................................ 0.97 0.0018 11.3 

2-Methylphenol ...................................................................................................................... <0.71 <.000033 28.9 

3-Methylphenol ...................................................................................................................... <0.64 0.002 28.9 

4-Methylphenol ...................................................................................................................... <0.64 0.00047 2.89 

Acenaphthene ........................................................................................................................ 1.7 0.00091 10.6 

Anthracene ............................................................................................................................. 2.9 0.00019 25.9 

Benz(a)anthracene ................................................................................................................ 7.2 0.000034 0.07 

Benz(a)pyrene ....................................................................................................................... 5 <0.00003 26.3 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ...................................................................................................... 34 0.0002 106,000 

Chrysene ................................................................................................................................ 19 0.000048 7.01 

Di-n-butyl phthalate ................................................................................................................ 0.66 0.0013 24.6 

Fluoranthene .......................................................................................................................... 2.1 0.000078 2.46 

Fluorene ................................................................................................................................. 4.9 0.0016 4.91 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene .......................................................................................................... 2.6 <0.000051 73 

Naphthalene ........................................................................................................................... 26 0.02 0.0327 

Phenol .................................................................................................................................... <0.71 0.00025 173 

Pyrene .................................................................................................................................... N/A 0.00019 4.45 

Benzene ................................................................................................................................. 1.1 <0.004 0.077 

Xylenes, total ......................................................................................................................... 53 0.18 9.56 

Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not necessarily represent the specific 

level found in one sample. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49536 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

The EPA received four anonymous 

public comments on the May 31, 2017, 

proposed rule via regulations.gov. EPA 

also received comments from the facility 

regarding the conditions and 

nomenclature on Table 1. The 

comments and responses are addressed 

below. 

B. Comments and Responses 

Comment 1. ‘‘Exxon Mobil requests 

that language found on Pages 24929, 

24931, and 24932 be revised to reflect 

that the SIB solids are delisted upon 

final publication in the Federal 

Register. The text in Section IV (Next 

Steps), Items A.(2) and A.(3) is currently 

structured such that additional testing 

would have to be performed to verify 

that delisting limits are met. Items (2), 

(3), and (4) of Table 1 (Pages 24931 and 

34932) also reflect these requirements. 

This language appears to be a 

‘‘holdover’’ associated with another 

delisting petition request. Our sampling 

program included collection of over 30 

samples to support the delisting petition 

request. As such, we believe we have 

already completed a rigorous sampling 

program in support of this request. Also, 

we would note in several locations that 

the petition volume is listed as ‘‘400,000 

wet’’ cubic yards. The SIB solids will 

contain water upon removal from the 

pond. However, they will be dewatered 

(e.g. filtration, addition of cement, etc.) 

to pass the paint filter test prior to 

disposal. As such, we suggest removing 

the word wet in reference to the delisted 

volume.’’ 

Response 1. The language found in 

Table 1 of the exclusion has been 

revised to remove all conditional 

exclusion language. The request for the 

delisting is a one-time exclusion which 

is conditioned on proper disposal of up 

to 400,000 cubic yards of SIB solids and 

contains the data submittals, reopener 

and disposal notification clauses for all 

delisting exclusions. The conditions 

were included in the proposed rule in 

error. All references regarding the wet 

solids have been removed because the 

waste will not be disposed of in this 

manner. The reference to wet solids was 

in regards to the volume of solids as 

generated during the removal. 

Comment 2. ‘‘Excuse me? 

ExxonMobile wants to dump their waste 

into the landfills where it can pollute 

our ground water? NO. Absolutely NOT. 

These waste products are toxic to the 

environment and need to stay listed as 

hazardous. We don’t want this stuff 

seeping into our groundwater for our 

kids to drink. ExxonMobile needs to 

spend the money on research to break 

down this waste sludge into something 

that doesn’t hurt the environment. They 

must not be allowed to put it in dumps 

or store it somewhere. There probably 

are some kind of bacteria that will break 

this stuff down into something useful or 

non toxic. This stuff should NOT end 

up in our ground water. If you cannot 

do something positive with this waste, 

the process whereby this waste is 

produced MUST BE STOPPED. We need 

to move away from fossil fuel use and 

towards renewable energy and 

sustainable products.’’ 

Response 2. The Delisting Program 

requires extensive waste sampling and a 

risk assessment is performed to assess a 

wastes potential harm to human health 

and the environment. The program is 

designed to insure that the wastes 

which are deemed excluded will not be 

managed in a manner to harm human 

health or the environment. This waste 

will be managed in a Subtitle D 

industrial waste landfill as solid waste 

to prevent releases to groundwater and 

air pathways. 

Comment 3. ‘‘The EPA should feel 

obligated to ensure that there are no 

possible adverse effects to humans or 

the environment by approving the 

petition from ExxonMobile. The EPA 

should conduct their own investigation, 

take their own samples, and perform 

data analysis to confirm that there are 

no discrepancies between their findings 

and those provided by the Beaumont 

facility. In the list of constituents 

provided by ExxonMobile, there are 

known human carcinogens such as 

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, nickel, and benzene, along 

with other harmful constituents such as 

lead and mercury. The EPA should 

conduct an environmental impact 

assessment before approving this 

petition.’’ 

Response 3. The requirements of the 

Federal regulations defined in 40 CFR 

part 260.20, and 260.22, describe the 

process by which wastes may be 

removed from the list of hazardous 

waste. In addition to extensive quality 

assurance and quality control data for 

the samples taken, EPA performs a risk 

assessment using the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software to ensure that our 

decision is protective of human health 

and the environment. The constituent 

concentrations found in the surface 

impoundment basin solids are below 

the concentrations that would pose 

harm to human health and the 

environment. 

Comment 4. ‘‘Although the tests that 

have been run by ExxonMobil’s 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) to provide scientific reasoning 

to the EPA for the delisting of SIB 

solids, I believe that more research must 

be conducted by the EPA itself. 

Employees of this agency should 

especially check the individual 

components of the SIB solids and test 

for even greater possibilities than those 

proposed by the DRAS; the DRAS was 

not said to take into account the effects 

that chemical exposure would produce 

on surrounding populations or even 

employees themselves if buildups were 

to occur. Risk assessment should be 

issued for each individual chemical 

compound by the EPA. Assuming the 

EPA would like to work rather quickly 

on this issue considering ExxonMobil’s 

insistence that the SIB solids are nonhazardous, benefits would include 

reduced regulation on the industry, as 

well as, one less responsibility for the 

EPA. However, closer examination 

needs to occur, especially since this test 

has only been conducted for Beaumont, 

Texas.’’ 

Response 4. A waste is eligible for 

delisting only if that waste, as generated 

at a particular facility, does not meet 

any of the criteria under which the 

waste was listed as a hazardous waste. 

In addition, the waste may not contain 

any other Appendix VIII constituents 

that would cause the waste to be 

hazardous. RCRA § 3001(f) and 40 CFR 

260.22. A delisting is only intended to 

address a specific waste stream 

generated at a specific site. The risk 

analysis is conducted specifically for 

each chemical constituent of the waste 

stream. If any constituent concentration 

exceeds the delisting limit, the entire 

waste stream remains hazardous. 

The delisting risk analysis performed 

using the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software evaluates the worst case 

scenario for the petitioned waste and 

risk pathways are evaluated. All 

chemical constituents detected in the 

waste are individually assessed for their 

impact on human health and the 

environment. 

Comment 5. ‘‘I believe there should be 

a thorough health examination of all 

employees in the facility who work 

directly with the waste proposed for 

delisting. Some of these chemicals can 

build-up in the system over time and if 

any de-regulations are to occur they 

need science based evidence to prove 

the decision would not pose a human 

safety issue. If the decision would not 

prove to have a high economical impact, 

I do not see any reason it should be 

considered, especially when the 

decision is for only a single site.’’ 

Response 5. A waste is eligible for 

delisting only if that waste, as generated 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49537 

at a particular facility, does not meet 

any of the criteria under which the 

waste was listed as a hazardous waste. 

In addition, the waste may not contain 

any other Appendix VIII constituents 

that would cause the waste to be 

hazardous. RCRA § 3001(f) and 40 CFR 

260.22. A delisting is only intended to 

address a specific waste stream 

generated at a specific site. Since 

individual waste streams may vary 

depending on raw materials, industrial 

processes, and other factors, it may be 

appropriate not to list a specific waste 

from a specific site. Therefore, while a 

waste described in the regulations or 

resulting from the operation of the 

mixture or derived-from rules generally 

is hazardous, a specific waste from an 

individual facility may not be 

hazardous. For this reason, 40 CFR 

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. A risk assessment of 

the petitioned waste is completed and a 

part of the decision factors in issuing an 

exclusion. Specific health examinations 

and worker protection is covered by the 

facility operating plans and overseen by 

OSHA. Worker safety during the 

management of this waste to avoid 

contact with this material are covered 

by the Health and Safety plans of the 

petitioner. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

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

not of general applicability and 

therefore, is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

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 DRAS, which considers health and 

safety risks to children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

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

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report which includes a 

copy of the rule to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

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

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Executive Order (E.O.) 

12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The Agency’s risk 

assessment did not identify risks from 

management of this material in an 

authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. 

RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/ 

industrial solid waste landfill, etc.). 

Therefore, EPA believes that any 

populations in proximity of the landfills 

used by this facility should not be 

adversely affected by common waste 

management practices for this delisted 

waste. 

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: October 4, 2017. 

Wren Stenger, 

Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1—Wastes Excluded From 

Non-Specific Sources in Appendix IX to 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49538 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

ExxonMobil ........ Beaumont, TX .................. Secondary Impoundment Basin Solids (SIB) (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and F038) 

generated at a maximum rate of 400,000 cubic yards. 

(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph. 

Surface Impoundment Basin Solids. Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—0.109; Arsenic—0.424; Barium—36; Beryllium—2.0; Cadmium—0.09; Chromium—2.27; Cobalt—0.214; 

Lead—0.702; Mercury—0.068; Nickel—13.5; Selenium—0.890; Silver—5.0; Vanadium—3.77; 

Zinc—197; 2,4 Dimethylphenol—11.3; 2-Methylphenol—28.9; 3-Methylphenol—28.9; 4-Methylphenol—2.89; Acenaphthene—10.6; Anthracene-—25.9; Benz(a)anthracene—0.07; 

Benz(a)pyrene—26.3; Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate—106,000; Chrysene—7.01; Di-n-butyl 

phthalate—24.6; Fluoranthene—2.46; Fluorene—4.91; Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene—73; Naphthalene—0.0327; Phenol—173; Pyrene—4.45; Benzene—0.077; Xylenes, total—9.56 

(2) Reopener 

(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste ExxonMobil possesses or is otherwise made 

aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to underflow water 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 verification testing (and retest, if applicable) of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, ExxonMobil 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 ExxonMobil fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (2),(3)(A) or (3)(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 (3)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph (3)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in 

paragraphs (2), (3)(A) or (3)(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. 

(3) Notification Requirements: 

ExxonMobil 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) For onsite disposal, a notice should be submitted to the State to notify the State that disposal of the delisted materials has begun. 

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

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

possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–23239 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49539 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 161020985–7181–02] 

RIN 0648–XF767 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish 

in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is exchanging unused 

flathead sole and rock sole Community 

Development Quota (CDQ) for yellowfin 

sole CDQ acceptable biological catch 

(ABC) reserves in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands management area. This 

action is necessary to allow the 2017 

total allowable catch of yellowfin sole in 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area to be harvested. 

DATES: Effective October 26, 2017 

through December 31, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area (BSAI) according to 

the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP) prepared by the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council under 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. Regulations governing fishing by 

U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 

and 50 CFR part 679. 

The 2017 flathead sole, rock sole, and 

yellowfin sole CDQ reserves specified in 

the BSAI are 1,288 metric tons (mt), 

5,310 mt, and 16,472 mt as established 

by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest 

specifications for groundfish in the 

BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) 

and revised by flatfish exchange (82 FR 

48460; October 18, 2017). The 2017 

flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin 

sole CDQ ABC reserves are 6,018 mt, 

11,286 mt and 11,434 mt as established 

by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest 

specifications for groundfish in the 

BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) 

and revised by flatfish exchange (82 FR 

48460; October 18, 2017). 

The Yukon Delta Fisheries 

Development Association has requested 

that NMFS exchange 60 mt of flathead 

sole CDQ reserves and 145 mt of rock 

sole CDQ reserves for 205 mt of 

yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under 

§ 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance 

with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 60 

mt of flathead sole CDQ reserves and 

145 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 205 

mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves 

in the BSAI. This action also decreases 

and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC 

reserves by the corresponding amounts. 

Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2017 and 

2018 harvest specifications for 

groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, 

February 27, 2017), and revised by 

flatfish exchange (82 FR 48460; October 

18, 2017) are further revised as follows: 

TABLE 11—FINAL 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA (CDQ) RESERVES, INCIDENTAL CATCH AMOUNTS (ICAS), AND

AMENDMENT 80 ALLOCATIONS OF THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH, AND BSAI FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK

SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE TACS 

[Amounts are in metric tons] 

Sector 

Pacific ocean perch Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole 

Eastern 

Aleutian 

district 

Central 

Aleutian 

district 

Western 

Aleutian 

district 

BSAI BSAI BSAI 

TAC .......................................................... 7,900 7,000 9,000 14,176 47,225 154,199 

CDQ ......................................................... 845 749 963 1,228 5,165 16,677 

ICA ........................................................... 100 60 10 4,000 5,000 4,500 

BSAI trawl limited access ........................ 695 619 161 0 0 18,151 

Amendment 80 ......................................... 6,259 5,572 7,866 8,949 37,060 114,871 

Alaska Groundfish Cooperative ............... 3,319 2,954 4,171 918 9,168 45,638 

Alaska Seafood Cooperative ................... 2,940 2,617 3,695 8,031 27,893 69,233 

Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding. 

TABLE 13—FINAL 2017 AND 2018 ABC SURPLUS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA (CDQ) ABC RESERVES, AND

AMENDMENT 80 ABC RESERVES IN THE BSAI FOR FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE

[Amounts are in metric tons] 

Sector 2017 

Flathead sole 

2017 

Rock sole 

2017 

Yellowfin sole 

2018 

Flathead sole 

2018 

Rock sole 

2018 

Yellowfin sole 

ABC .......................................................... 68,278 155,100 260,800 66,164 143,100 250,800 

TAC .......................................................... 14,176 47,225 154,199 14,500 47,100 154,000 

ABC surplus ............................................. 54,102 107,875 106,601 51,664 96,000 96,800 

ABC reserve ............................................. 54,102 107,875 106,601 51,664 96,000 96,800 

CDQ ABC reserve ................................... 6,078 11,431 11,229 5,528 10,272 10,358 

Amendment 80 ABC reserve ................... 48,024 96,444 95,372 46,136 85,728 86,442 

Alaska Groundfish Cooperative for 

2017 1 ................................................... 4,926 23,857 37,891 n/a n/a n/a 

Alaska Seafood Cooperative for 2017 1 .. 43,098 72,587 57,481 n/a n/a n/a 

1The 2018 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not 

be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES