ATTAC“ EMT' 5 -

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 45 / Thursday, March

7,

2002 /Proposed Rules

?

10341

individual piece and the distance that

the piece travels from origin to

destination (i.e., the number of postal

zones crossed). For the administration

of the system of postal zones, the sphere

of the earth is geometrically divided

into units of area 30 minutes square,

identical with a quarter of the area

formed by the intersecting parallels of

latitude and meridians of longitude.

Postal zones are based on the distance

between these units of area. The

distance is measured from the center of

the unit of area containing the sectional

center facility (SCF) serving the origin

post office to the SCF serving the

destination post office. The SCF's

serving the origin and destination post

offices are determined by the

appropriate SCF in L005, Column B.

Effective with the implementation of

the Docket No. R2001-1 omnibus rate

case, the longitude and latitude of 130

3-digit ZIP Code prefixes for SCF

coordinates in L005, Column A, will be

updated to reflect the parent SCF in

L005, Column B. This update will align

the 3-digit ZIP Code prefixes with

current postal processing and

distribution networks.

DMM G030.3.0 will be deleted

because it repeats eligibility information

for intra-BMC, inter-BMC, SCF, and

delivery unit rates contained in other

portions of the DMM.

The Postal Service Official National

Zone Chart Data Program is

administered from the National

Customer Support Center (NCSC) in

Memphis, TN. Single-page zone charts

for originating mail are available online

through Postal Explorer at

http://

pa usps.gov.

Zone chart data for the

entire nation can be purchased in two

formats: printed (about 500 pages) and

electronic (3.5-inch diskettes). For more

information, or to purchase zone charts,

call the Zone Chart Program

Administrator at 800-238-3150. The

single-page zone chart program

available online through Postal Explorer

has been updated with a link to the

updated zone chart data that would be

effective, if this proposed rule is

adopted, with the implementation date

of the Docket No. R2001-1 omnibus rate

case.

Comments are solicited on the

proposed implementation date for this

revision. The method of determining

postal zones and

the data

coordinates

for the SCFs are outside the scope of

this rulemaking.

Although exempt from the notice and

comment requirements of the

Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.

553(b), (c)) regarding proposed

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the

Postal Service invites comments on the

following proposed revisions of the

DMM, incorporated by reference into

the Code of Federal Regulations. (See 39

CFR part 111.)

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

Postal Service.

PART 111-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR

part 111 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(0:39 U.S.C.

101,

401, 403, 404, 414, 3001-3011, 3201-3219,

3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

2.

Amend the following sections of

the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as set

forth below:

G General Information

G000 The USPS and Mailing

Standards

*?

*

G030 Postal Zones

Summary

[Amend Summary text by removing

the references to BMCs, SCF, and

delivery unit zones to read as follows:l

G030 describes how postal zones are

used to compute postage for zoned mail.

It also defines local and nonlocal zones.

1.0 BASIC INFORMATION

[Amend 1.0 by removing the last

sentence and adding the following two

sentences to read as follows:!

* * * The distance is measured from

the center of the unit of area containing

the SCF serving the origin post office to

the SCF serving the destination post

office. The SCFs serving the origin and

destination post offi

ces are determined

by using L005, Column B.

*

2.0 SPECIFIC ZONES

*?

*?

*?

«

2.2 Nonlocal Zones

Nonlocal zones are defined as follows:

[Amend item 2.2a to read as follows:!

a. The zone 1 rate applies to pieces

not eligible for the local zone in 2.1 that

are mailed between two post offices

with the same 3-digit ZIP Code prefix

identified in L005, Column A. Zone 1

includes all units of area outside the

local zone lying in whole or in part

within a radius of about 50 miles from

the center of a given unit of area.

[Remove 3.0 in its entirety.]

An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR

part 111 to reflect these changes will be

published if the proposal is adopted.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief

Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 02-5486 Filed 3-6-02; 8:45

aml

BILIJNG CODE 1710-12-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[911Y-FRL-7153-3]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Proposed Exclusions for

Identifying and Listing Hazardous

Waste

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rules and request for

comment.

SUMMARY:

The EPA (also, "the Agency"

or

"we"

in this preamble) is proposing

to exclude (or "delist") wastewater

treatment plant sludge (from conversion

coating on aluminum) generated by 11

automobile assembly facilities in the

State of Michigan from the lists of

hazardous wastes. The facilities include

three plants owned and operated by

General Motors Corporation

(GM)(Pontiac East-Pontiac, Hamtramck-

Detroit, Flint Truck-Flint), one plant

owned and operated by GM with an

onsite wastewater treatment plant

owned by the City of Lansing and

operated by Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of

Lansing LLC (Lansing Grand River-

Lansing), three plants owned and

operated by Ford Motor Company

(Wixom Assembly Plant-Wixom,

Michigan Truck/Wayne Integrated

Stamping and Assembly Plant-Wayne,

Dearborn Assembly-Dearborn), one

plant owned and operated by Auto

Alliance International Inc. (AAI), a

Ford/Mazda joint venture company

(Auto Alliance International Inc.-Flat

Rock), and three plants owned and

operated by DaimlerChrysler

Corporation (Sterling Heights Assembly

Plant-Sterling Heights, Warren Truck

Plant-Warren, Jefferson North Assembly

Plant-Jefferson).

The Agency is proposing to use an

expedited process to evaluate these

wastes under a pilot project developed

with the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ). EPA

requests comments on the pilot project.

Each of these

11

facilities voluntarily

requested to participate in the pilot

project. Based on its evaluation of

historical data, the Agency has

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

10342?Federal Register/Vol.

67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules

tentatively decided to grant an

exclusion for each of these facilities,

conditioned in part upon the facility's

demonstration that the waste is

nonhazardous. These proposed

decisions, if finalized, will

conditionally exclude these wastes from

the requirements of hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: We will accept public comments

on these proposed decisions until April

22, 2002. We will stamp comments

postmarked after the close of the

comment period as "late." These "late"

comments may not be considered in

formulating a final decision. Comments

which are meant to relate to a single

facility or a subset of the 11 facilities

must identify the facility(s) to which the

comment applies.

Any person may request a hearing on

any of these proposed decisions by

filing a request with Robert Springer,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics

Division (D-8J), EPA Region 5, 77

W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Your request for a hearing must reach

EPA by March 22. 2002. The request

must contain the information prescribed

in 40 CFR 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES:

Please send two copies of

your comments to Todd Remaly, Waste

Management Branch (DW-8J), EPA

Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The

docket for these proposed rules is

located at 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604, and is available for viewing

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

Friday, excluding federal holidays. The

public may copy material from the

docket at $0.15 per page. For technical

information concerning this document

or to make appointment to view the

docket, contact Todd Remaly at the

address above or at 312-353-9317.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Overview

A. What action is EPA proposing?

B. Why is EPA proposing to grant, on an

expedited basis, these delistings?

C.

What is unique about today's proposals?

II. Background

A.

What is the history of the denoting

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?

D.

How will these actions affect the States?

III. The Expedited Delisting Project

A. What is the Expedited Delisting Project?

B.

Does the project amend EPA's delisting

petition regulations?

C. Who is eligible to participate in the

project?

D.

How does the project address wastes not

yet generated?

E.What is the

standard automotive

assembly plant process that generates

F019 waste?

F.

What information will each facility

submit under the project?

G. What is required by the project's

sampling and analysis plan?

H.

When would EPA finalize the proposed

delistings?

I.

What support is MDEQ providing EPA in

implementing the project?

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Waste Information

and Data

A.

What information and analyses did EPA

consider in developing these proposed

delistings?

B.

How did EPA establish risk levels for

these wastes?

C.

What are the maximum allowable

concentrations of hazardous constituents

in the waste?

D.

How will EPA evaluate the exclusion

demonstration?

V. Conditions for Exclusion

A.

How will the petitioners manage the

waste if it is delisted?

B.

How frequently must each facility test

the waste?

C.

What must the facility do if the process

changes?

D.

What happens if a facility's waste fails

to meet the

conditions

of the exclusion?

VI. Regulatory Impact

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

X. Executive Order 12875

XI. Executive Order 13045

XII. Executive Order 13084

XIII. National

Technology Transfer And

Advancement Act

I. Overview

A.

What Action Is EPA Proposing?

The EPA is tentatively proposing to

grant petitions to exclude, or delist,

from the definition of hazardous waste,

wastewater treatment sludge generated

at 11 automotive assembly facilities in

Michigan. As a pilot project, the EPA

proposes to exclude these wastes using

an expedited process. Prior to finalizing

our decision, we will compare

constituent levels in the waste to

maximum allowable concentration

levels established by a fate and transport

model.

B.

Why Is EPA Proposing To Grant, on

an Expedited Basis, These Delistings?

Automobile manufacturers are adding

aluminum to automobiles, which may

result in increased fuel economy.

However, when aluminum is conversion

coated in the automobile assembly

process, the resulting wastewater

treatment sludge must be managed as

hazardous waste (listed as "F019").

Previously, EPA granted has petitions to

delist

F019 waste at automobile

assembly plants. Based on available

historical data and other information,

EPA believes that a number of

automotive assembly plants use a

similar manufacturing process which

generates a similar F019 waste likely to

be nonhazardous. This similarity of

manufacturing processes and the

resultant wastes provides an

opportunity for the automobile industry

to be more efficient in submitting

delisting petitions and EPA in

evaluating them. Efficiency may be

gained and time saved by using

standardized approaches for gathering,

submitting and evaluating data.

Therefore, EPA, in conjunction with

MDEQ, developed a pilot project to

expedite the delisting process. EPA

believes that the project will be a more

efficient way of making delisting

determinations for this group of

facilities. At the same time, EPA

believes that these delisting

determinations will be consistent with

current laws and regulations and will be

protective of human health and the

environment.

C.

What Is Unique About Today's

Proposals?

Today's proposals, while consistent

with the delisting petition regulations at

40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, are unique

in several important ways. Specifically,

we are taking a standardized approach

for the evaluation of petitions from

multiple automotive assembly plants. In

addition, EPA is identifying

constituents of concern based on

available historical data from waste

generated at automotive assembly

plants. Once the petitioner submits the

analytical results of demonstration

samples under §

260.22,

EPA will

determine whether the waste meets the

maximum allowable concentration

levels set forth in this proposal.

Generally, EPA identifies constituents of

concern for a particular facility from an

analysis of its waste rather than relying

on industry-wide historical data. By

participating in the project, facilities

agree that, if their waste is excluded, it

must be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill

with a liner and a leachate collection

system. Typically, EPA only requires

that excluded waste be disposed in a

Subtitle D landfill, which may include

older facilities that are unlined and

without a leachate collection system.

Finally, while we usually propose

delistings one at a time, today we are

proposing

to simultaneously grant

delistings for multiple facilities.

In addition

to the proposed delistings,

EPA is requesting comment on

the pilot

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 /Proposed Rules

?10343

project to expedite these delistings,

which is described in section III, below.

11. Background

A. What Is the History of the Delisting

Program?

The 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. The EPA has amended

this list several times and published it

in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.

We list 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

(3).

Individual waste streams may vary

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 that meets the listing description

may not be.

For this reason, §§260.20 and 260.22

provide an exclusion procedure, called

delisting, which allows a person to

demonstrate 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 petitioner must

show that the waste generated at a

particular facility does not meet any of

the criteria for listed wastes. The criteria

for which EPA lists a waste are in 40

CFR 261.11 and in the background

documents for the listed wastes.

In addition, a petitioner must

demonstrate that the waste does not

exhibit any of the hazardous waste

characteristics and must present

sufficient information for us to decide

whether factors other than those for

which the waste was listed warrant

retaining it as a hazardous waste. (40

CFR 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the

background documents for a listed

waste.)

Once a waste has been delisted, a

generator remains obligated under

RCRA to confirm that its waste remains

nonhazardous.

C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in

Deciding Whether To Grant a Delisting

Petition?

Besides considering the criteria in 40

CFR 260.22(a), 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 we listed the waste

if these additional factors could cause

the waste to be hazardous. (See The

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.)

EPA must also consider mixtures

containing listed hazardous wastes and

wastes derived from treatment of listed

hazardous waste as hazardous wastes.

See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i),

called the "mixture" and "derived-

from" rules, respectively. These wastes

are also eligible for exclusion but

remain hazardous wastes until

excluded.

D. How Will These Actions Affect

States?

Because EPA

is

proposing today's

exclusions under the federal RCRA

delisting program, only states subject to

federal RCRA delisting provisions

would be affected. These exclusions

may not be effective in states having a

dual system that includes federal RCRA

requirements and their own

requirements, or in states which have

received our authorization to make their

own delisting decisions.

EPA allows states to impose their own

non-RCRA regulatory requirements that

are more stringent than EPA's, under

section 3009 of RCRA. 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 the

petitioners to contact the state

regulatory authority to establish the

status of its waste under the state law.

EPA has also authorized some states

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 a facility

transports the petitioned waste to or

manages the waste in any state with

delisting authorization, it must obtain a

delisting from that state before the

facility can manage the waste as

nonhazardous in that state.

III. The Expedited Delisting Project

A. What Is the Expedited Delisting

Project?

On December 21, 2001, EPA signed a

Memorandum of Understanding with

the MDEQ to implement the pilot

project titled: "Expedited Delisting of

Aluminum Phosphating Sludge for

Automobile Assembly Operations"

(hereinafter the "Expedited Delisting

Project" or "project"). In February 2002,

the Agencies amended the

Memorandum of Understanding to

modify the eligibility requirements. A

copy of the Amended Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) is available in the

docket for these proposed rules. The

Agencies agreed to implement the terms

of the MOU as a five-year project. The

purpose of the project is to more

efficiently process delisting petitions

from automobile assembly plants that

generate F109 waste without using the

hazardous constituents for which FMB

was originally listed. The similarity of

waste at these automotive assembly

plants gives EPA and industry an

opportunity to be more efficient.

EPA and MDEQ developed the project

under the "Joint EPA/State Agreement

to Pursue Regulatory Innovation" which

encourages states to propose innovative

approaches to environmental regulation

to "find new, better, and more efficient

and effective ways to improve

environmental protection." See, 63 FR

24785, May 5, 1998. Consistent with the

joint agreement, the project was

developed with the input of

"stakeholders," i.e., representatives of

the automobile industry (Ford Motor

Company and General Motors

Corporation) and an environmental

organization (The Ecology Center). In

December 2001, MDEQ notified the

stakeholders that the agencies had

signed the MOU.

As described in section LC, above, the

Expedited Delisting Project takes a new

approach in the way EPA implements

its delisting regulations for a group of

similar facilities. Because of the

availability of historical data and the

similarities among these facilities, EPA

and MDEQ developed, under the

Expedited Delisting Project, a uniform

approach for the submission and

evaluation of petitions made by

automotive assembly plants to delist

F019 waste. First, EPA usually requires

the petitioner to submit a manufacturing

process description specific to its

facility. However, under the Expedited

Delisting Project, each facility must

certify that it uses the standard

automotive assembly manufacturing

process that generates F019 waste.

Second, EPA requires a petitioner to

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

10344

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7,

2002 /

Proposed

Rules

submit analytical results of

demonstration samples. Generally,

petitioners work separately with EPA to

develop a sampling and analysis plan to

comply with this section. Under the

project, each petitioner will use the

same pre-approved sampling and

analysis plan. Third, EPA identifies

constituents of concern and sets

maximum allowable concentrations for

those constituents in the waste

separately for each facility. Under the

project, EPA is establishing a set

constituents of concern and

corresponding maximum allowable

concentrations that are the same for a

group of automotive assembly facilities.

Another significant innovation is that

the facilities participating in the project

will dispose of excluded waste in a

lined landfill with a leachate collection

system. Generally, under previous

exclusions, wastes may be sent to any

Subtitle D landfill, including older

facilities that may not be lined or have

a leachate collection system.

Finally, today EPA is simultaneously

proposing multiple delistings.

Typically, EPA proposes delistings one

at a time.

EPA

requests comments on the

Expedited Delisting Project described in

this section.

B. Does the Project Amend EPA's

Delisting Petition Regulations?

The Expedited Delisting Project is not

an amendment to the delisting petition

regulations at

40 CFR 260.20

and

260.22.

Rather, the project represents a

new approach in EPA's implementation

of these delisting petition regulations.

Participation in the project is voluntary.

Automobile assembly plants not

participating may follow the usual

process for delisting.

Today's description of the Expedited

Delisting Project (apart from the

proposed delistings themselves)

provides guidance to EPA, facilities

participating in the project, and the

general public on how EPA intends to

exercise its discretion in implementing

the statutory and regulatory provisions

that concern the delisting of

F019

waste

generated by automotive assembly

plants in Michigan. The statutory

provisions and EPA regulations

described in this project contain legally

binding requirements. This project does

not substitute

for

those provisions or

regulations, nor is it a regulation itself.

However, the proposed delistings, if

finalized, will

be

rules imposing legally

binding requirements. EPA retains the

discretion to adopt approaches on a

case-by-case basis that differ from the

project where appropriate. Any

decisions regarding a particular

facility's waste will be made based on

the statute and regulations. EPA

will

consider whether or not

the project is

appropriate in a particular situation.

The project

will

be subject to periodic

evaluation and may be revised without

public notice.

C. Who Is Eligible To Participate in the

Project?

The MOU states the eligibility

requirements for the project, which are

summarized in this section. Subject to

approval, Michigan automobile or light

duty truck assembly facilities, which

use, or intend to use, the zinc

phosphating process on aluminum

described in the MOU, are eligible

to

participate in the Expedited Delisting

Project. Consistent with the MOU, the

facility must submit to the EPA and the

MDEQ a letter requesting to participate

in the Expedited Delisting Project to

delist its

F019 wastewater treatment

sludge.

In January

2002, a total

of

14

facilities

requested to participate in the project.

In February of

2002, MDEQ with EPA

approval,

notified 11 plants

1 that they

are eligible to participate in the

Expedited Delisting Project. Of the 11

participating facilities, the following are

currently using aluminum and are

generating

F019 waste: Ford Motor

Company—Michigan Truck Plant

and

Wayne Integrated Stamping and

Assembly Plant,

38303 Michigan

Avenue/37625

Michigan Avenue,

Wayne, MI 48184,

RCRA ID No. MID

000809228/MID 0005379706; Ford

Motor Company—Wixom

Assembly

Plant,

28801 Wixom

Road, Wixom,

MI

48393, RCRA ID No. MID 005379714;

General Motors—Flint Truck,

G

-

3100

Van

Slyke

Road, Flint, MI 48551, RCRA

ID No. M1D005356951; General

Motors—Hamtramck, 2500 E.

General

Motors Blvd., Detroit, MI

48211,

RCRA

ID No. MID980795488;

General

Motors—Pontiac East,

2100 S.

Opdyke

Road, Pontiac, MI

48341, RCRA

ID No.

MID0053546902;

Trigen/Cinergy-

USFOS of Lansing LLC at General

Motors Corporation—Lansing Grand

River,

920

Townsend

Ave.,

Lansing, MI

48921,

RCRA ID No.

MIK211915624.

The following participating facilities are

not yet using aluminum and do not

generate

F019

at this time:

Ford

Motor

Company—Dearborn Assembly Plant,

3001

Miller Road, Dearborn, MI

48121,

RCRA

ID No. MID 000809764; Auto

Alliance International Inc. (Ford/Mazda

Joint Venture Company), 1 International

Drive, Flat Rock, MI

84134

-

9498, RCRA

Three facilities withdrew their requests to

participate at this lime. hut may request to

participate in the future.

ID No. MID 981953912;

Daim lerChrysler—Jefferson North

Assembly Plant,

2101

Conner Avenue,

Detroit, MI

84215,

RCRA ID No.

MED985569987;

DaimlerChrysler-

Warren Truck Assembly Plant,

21500

Mound Round, Warren, MI

48091,

RCRA ID

No.

MID005358007;

DaimlerChrysler—Sterling Heights

Assembly

Plant, 38111

Van Dyke,

Sterling Heights, MI

48312, RCRA ID

No. M1D980896690.

D.

How Does the Project Address Wastes

Not Yet Generated?

The project will include some

facilities which do not yet perform the

conversion coating on aluminum

resulting in

F019.

We grant up-front

delistings for wastes that have not yet

been generated, but will be generated in

the future, based on available data (e.g.

pilot scale system data). Consistent with

previous up-front delistings, the up-

front delistings proposed today will be

contingent upon verification testing of

the waste water treatment sludge once

the facility begins conversion coating on

aluminum (see section V.A., Conditions

for Exclusion).

E.

What Is the Standard Automotive

Assembly Plant Process That Generates

F019 Waste?

F019

is

a wastewater treatment

sludge

generated from rinses and overflows

from the conversion coating of

aluminum. Wastewaters from other

automobile assembly operations,

including electrocoating and spray

booth operations, are commingled with

the conversion coating wastewater prior

to treatment. The conversion coating,

electrocoating and spray booth

operations which may contribute

constituents of concern in the sludge are

summarized in this section.

Prior to the zinc phosphating process,

fully assembled metal car bodies, parts,

and spaceframe assemblies are cleaned

with various alkaline cleaners,

surfactants, and/or organic detergents.

Following cleaning, rinse conditioners

are employed to create nucleation sites

prior to conversion coating. In the

conversion coating step, parts are

sprayed with or immersed in a zinc

phosphate solution to create a uniform

surface for painting. A sealer may be

applied after conversion coating and a

buffer is sometimes added during this

step. Rinses and overflows from the

conversion coating process are likely to

contain trivalent chromium, nickel, and

zinc. The zinc phosphating process used

at these facilities today does not use

hexavalent chromium or cyanide, for

which

F019 was originally listed.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register/Vol.

67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules?

10345

Following the phosphating process,

the metal parts are immersed in a bath

where an electrocoating of paint is

applied. Any undeposited paint is

rinsed and recovered in subsequent

stages prior to oven baking.

After conversion coating and

electrocoating, various paints and top

coats are applied to the automobile

bodies/parts in spray booths. Some

facilities use a water curtain to control

emissions which is discharged to the

wastewater treatment plant.

Overflows and rinse water from the

electrocoating process and wastewater

from the paint booths can contain

hazardous constituents such

as

metals,

organic solvents or formaldehyde.

Typical wastewater treatment plant

operations begin with separation of

large particles. The wastewater is then

sent to various thickeners and clarifiers

where water and solids are further

separated. The pH of the wastewater

might be adjusted and flocculents and

coagulants may be added to facilitate

the thickening process. The sludge from

the thickeners and clarifiers is

dewatered in a filter press.

F. What Information Will Each Facility

Submit Under the Project?

Each facility participating in the

project must submit a brief written

application, consistent with the MOU,

demonstrating that its waste qualifies

for exclusion or delisting (the

"exclusion demonstration") .

2 The

exclusion demonstration must show the

following on the basis of sampling data

consistent with the approved sampling

and analysis plan: (1) That the

wastewater treatment sludge meets the

criteria set forth in the Table of

Maximum Allowable Concentrations;

(2) that the wastewater treatment sludge

is not characteristically hazardous waste

under

40

CFR part 261, subpart C; and

(3) that the wastewater treatment sludge

does not contain other hazardous waste

listed under part 261, subpart D.

Each exclusion demonstration shall

also include the following: (1) All

sampling data required by and

consistent with the approved sampling

and analysis plan; (2) a description of

the waste, including, but not limited to,

(i) any factors which may cause the

waste to be a hazardous waste, and (ii)

the maximum annual quantities of

2

Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLG (Trigen)

must submit its exclusion demonstration jointly

with GM. Trigen

must

also certify, in

accordance

with 40 CFR 260.22(i)(121, that (1) the Trigen

wastewater treatment plant is located on the GM

Lansing Grand River facility property and (2) the

Trigen wastewater treatment plant does not receive

any waste or wastewater from sources other than

the GM Lansing Grand River facility.

waste covered by the demonstration; (3)

a statement that the facility is an

automobile assembly facility using the

standard manufacturing processes as

stated in the MOU; 3

(4) an assertion that

the F019 waste does not meet the

criteria for which this type of waste was

listed as a hazardous waste; (5) the

certification as required by

§ 260,22(0(12).

G.

What Is Required by the Project's

Sampling and Analysis Plan?

The sampling and analysis plan

describes the sampling objectives,

sampling strategy, collection

procedures, and quality assurance/

quality control (QA/QC) procedures in

detail. The plan also discusses the

procedures that all facilities

participating in the project will use for

sample labeling and documentation,

equipment preparation and cleaning,

and sample shipment. Each facility will

collect composite samples from each of

six roll-off boxes of wastewater

treatment sludge over at least six weeks

at each facility.

When aluminum is first conversion

coated at a facility which does not

currently use aluminum, the facility

will collect initial verification samples

from each of four roll-off boxes and will

analyze them for the constituents of

concern. When production using

conversion coating on aluminum first

reaches

50

units a day, additional

samples from each of four roll-off boxes

will be collected and analyzed for the

constituents of concern.

Each facility will also conduct

quarterly verification sampling.

All data collected must Include the

appropriate QA/QC information and be

subject to data validation as described

in the approved sampling and analysis

plan. Each facility will submit the

analytical methods and detection levels

to be used prior to sampling.

The sampling and analysts plan is an

appendix to the MOU for the Expedited

Denning Project and is available in the

docket.

H.

When Would EPA Finalize the

Proposed Delistings?

HSWA specifically requires EPA to

provide notice and an opportunity for

3

To the extent that a participating facility's

process differs from the process set forth in the

MOU. the facility shall describe any such

differences that might result in a hazardous

constituent being present in the wastewater

treatment sludge that is not covered by the

demonstration, i.e., not

included in the Table of

Maximum Allowable. Concentrations. Facilities

that

identify

differences that the EPA believes will not

materially impact wastewater treatment sludge

quality may still be considered for delisting

consistent with the time frame set forth in section

Mi. below.

comment before granting or denying a

final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not

make a final decision or grant an

exclusion until it has considered and

addressed all timely public comments

on today's proposal, including any

comments made at public hearings. For

those facilities named in today's

proposal which submit their exclusion

demonstrations in a timely manner, EPA

Region 5 will decide whether or not to

exclude their waste within 128 days

after the close of the public comment

period. The exclusions will become

effective on the publication date of the

final rule in the Federal Register.

Since these rules would reduce the

existing requirements, the regulated

community does not need a six-month

period to come into compliance in

accordance with section 3010 of RCRA

as amended by HSWA.

L

What Support Is MDEQ Providing EPA

in Implementing the Project?

MDEQ will be providing important

assistance to EPA during the life of the

project. MDEQ will provide technical

support in reviewing exclusion

demonstrations and all verification

sampling data and will participate in

periodic evaluations of the project.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Waste

Information and Data

A.

What Information and Analyses Did

EPA Consider in Developing These

Proposed Delistings?

The EPA reviewed existing data

submitted in support of five petitions to

delist automotive assembly plant

F019

sludge. Three were granted by EPA: GM

in Lake Orion, Michigan (62 FR 55344,

October 24, 1997); GM in Lansing,

Michigan (65 FR

31096,

May

16, 2000);

and BMW Manufacturing Corporation in

Greer, South Carolina (66 FR 21877,

May 2, 2001). Petitions to exclude F019

at GM plants located in Lordstown,

Ohio and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

have not been acted upon by EPA. The

F019 waste

from

these facilities was

sampled in accordance with approved

sampling and analysis plans and

analyzed for a comprehensive list of

constituents. These analyses included

total and Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis for

volatile and semivolatile organic

compounds and metals. These wastes

were also analyzed for cyanide, sulfide,

fluoride, formaldehyde, pH, and other

parameters.

EPA also considered an industry

database submitted jointly by the

Aluminum Association and the Alliance

of Automobile Manufacturers. This

database contained

waste data

generated

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

10346 Federal

Register / Vol. 67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 /Proposed Rules

over ten years and included a range of

analyses of F019 and non-F019

wastewater treatment plant sludge

generated at some automotive assembly

plants. The analytes and number of

samples collected varied by plant and

the database did not include QA/QC

information.

EPA used the available historical data

in conjunction with a fate and transport

model to define a list of approximately

70 constituents of concern for the

exclusion demonstration analysis.

Specifically, EPA compared the

maximum observed concentration of

any hazardous constituent detected at

least once in any of the historical data

to the most conservative delisting levels

developed for the project. EPA

identified a constituent for analysis if

the observed value was within three

orders of magnitude of this delisting

level. The list of 70 constituents of

concern also included the non-pesticide

constituents in 40 CFR 261.24 and

constituents associated with painting

operations.

B. How Did EPA Establish Risk Levels

for These Wastes?

In developing this proposal, we

considered the original listing criteria

and the additional factors required by

the HSWA. See section 222 of HSWA,

42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22

(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the petitioned

waste against the listing criteria and

factors cited in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) and

(3). These factors include: (1) Whether

the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2)

the toxicity of the constituents; (3) the

concentration of the constituents in the

waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous

constituents to migrate and to

bioaccumulate; (5) its persistence in the

environment once released from the

waste; (6) plausible and specific types of

management of the petitioned waste; (7)

the quantity of waste produced; and

(8)

waste variability.

Consistent with previous proposed

delistings, EPA identified plausible

exposure routes (ground water, surface

water, air) for hazardous constituents

present in the petitioned waste based on

improper management of a Subtitle D

landfill. To evaluate the waste, we used

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software

program (DRAS), a Windows based

software tool, to estimate the potential

release of hazardous constituents from

the waste and to predict the risk

associated with those releases. For a

detailed description of the DRAS

program and revisions see 65 FR 58015,

September 27, 2000; 65 FR 59000,

November 7, 2000; and 65 FR 75879,

December 5, 2000.

Today's proposal contains one

proposed revision to the DRAS program.

Previously, the Henry's Law Constant

used to estimate the volatilization rate

of formaldehyde in groundwater for the

shower-inhalation scenario was

estimated using a relationship based on

molecular weight, solubility, and pure

vapor pressure taken from the

Handbook of Chemical Property

Estimation Methods,

W.I. Lyman, W.F.

Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt, 1982,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New

York, New York. In 1988, Eric A.

Betterton and Michael R. Hoffman

published

Henry's Law Constants of

Some Environmentally Important

Aldehydes

in

Environmental Science

and Technology,

Volume 22, Number

12, in which observed Henry's Law

constants for low concentrations of

aldehydes in water were lower than

those expected using the earlier

relationship. These empirical results

reflect the increased affinity for water by

formaldehyde. We believe these

empirical results more accurately reflect

the conditions modeled in the DRAS

groundwater inhalation scenario and we

are using the revised Henry's Law

constant for this proposal. A technical

support document for the DRAS

program, as well as documentation of

the formaldehyde references, are

available in the docket.

C. What Are the Maximum Allowable

Concentrations of Hazardous

Constituents in the Waste?

The following table gives the

maximum allowable concentration

levels for the 70 constituents of concern

based on a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-6

and a target hazard quotient of one. The

levels are expressed both as total

constituent concentrations and TCLP

concentrations. Since the allowable

levels are dependent on the annual

volume generated, the table includes

allowable levels at three different

volumes which span the typical range of

waste generated. The table also includes

the maximum allowable groundwater

concentration expected at the disposal

site.

TABLE OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS EXPEDITED DELISTING PROJECT

Maximum

allowable concentrations in the waste

Maximum

allowable

Constituent

CAS

#

1000 cubic yards

2000 cubic yards

3000 cubic yards

groundwater

concentra-

Total (mg/

TCLP (mg/

Total (mg/

TCLP (mg/

Total (mg/

TCLP (mg/

don

kg )

L)

kg)

L)

kg)

L)

(ttg/L)

Volatile Organic Compounds

acetone

?

67-64-1

NA

375

NA

228

NA

171

3,75C

acetonitdle

?

75-05-8

NA

64.2

NA

39.2

NA

29.3

64:

acrytonitdle

?

107-13-1

6,370

0.0128

4,120

0.0078

3,200

0.00584

0.13C

ally! chloride ?

107-05-1

2,540

0.563

1,640

0.344

1,270

0.257

/0.7

benzene ?

71-43-2

NA

0.238

NA

0.145

NA

0.109

2.5C

carbon tetrachloride ?56-23-5

NA

0.0738

NA

0.045

NA

0.0337

0.56','

chlorobenzene ?

108-90-7

NA

9.98

NA

6.08

NA

4.56

10C

chloroform

?

67-66-3

NA

0.128

6,530

0.0779

5,080

0.0583

1.3f.

1,1 dichloroethane ?75-34-3

NA

19.7

NA

12

NA

9

3,75C

1,2 dichloroethane

?

107-06-2

NA

0.00422

NA

0.00257

9,800

0.00193

0.80(

1,1-dichloroethylene ?75-35-4

1,340

0.015

867

0.00702

674

0.00526

0.12:

cis-1,2 dichloroethylene

?

156-59-2

NA

6.98

NA

4.26

NA

3.19

70.0

trans-1,2 dichloroethylene

156-60-5

NA

9.98

NA

6.08

NA

4.56

10(

ethylbenzene ?

100-41-4

NA

69.8

NA

42.6

NA

31.9

70(

formaldehyde ?

50-00-0

1,070

138

689

84.2

535

63

1,38(

methyl chloride

(chloromethane)

?74-87-3

5,760

0.295

3,720

0.180

2,890

0.135

5.6;

methyl ethyl ketone ?78-93-3

NA

200

NA

200

NA

200

22,60(

methyl isohtityl ketone

108-10-1

NA

300

NA

183

NA

137

3,00(

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register/Vol.

67,

No. 45/Thursday, March

7,

2002/Proposed Rules?

10347

TABLE

OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS EXPEDITED DELISTING PROJECT

-Continued

Constituent

CAS #

Maximum allowable concentrations in the waste

Maximum

allowable

groundwater

concentra-

1000 cubic yards

2000 cubic yards

3000 cubic yards

Total (mg/

TCLP (mg/

Total (mg/

TCLP (mg/

Total (mg/

TCLP (mg/

tion

kg)

L)

kg)

L)

kg)

L)

(1102)

methyl methacrylate ?80-62-6

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7,690

52,700

methylene chloride ?75-09-2

NA

0.473

NA

0.288

NA

0.216

5

n-butyl alcohol ?

71-36-3

NA

375

NA

228

NA

171

3,750

styrene ?

100-42-5

NA

9.98

NA

6.08

NA

4.56

100

1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane

630-20-6

NA

0.399

NA

0.243

NA

0.182

2.81

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

79-34-5

274

0.720

152

0.439

108

0.329

0.366

tetrachloroethylene

?127-18-4

NA

0.14

NA

0.0855

NA

0.064

1.40

toluene ?

108-88-3

NA

99.8

NA

60.8

NA

45.6

1,000

1,1,1-trichloroethane

?71-55-6

NA

20

NA

12.2

NA

9.11

200

1,1,2-trichloroethane ?

79-00-5

NA

0.128

NA

0.078

NA

0.0584

1.28

trichbroethylene ?

79-01-6

NA

0.5

NA

0.304

NA

0.228

5.00

vinyl acetate ?

108-05-4

NA

1,440

NA

879

NA

658

15,200

vinyl chloride ?

75-01-4 178 0.00384

115

0.00234

89.4

0.00175

0.0384

xylene ?

95-47-6

NA

998

NA

608

NA

456

10,000

108-38-3

106-42-3

SemIvolatIle Organic Compounds

acrylamide

?

79-06-1

2,940

0.00196

2,710

0.0012

2,580

0.0009

0.0163

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

117-81-7

NA

0.147

NA

0.0896

NA

0.0671

1.47

butyl benzyl phthalate

? 85-68-7

NA

152

NA

92.9

NA

69.6

1,450

o-cresol ?

95-48-7

NA

187

NA

114

NA

85.5

1,875

m-cresol

?

108-39-4

NA

187

NA

114

NA

85.5

1,875

p-cresol

?

106-44-5

NA

18.7

NA

11.4

NA

8.55

188

1,4-dichlorobenzene

?106-46-7

NA

0.227

NA

0.139

NA

0.104

2.40

2,4-dimethylphenol ?105-67-9

NA

74.9

NA

45.7

NA

34.2

750

2,4-dinitrotoluene

?121-14-2

NA

0.0107

NA

0.00654

NA

0.0049

0.107

di-n-octyl phthalate ?

117-84-0

NA

0.184

NA

0.112

NA

0.0839

1.30

hexachlorobenzene

?118-74-1

2.84

0.000159

1.58

9.67x10-

5

1.12

7.24x10

-5

0.00168

hexachlorobutadiene

?87-68-3

537

0.0158

299

0.00961

212

0.0072

0.167

hexachloroethane ?

67-72-1

NA

0.289

NA

0.176

NA

0.132

3.06

naphthalene

?

91-20-3

NA

24.5

NA

15

NA

11.2

246

nitrobenzene ?

98-95-3

NA

1.87

NA

1.14

NA

0.855

18.8

pentachlorophenol

?87-86-5

4,980

0.00672

2,770

0.004

1,960

0.00307

0.0711

pyridine

?

110-86-1

NA

3.75

NA

2.28

NA

1.71

37.4

2,4,5-trichlorophenol ?

95-95-4

NA

150

NA

91.6

NA

68.6

1,500

2,4,6411chlorophenol

?88-06-2

NA

0.453

NA

0.276

NA

0.207

4.79

Metals

antimony

?

7440-36-0

NA

1.08

NA

0.659

NA

0.494

6.00

arsenic

?

7440-38-2

8,820

0.492

8,140

0.3

7,740

0.224

4.87

barium ?

7440-39-3

NA

100

NA

100

NA

100

2,000

beryllium ?

7440-41-7

NA

2.18

NA

1.33

NA

0.998

4.00

cadmium ?

7440-43-9

NA

0.788

NA

0.48

NA

0.36

5.00

chromium ?

7440-47-3

NA

5

NA

4.95

NA

3.71

100

cobalt ?

7440-48-4

NA

118

NA

72.1

NA

54

2,250

lead ?

7439-92-1

NA

5

NA

5

NA

5

15.0

mercury

?

7439-97-6

16

0.2

8.92

0.2

6.34

0.2

2.00

nickel

?

7440-02-0

NA

148

NA

90.5

NA

67.8

750

selenium

?

7782-49-2

NA

1.0

NA

1.0

NA

1.0

50.0

silver

?

7440-22-4

NA

5.0

NA

5.0

NA

5.0

187

thallium

?

7440-28-0

NA

0.462

NA

0.282

NA

0.211

2.00

tin??

7440-31-5

NA

1,180

NA

721

NA

540

22,500

vanadium ?

7440-62-2

NA

111

NA

67.6

NA

50.6

263

zinc

?

7440-66-6

NA

1,470

NA

898

NA

673

11,300

Miscellaneous

corrosivity (pH) ?

NA

2.0 < pH < 12.5?

See 40 CFR 261.22

NA

cyanide ?

57-12-5

18.9 I?

I

?11.5 I

?

8.63

200

ignitability

??

NA

flashpoint > 140°F?

See 40 CFR 261.21

NA

reactivity

?

NA

See 40 CFR 261.23

NA

sulfide

?

?

18496-25-8

See 40 CFR 261.23

NA

NA: The program did not calculate a delisting level for this constituent, or the delisting level was higher than those levels expected to be found

in the waste. In the event high levels are discovered, the constituent will be evaluated and a delisting level set in accordance with the method-

ology used to set delisting levels for the other constituents.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

10348?

Federal Register /Vol.

67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 /Proposed Rules

Total cyanide and sulfide analysis will also be conducted, although delisting levels for total concentrations have not been established for cya-

nide and sulfide. The results will be used to support a qualitative statement by the petitioner that the waste is not reactive as defined in 40 CFR

261.23.

D. How Will EPA Evaluate the Exclusion

Demonstration?

EPA will confirm that sample

collection, data analysis, and elements

of QA/QC analysis are in accordance

with the approved sampling and

analysis plan. EPA will compare the

maximum value of each constituent

detected at a given facility to the

maximum allowable concentration

levels set forth in this proposal.

The EPA will use the DRAS program

to estimate the aggregate cancer risk and

hazard index for each facility's waste.

The aggregate cancer risk is the

cumulative total of all individual

constituent cancer risks. The hazard

index is a similar cumulative total of

non-cancer effects. The target aggregate

cancer risk is 1 x 10- 5

and the target

hazard index is one.

In addition, EPA will review any

process information which differs from

the standard process described above.

V. Conditions for Exclusion

A.

How Will the Petitioners Manage the

Waste

if

It Is Delisted?

If the petitioned waste is delisted, the

facility must dispose of it in a lined

landfill with leachate collection, which

is licensed, permitted, or otherwise

authorized to accept the delisted

wastewater treatment sludge in

accordance with 40 CFR

part 258 and

certify to this annually.

The facilities granted an up-front

exclusion must conduct initial

verification testing. These facilities must

handle the wastewater treatment sludge

generated after aluminum parts are first

subjected to conversion coating as

hazardous until 15 calendar days after

EPA receives the initial verification

data. If EPA notifies the facility during

the 15-day period that the data is

unacceptable, the facility must continue

the handle the waste as hazardous.

B.

How Frequently Must Each Facility

Test the Waste?

After the exclusion becomes effective,

and any necessary inital verification

testing has been completed, each facility

shall collect and analyze a

representative sample on a quarterly

basis to verify that the waste continues

to meet the requirements of this

proposal. The sample must be collected

in accordance with the approved

sampling plan. The verification samples

need to be analyzed for only those

constituents which were originally

detected in the exclusion

demonstration.

Each facility must submit the

verification data on an annual basis. The

annual submittal of verification data

and disposal certification must be made

to both Region

5

Waste Management

Branch, U.S. EPA, at

77

West Jackson

Boulevard, Mail Code DW-8J, Chicago,

Illinois 60604

and MDEQ Waste

Management

Division, Hazardous Waste

Program Section, at P.O. Box

30241,

Lansing, Michigan 48909. The

facility

must compile, summarize, and maintain

on site for a minimum of five years

records of operating conditions and

analytical data. The facility must make

these records available for inspection.

All data must be accompanied by a

signed copy of the certification

statement in 40 CFR 26a 22(i )(12).

C.

What Must the Facility Do if the

Process Changes?

If a facility signifi

cantly changes the

manufacturing process, the treatment

process, or the chemicals used, the

facility may not handle the sludge

generated from the new process under

this exclusion until it has demonstrated

to the EPA that the waste meets the

criteria set in section IV.0 and that no

new hazardous constituents listed in

appendix VIII of

40 CFR

part 261 have

been introduced. The facility must

manage wastes generated after the

process change as hazardous waste until

it receives written approval for

continuance of the exclusion from the

Agency.

D.

What Happens if a Facility's Waste

Fails To Meet the Conditions of the

Exclusion?

If a facility with sludge excluded

under this project violates the terms and

conditions established in the exclusion,

the Agency may suspend the exclusion

or may start procedures to withdraw the

exclusion.

If the quarterly testing of the waste

does not meet the delisting levels

described in section IV.0 above, the

facility must notify the EPA and MDEQ

immediately at the addresses listed in

section V.B, above. The exclusion will

be suspended and the waste managed as

hazardous until the facility has received

written approval for continuance of the

exclusion from the Agency. The facility

may provide any information and

sampling results that support the

continuation of the delisting exclusion.

The EPA has the authority under

RCRA and the Administrative

Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et

seq. (APA), to reopen a delisting

decision if we receive information

indicating that the conditions of this

exclusion have been violated.

VI.

Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must conduct an "assessment of the

potential costs and benefits" for all

"significant" regulatory actions.

The proposal to grant an exclusion is

not significant, since its effect, if

promulgated, would be to reduce the

overall costs and economic impact of

EPA's hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction would be

achieved by excluding waste generated

at a specific facility from EPA's lists of

hazardous wastes, thus enabling a

facility to manage its waste as

nonhazardous.

Because there is no additional impact

from today's proposed rule, this

proposal would not be a significant

regulation, and no cost/benefit

assessment is required. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has also

exempted this rule from the requirement

for OMB review under section (6) of

Executive Order 12866.

VII.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601-612,

whenever an agency

is required to publish a general notice

of rulemaking for any proposed or final

rule, it must prepare and make available

for public comment a regulatory

flexibility analysis which describes the

impact of the rule on small entities (that

is, small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility

analysis is required, however, if the

Administrator or delegated

representative certifies that the rule will

not have any impact on small entities.

This rule, if promulgated, will not

have an adverse economic impact on

small entities since its effect would be

to reduce the overall costs of EPA's

hazardous waste regulations and would

be limited to eleven facilities.

Accordingly, the Agency certifies that

this proposed regulation, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This

regulation, therefore, does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

VIII.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and

recordkeeping requirements associated

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register / Vol.

67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 /Proposed Rules

?

10349

with this proposed rule have been

approved by the OMB under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-511,

44

U.S.C.

3501

et seq.) and have been

assigned OMB Control Number 2050-

0053.

IX.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

Public Law 104-4, which was signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

generally must prepare a written

statement for rules with federal

mandates that may result in estimated

costs to state, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year.

When such a statement is required for

EPA rules, under section 205 of the

UMRA EPA must identify and consider

alternatives, including the least costly,

most cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. EPA must select that

alternative, unless the Administrator

explains in the final rule why it was not

selected or it is inconsistent with law.

Before EPA establishes regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, EPA must

develop under section 203 of the UMRA

a small government agency plan. The

plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments,

giving them meaningful and timely

input in the development of EPA

regulatory proposals with significant

federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

them on compliance with the regulatory

requirements.

The UMRA generally defines a federal

mandate for regulatory purposes as one

that imposes an enforceable duty upon

state, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector.

The EPA finds that today's delisting

decision is deregulatory in nature and

does not impose any enforceable duty

on any state, local, or tribal governments

or the private sector estimated to cost

$100 million or more in any one year.

In addition, the proposed delisting

decision does not establish any

regulatory requirements for small

governments and so does not require a

small government agency plan under

UMRA section 203.

X. Executive

Order

12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a state, local, or tribal

government, unless the federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments. If

the mandate is unfunded, EPA must

provide to the OMB a description of the

extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected state, local,

and tribal governments, the nature of

their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of state, local, and tribal

governments "to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates."

Today's rule does not create a mandate

on state, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not

apply

to

this rule.

XL Executive Order

13045

The Executive Order 13045 is entitled

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (82 FR 19885, April 23,

1997).

This order applies to any rule that EPA

determines (1) is economically

significant as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety

effects of the planned rule on children,

and explain why the planned regulation

is

preferable to other potentially

effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the

Agency.

This proposed rule

is

not subject to

Executive Order 13045

because this

is

not an

economically significant

regulatory action

as

defined by

Executive Order 12866.

XII. Executive Order

13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects communities

of Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs

incurred by the tribal

governments.

If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must

provide to the OMB, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA's

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments "to meaningful and timely

input" in the development of regulatory

policies on matters that significantly or

uniquely affect their communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

XIII. National Technology Transfer

And

Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, the Agency is directed to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (for example,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. Where EPA does not

use available and potentially applicable

voluntary consensus standards, the Act

requires the Agency to provide

Congress, through the OMB, an

explanation of the reasons for not using

such standards.

This rule does not establish any new

technical standards, and thus the

Agency has no need to consider the use

of voluntary consensus standards in

developing this final rule.

List of Subjects in

40

CFR Part

261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

69

A

n

u

(

tehority: Sec. 3001(1) RCRA, 42 U.S.0

Dated: February

22, 2002.

Robert

Springer,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics

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:

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

10350?

Federal Register/Vol. 67,

No.

45/Thursday, March 7, 2002/Proposed Rules

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

?

2. In Table 1 of appendix IX of part

?

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

6922, and 6938.

?

261 it is proposed to add the following

?

Excluded Under §§260.20 and 260.22

waste streams in alphabetical order by

facility to read as follows:

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility and address?

Waste description

•

Auto Alliance International Inc. (Ford/Mazda Joint Ven- Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by Auto Alliance Inter-

lure Company)—Flat Rock, Michigan. national Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of (insert annual vol-

ume) cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with

leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept

the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258.

The exclusion becomes effective as of (insert final publication date).

1.

Delisting Levels:

The total constituent concentrations and TCLP concentrations

measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels: (insert constituents

and delisting levels from section IV.0 of the preamble)

2.

Initial Verification Testing: a.

When aluminum parts are first subjected to conver-

sion coating, the facility must collect 4 additional samples and analyze them for the

constituents listed in paragraph (1) using the methodologies specified in an EPA-

approved sampling plan. The facility must manage as hazardous all wastewater

treatment sludge generated after aluminum parts are first subjected to conversion

coating, until 15 calendar days after EPA receives valid data demonstrating that

paragraph (1) is satisfied, unless EPA notifies the facility during the 15-day period

that the data is unacceptable.

b.

When production using conversion coating on aluminum first reaches 50 units a

day, the facility must collect 4 additional samples and analyze them for the

con-

stituents

listed in paragraph (1) using the methodologies specified in an EPA-ap-

proved sampling plan.

c.

The verification data required in paragraphs (2.a) and (2.b) must be submitted as

soon as the data becomes available.

3.

Quarterly Verification Testing:

After the facility satisfies the requirements of para-

graph (2.a), it must, on a quarterly basis, collect and analyze one sample of the

waste for the constituents detected in pre-aluminum sampling and the sampling re-

quired in paragraph (2) using the methodologies specified in an EPA-approved

sampling plan.

4.

Changes in Operating Conditions:

The facility must notify the EPA in writing if the

manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the

treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process significantly

change. The facility must handle wastes generated after the process change as

hazardous until it has demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the delisting

levels and that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261

have been introduced and it has received written approval from EPA.

5.

Data Submittals:

The facility must submit the data obtained through verification

testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to both U.S. EPA Region 5,

Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd.. Chicago, IL 60604

and MDEQ, Waste Management Division, Hazardous Waste Program Section, at

P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909. The quarterly verification data and cer-

tification of proper disposal must be submitted annually upon the anniversary of

the effective date of this exclusion. The facility must compile, summarize, and

maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and

analytical data. The facility must make these records available for inspection. All

data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in 40

CFR 260.220)(12).

6.

Reopener Language—(a)

If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, the facil-

ity possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to

leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the

delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified in paragraph (1) is at a

level in the leachate higher than the delisting level established in paragraph (1),

or

is at a level in the groundwater higher than the point of exposure groundwater lev-

els referenced by the model, then the facility must report such data, in writing, to

the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware

of that data.

(b) Based on the information described in paragraph (a) and any other information

received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary de-

termination as

to whether the reported information requires Agency action to

pro-

tect

human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or

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

health and the environment.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register/Vol.

67, No. 45/Thursday, March 7, 2002/Proposed Rules

?10351

TABLE 1.—WASTES

EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility and address

?

Waste description

(c)

If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does re-

quire Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify the facility in writing of

the actions the Regional Administrator 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 informa-

tion as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alter-

native action. The facility shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Admin-

istrators notice to present the Information.

(d)

If after 30 days the facility presents no further information, the Regional Adminis-

trator will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are

necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action de-

scribed in the Regional Administrator's determination shall become effective imme-

diately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.

DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Jefferson North Assembly Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by DaimlerChrysler Cor-

Plant—Detroit, Michigan. poration at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant. Detroit, Michigan at a maximum

annual rate of (insert annual volume) cubic yards per year. The sludge must be

disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted,

or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in ac-

cordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of (insert final

publication date). The conditions in paragraphs (1) through (6) for Auto Alliance

International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan apply.

DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Sterling Heights Assembly Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by DaimlerChrysler Cor-

Plant—Sterling Heights, Michigan. poration at the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, Sterling Heights, Michigan at a

maximum annual rate of (Insert annual volume) cubic yards per year. The sludge

must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed,

permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment

sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as

of (Insert final publication date). The conditions in paragraphs (1) through (6) for

Auto Alliance International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan apply.

DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Warren Truck Assembly Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that Is generated by DaimlerChrysler Cor-

Plant—Warren, Michigan. poration at the Warren Truck Assembly Plant, Warren, Michigan at a maximum an-

nual rate of (Insert annual volume) cubic yards per year. The sludge must be dis-

posed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or

otherwise authorized to accept the

delisted

wastewater treatment sludge in accord-

ance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of (insert final

publication date). The conditions in paragraphs (1) through (6) for Auto Alliance

International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan apply.

Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Assembly Plant—Dear- Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by Ford Motor Company

born, Michigan. at the Dearborn Assembly Plant, Dearborn, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of

(insert annual volume) cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a

lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise au-

thorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40

CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of (insert final publication date).

The conditions in paragraphs (1) through (6) for Auto Alliance International Inc.,

Flat Rock, Michigan apply.

Ford Motor Company, Michigan Truck Plant and Wayne Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that Is generated by Ford Motor Company

Integrated Stamping and Assembly Plant—Wayne,

?

at the Wayne Integrated Stamping and Assembly Plant from wastewaters from

Michigan. both the Wayne Integrated Stamping and Assembly Plant and the Michigan Truck

Plant, Wayne, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of (insert annual volume) cubic

yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with few-hate

collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the

delisted wastewater treatment sludge In accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The

exclusion becomes effective as of (insert final publication date).

1. Delisting Levels:

The total constituent concentrations and TCLP concentrations

measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels: (insert constituents

of concern and delisting levels based on the annual volume of waste).

2.

Quarterly Verification Testing:

The facility must show that the waste does not con-

tain constituents listed in paragraph (1) that exceed the delisting levels specified in

paragraph (1) by collecting and analyzing one waste sample on a quarterly basis.

The samples must be collected and analyzed in accordance with the approved

sampling plan.

3. Other Conditions:

The conditions in paragraphs (4) through (6) for Auto Alliance

International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.

Ford Motor Company, Wixom Assembly Plant—Wixom, Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by Ford Motor Company

Michigan. at the Wixom

Assembly Plant, Wixom, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of (in-

sert annual

volume)

cubic yards per

year.

The sludge must be disposed of in a

lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed. permitted, or otherwise au-

thorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40

CFR Part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of (insert final publication

date).

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

10352?

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 45 /

Thursday, March 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—WASTES

EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC

SOURCES—Continued

Facility and address?

Waste description

1. Debating Levels:

The total constituent concentrations and TCLP concentrations

measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels: (insert constituents

of concern and delisting levels based on the annual volume of waste).

2.

Quarterly Verification Testing:

The facility must show that the waste does not con-

Lain constituents listed in paragraph (1) that exceed the delisting levels specified in

paragraph (1) by collecting and analyzing one waste sample on a quarterly basis.

The samples must be collected and analyzed in accordance with the approved

sampling plan.

3.

Other Conditions:

The conditions in paragraphs (4) through (6) for Auto Alliance

International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.

General Motors Corporation, Flint Truck—Flint, Michigan Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by General Motors Cor-

poration at Flint Truck, Flint, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of (insert annual

volume) cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill

with leachate collection, which Is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to

accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR pan

258. The exclusion becomes effective as of (insert final publication date).

1.

Delisting Levels:

The total constituent concentrations and TCLP concentrations

measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels: (insert constituents

of concern and delisting levels based on the annual volume of waste).

2.

Quarterly Verification Testing:

The facility must show that the waste does not con-

tain constituents listed in paragraph (1) that exceed the delisting levels specified in

paragraph (1) by collecting and analyzing one waste sample on a quarterly basis.

The samples must be collected and analyzed in accordance with the approved

sampling plan.

3. Other

Conditions:

The conditions in paragraphs (4) through (6) for Auto Alliance

International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.

General Motors Corporation, Hamtramck—Detroit, Michi- Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by General Motors Cor-

gen. poration at Hamtramck, Detroit, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of (annual vol-

ume) cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with

leachate collection, which Is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept

the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258.

The exclusion becomes effective as of (Insert final publication date).

1. Delisting

Levels: The total constituent concentrations and TCLP concentrations

measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels: (insert constituents

of concern and delisting levels based on the annual volume of waste).

2. Quarterly Verification Testing:

The facility must show that the waste does not con-

tain constituents listed in paragraph (1) that exceed the delisting levels specified in

paragraph (1) by collecting and analyzing one waste sample on a quarterly basis.

The samples must be collected and analyzed in accordance with the approved

sampling plan.

3.

Other Conditions:

The conditions In paragraphs (4) through (6) for Auto Alliance

International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.

General Motors Corporation, Pontiac East—Pontiac, Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that Is generated by General Motors Cor-

Michigan. poration at Pontiac East, Pontiac, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of (insert

annual volume) cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined

landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise author-

ized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40

CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of (insert final publication date).

1.

Delisting Levels:

The total constituent concentrations and TCLP concentrations

measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels: (insert constituents

of concern and delisting levels based on the annual volume of waste).

2.

Quarterly Verification Testing:

The facility must show that the waste does not con-

tain constituents listed in paragraph (1) that exceed the delisting levels specified in

paragraph (1) by collecting and analyzing one waste sample on a quarterly basis.

The samples must be collected and analyzed in accordance with the approved

sampling plan.

3.

Other Conditions:

The conditions in paragraphs (4) through (6) for Auto Alliance

International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.

Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLC at General Mo- Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated at General Motors Cor-

tors Corporation, Lansing Grand River—Lansing, Michi-?

poration's Lansing Grand River (GM—Grand River) facility by Trigen/Cinergy-

gen. USFOS of Lansing LLC exclusively from wastewaters from GM—Grand River,

Lansing, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of (insert annual volume) cubic yards

per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collec-

tion, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted

wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR Part 258. The exclusion

becomes effective as of (insert final publication date).

1.

Delisting Levels:

The total constituent concentrations and TCLP concentrations

measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels: (insert constituents

of concern and delisting levels based on the annual volume of waste).

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules

?10353

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC

SOURCES--Continued

Facility and address

Waste

description

2.

Quarterly Verification Testing:

The facility must show that the waste does not con-

tain constituents listed in paragraph (1) that exceed the denoting levels specified in

paragraph (1) by collecting and analyzing one waste sample on a quarterly basis.

The samples must be collected and analyzed in accordance with the approved

sampling plan.

3. Other Conditions:

The conditions in paragraphs (4) through (6) for Auto Alliance

International Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.

•

[FR Doc. 02-5314 Filed 3-6-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL-7154-2]

Nebraska: Tentative Approval of

Nebraska Underground Storage Tank

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule; tentative

determination on application of State of

Nebraska for final approval; public

comment period.

SUMMARY:

Nebraska has applied to EPA

for final approval of its underground

storage tank (UST) program under

Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has

reviewed the Nebraska application and

has made a tentative determination that

Nebraska's UST program satisfies all of

the requirements necessary to qualify

for final approval. Thus, by this

proposed rule, EPA is providing notice

that EPA intends to grant final approval

to Nebraska to operate its UST program

in lieu of the Federal program.

Nebraska's application for approval is

available for public review and

comment, and a public hearing will be

held to solicit comments on the

application, if there is significant public

interest expressed.

DATES:

A public hearing will be

scheduled if there

is

sufficient public

interest communicated to EPA by April

8, 2002. EPA will determine by April

22, 2002, whether there is significant

interest to hold the public hearing. The

State of Nebraska will participate in

such public hearing held by EPA on this

subject. Written comments on the

Nebraska approval application, as well

as requests to present oral testimony,

must be received by the

close of

business on

April 8, 2002.

ADDRESSES:

Send written comments to

Linda Garwood, EPA Region

7,

ARTD/

USTB,

901

North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas

66101. You

can view and

copy Nebraska's application during

normal business hours at the following

addresses: The Nebraska Department of

Environmental Quality, Suite

400, The

Atrium, 1200 N Street, Lincoln,

Nebraska,

68509,

telephone:

(402) 471-

3557;

The U.S. EPA Docket Clerk, Office

of Underground Storage Tanks, do

RCRA Information Center, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,

Virginia 22202, telephone: (703) 603-

9230,

and EPA Region

7, Library, 901

N.

5th Street, Kansas City, KS

66101.

If

sufficient public interest is expressed,

EPA will hold a public hearing on the

State of Nebraska's application for

program approval. Anyone wishing to

learn the status of the public hearing on

the State's application may telephone

the following contacts after April 22,

2002:

Linda Garwood, EPA Region

7,

ARTD/USTB, 901 North 5th Street,

Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-

7268; David Chambers, Supervisor,

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Program, Nebraska Department of

Environmental Quality, Suite

400, The

Atrium, 1200 N Street, Lincoln,

Nebraska 68509,

(402) 471-4230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Garwood, EPA Region

7, ARTD/

USTB,

901

North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas

66101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Subtitle I of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

as amended, requires that the EPA

develop standards for Underground

Storage Tanks (UST) systems as may be

necessary to protect human health and

the environment, and procedures for

approving State programs in lieu of the

Federal program. EPA promulgated

State program approval procedures at

40

CFR

part 281. Program approval may be

granted by EPA pursuant to RCRA

section 9004(b), if the Agency finds that

the State program: is "no less stringent"

than the Federal program for the seven

elements set forth at RCRA section

9004(a)(1) through (7); includes the

notification requirements of RCRA

section

9004(a)(8);

and provides for

adequate enforcement of compliance

with UST standards of RCRA section

9004(a).

Note that RCRA sections

9005

(information-gathering) and 9006

(Federal enforcement) by their terms

apply even in states with programs

approved by EPA under RCRA section

9004.

Thus, the Agency retains its

authority under RCRA sections

9005

and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and

6991e,

and other applicable statutory and

regulatory provisions to undertake

inspections and enforcement actions in

approved states. With respect to such an

enforcement action, the Agency will

rely on Federal sanctions, Federal

inspection authorities, and Federal

procedures rather than the state

authorized analogues to these

provisions.

B. Nebraska UST Program

The UST program in Nebraska is

implemented jointly by the Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality

(NDEQ) and the Nebraska State Fire

Marshal

(NSFM). Section

81-15, 118 of

the Nebraska Revised Statutes (N.R.S.)

designates NDEQ as the lead agency for

the UST program, but specifies that

NSFM will conduct preventative

activities under an interagency

agreement with NDEQ.

The State of Nebraska initially

submitted a state program approval

application to EPA by letter dated

December

15, 2000.

Additional

information was provided by Nebraska

on March

21, 2001. EPA

evaluated that

information as well as other issues and

determined the application package met

all requirements for a complete program

application. On December

5, 2001, EPA

notified Nebraska that the application

package was complete.

Included

in

the State's Application is

an Attorney General's statement. The

Attorney General's statement provides

an outline of the State's statutory and

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 /Rules and Regulations?

17027

the objection arises after the comment

period allowed for in the proposal.

Filing

a

petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial 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

3071b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practices and

procedures, Air pollution control,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Solid

Waste Incinerators, Waste treatment and

disposal.

Dated: March 27, 2007.

Robert W. Varney,

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

■

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

■

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401

et seq.

Subpart 00—Rhode Island

■ 2. Subpart 00 is amended by adding

a new § 62.9995 and

a

new

undesignated center heading to read as

follows:

Mr Emissions From Existing Other

Solid Waste Incineration Units

§62.9995

Identification of Plan-Negative

Declaration.

On November 5, 2006, the Rhode

Island Department of Environmental

Management submitted a letter

certifying that there are no existing

other solid waste incineration units in

the state subject to the emission

guidelines under part 60, subpart EEEE

of this chapter.

[FR Doc. E7-6460 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA–R05–RCRA-2007-0213; SW–FRL-

8294-8]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The EPA (also, "the Agency"

or "we" in this preamble) is granting a

petition to exclude (or "delist")

wastewater treatment plant sludges from

conversion coating on aluminum

generated by AutoAlliance

International, Inc. (AAI), a Ford/Mazda

joint venture company in Flat Rock,

Michigan, from the list of hazardous

wastes.

Today's action conditionally excludes

the petitioned waste from the

requirements of hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

when disposed of in a lined Subtitle D

landfill which is permitted, licensed, or

registered by a State to manage

industrial solid waste. The exclusion

was proposed on March 7, 2002 as part

of an expedited process to evaluate this

waste under a pilot project developed

with the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The

rule also imposes testing conditions for

waste generated in the future to ensure

that this waste continues to qualify for

delisting.

DATES:

This rule is effective on April 6,

2007.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established an

electronic docket for this action under

Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2007-

0213. The electronic docket contains all

relevant documents created after this

action was proposed as well as a

selection of pertinent documents from

the original paper docket for the

proposed rule, Docket ID No. R5-

MIECOS-01. Certain other material,

such as copyrighted material, is not

placed on the Internet and will be

publicly available only in hard copy

form. All documents in the electronic

docket are listed on the

http://

www.regulations.gov

Web site. Publicly

available materials from Docket ID No.

EPA-R05-RCRA-2007-0213 are

available either electronically through

http://www.regulations.gov

or in hard

copy. Materials from the original paper

docket, Docket ID No. R5-MIECOS-01,

are also available in hard copy. You can

view and copy materials from both

dockets at the Records Center, 7th floor,

U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. This

facility is open from 8:30

aml.

to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. We recommend you telephone

Todd Remaly at (312) 353-9317 before

visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Remaly, Waste, Pesticides, and

Taxies Division, (Mail Code: DU-70,

EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL 60604;

telephone number:

(312) 353-9317;

fax number:

(312) 353-

4788;

e-mail address:

mmaly.todd@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

B.Whet regulations allow a waste to be

delisted?

C.

What waste did AM petition to delist?

II. The Expedited Process for Delisting

A. Why was the expedited process

developed for this waste?

B.What is the expedited process to delist

F019?

III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition

A.

What information was submitted in

support of this petition?

B.

How did EPA evaluate the information

submitted?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A.

Who submitted comments on the

proposed rule?

B.Comments received and responses from

EPA

V. Final Rule Granting This Petition

A. What decision is EPA finalizing?

B.What are the terms of this exclusion?

C.

When is the delisting effective?

D.

How does this action affect the states?

VL Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

A delisting petition is a request from

a generator to exclude waste from the

list of hazardous wastes under RCRA

regulations. In a delisting petition, the

petitioner must show that waste

generated at a particular facility does

not meet any of the criteria for which

EPA listed the waste as set forth in Title

40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR)

261.11 and the background document

for the waste. In addition, a petitioner

must demonstrate that the waste does

not exhibit any of the hazardous waste

characteristics (that is, ignitability,

reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and

must present sufficient information for

us to decide whether factors other than

those for which the waste was listed

warrant retaining it as a hazardous

waste. See 40 CFR 260.22, 42 United

States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(0 and the

backgrounddocuments for a listed

Generators remain obligated under

RCRA to confirm that their waste

remains nonhazardous based on the

hazardous waste characteristics even if

EPA has "delisted" the wastes and to

ensure that future generated wastes

meet the conditions set.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

17028?

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

B. What regulations allow a waste to be

delisted?

Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42

U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may petition

the EPA to remove their wastes from

hazardous waste control by excluding

them from the lists of hazardous wastes

contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.

Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any

person to petition the Administrator to

modify or revoke any provision of parts

260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40

CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a

generator the opportunity to petition the

Administrator to exclude a waste from

the lists of hazardous wastes on a

"generator specific" basis.

C.

What waste did AAI petition to

delist?

AM petitioned to exclude wastewater

treatment sludges resulting from a zinc

phosphating conversion coating process

on car and truck bodies, which have

aluminum components. When treated,

the wastewater from the conversion

coating on aluminum results in a listed

waste, F019. The wastewater from the

phosphating process entering the

wastewater treatment plant combines

with wastewaters from other operations

at the plant including cleaning and

rinsing operations, electrocoating

processes, vehicle leak testing, and floor

scrubbing. Wastewaters include alkaline

cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents,

rinse conditioners from cleaning

operations and overflows and rinse

water from electrocoating. All sludge

from the treatment of this wastewater is

regulated as RCRA hazardous waste

F019.

II. The Expedited Process for Delisting

A. Why was the expedited process

developed for this waste?

Automobile manufacturers are adding

aluminum components to automobile

and light truck bodies. When aluminum

is conversion coated in a zinc

phosphating process in automobile

assembly plants, the resulting

wastewater treatment sludge must be

managed as EPA hazardous waste F019.

F019 wastes generated at other auto

assembly plants using the same zinc

phosphating and wastewater treatment

processes have been shown to be

nonhazardous.

This similarity of manufacturing

processes and the resultant wastes

provides an opportunity for the

automobile industry to be more efficient

in submitting de listing petitions and for

EPA to be more efficient in evaluating

them. Effi

ciency may be gained and

time saved by using a standardized

approach for gathering, submitting and

evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in

conjunction with MDEQ developed a

pilot project to expedite the delisting

process. This approach to making

delisting determinations for this group

of facilities is efficient while still being

consistent with current laws and

regulations and protective of human

health and the environment.

By removing regulatory controls

under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the use

of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that

incorporating aluminum in cars will be

advantageous to the environment since

lighter cars are capable of achieving

better fuel economy.

B. What is the expedited process to

delist F019?

The expedited process to delist F019

is an approach developed through a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

with MDEQ for gathering and evaluating

data in support of multiple petitions

from automobile assembly plants. The

expedited delisting process is applicable

to wastes generated by automobile and

light truck assembly plants in the State

of Michigan which use a similar

manufacturing process and generate

similar F019 waste.

Based on available historical data and

other information, the expedited process

identified 70 constituents which might

be of concern in the waste and provides

that the F019 sludge generated by

automobile assembly plants may be

delisted if the levels of the 70

constituents do not exceed the

allowable levels established for each

constituent in this rulemaking. The

maximum annual quantity of waste

generated by any single facility that may

be covered by an expedited delisting is

3,000 cubic yards. Delisting levels were

also proposed for smaller quantities of

1,000 and 2,000 cubic yards.

III.

EPA's

Evaluation of This Petition

A. What information was submitted in

support

of

this petition?

AM submitted certification that its

process was the same as the process

described in the MOU between Region

5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR 10341, March

7, 2002. The facility also asserted that

its waste does not meet the criteria for

which F019 waste was listed and there

are no other factors that might cause the

waste to be hazardous.

To support its exclusion

demonstration, AAI collected six

samples representing waste generated

over six discreet one-week periods. AAI

stored six roll-off boxes of sludge

generated weekly from May 6 through

June 16, 2005. Composite and grab

samples were collected from each of the

six roll-off boxes on June 25, 2005. Each

sample was analyzed for: (1) Total

analyses of 69 constituents of concern;

(2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method

1311, analyses of 69 constituents of

concern; (3) oil and grease; and (4)

leachable metals using the Extraction

Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW-

846 Method 1330A, in lieu of Method

1311 if a sample contained more than

1% oil and grease. In addition, the pH

of each sample was measured and a

determination was made that the waste

was not ignitable, corrosive or reactive

(see 40 CFR 261.21-261.23). Although

the expedited delisting project

originally required analysis of 70

constituents, analysis of acrylamide

required extreme methods to achieve a

detection level at the level of concern

and no acrylamide was detected in any

sample analyzed by the original

facilities participating in the expedited

delisting project. Thus, the Agency

decided it would not be appropriate to

require analysis for acrylamide. Also,

AM was not required to analyze for

total sulfide and total cyanide as long as

they provided the narrative

determination of reactivity required in

40 CFR Part 261.23. With the exception

of the minor changes described above,

all sampling and analyses were done in

accordance with the sampling and

analysis plan, which is an appendix to

the MOU and is available in the docket

for this rule.

The maximum values of constituents

detected in any sample of the waste (in

milligrams per kilogram—mg/kg) and in

a TCLP or OWEP analysis of that waste

(in milligrams per liter—mg/L) are

summarized in the following table. The

data submitted included the appropriate

quality assurance and quality control

(QA/QC) information validated by a

third party.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

?17029

Constituent detected

Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable concentration

Total (mg/kg)

TCLP (mg/L)

Total (mg/kg)

FTCLP*( mg/L)

GW

(99/1-)

Volatile Organic Compounds

acetone ?

formaldehyde

?

8.6

4.6

0.43

0.23

NA

689

228

84.2

3,750

1,380

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

?

4.9

<0.005

NA

0.0896

1.47

di-n-octyl phthalate

?

3.3

<0.002

NA

0.112

1.3

o-cresol ?

<1.5

0.0011

NA

114

1,875

p-cresol ?

<1.5

0.005

NA

11.4

188

Metals

barium ?

208

<0.35

NA

100

2,000

chromium ?

58

<0.17

NA

4.95

100

lead

?

9.7

<0.2

NA

5

15

mercury ?

<0.1

0.0007

8.92

0.2

2

nickel ?

1,850

12.8

NA

90.5

750

tin

??

184

19.6

NA

721

22,500

zinc

?

13,300

0.45

NA

898

11,300

'Or OWEP as applicable.

<Not detected at the specified concentration.

NA not applicable.

B. How did EPA evaluate the

information submitted?

EPA compared the analytical results

submitted by AM to the maximum

allowable levels set forth in the

proposed rule (67 FR 10341, March 7,

2002). The maximum allowable levels

for constituents detected in the waste or

a TCLP extract of the waste are

summarized in the table above, along

with the observed levels. The table also

includes the maximum allowable levels

in groundwater at a potential receptor

well (in micrograms per liter--gg/L), as

evaluated by the Delisting Risk

Assessment Software (DRAS). These

levels are the more conservative of

either the Safe Drinking Water Act

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or

the health-based value calculated by

DRAS based on the target cancer risk

level of 10". For arsenic, the target

cancer risk was set at 10- 4 in

consideration of the MCL and the

potential for natural occurrence. The

maximum allowable groundwater

concentration and delisting level for

arsenic correspond to a drinking water

concentration less than one half the

current MCL of 10 µg/L.

EPA also used the DRAS program to

estimate the aggregate cancer risk and

hazard index for constituents detected

in the waste. The aggregate cancer risk

is the cumulative total of all individual

constituent cancer risks. The hazard

index is a similar cumulative total of

non-cancer effects. The target aggregate

cancer risk is 1 x 10 -s and the target

hazard index is one. The wastewater

treatment plant sludge at AAI met both

of these criteria based on maximum

observed values.

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the

proposed rule?

The EPA received public comments

on the proposed notice published on

March 7, 2002 from Alliance of

Automobile Manufacturers, Honda of

America Mfg., Inc., Alcoa Inc., and The

Aluminum Association. All commenters

were supportive of the proposal and

suggested expanding the project and

revising the listing.

B.

Comments Received and Responses

From EPA

(1)

Comment: EPA

should revise the

F019 listing to specify that wastewater

treatment sludges from zinc

phosphating operations are not within

the scope of the listing. Data gathered as

a result of the Expedited Delisting

Project, together with the available

historical data, should provide enough

data to fully characterize this waste and

to justify a revision of the listing.

EPA Response:

On January 18, 2007

(72 FR 2219), the Agency proposed to

amend the F019 listing to exempt the

wastewater treatment sludge generated

from zinc phosphating, when zinc

phosphating is used in the automobile

assembly process and provided the

waste is disposed in a landfill unit

subject to certain liner design criteria.

(2)

Comment:

EPA should issue an

interpretive rule clarifying that zinc

phosphating operations are outside the

scope of the F019 listing.

EPA Response:

See response to

comment (1) above.

(3)

Comment:

Automobile assembly

facilities outside of Michigan would like

to take advantage of the precedent set by

this expedited delisting project to delist

F019 generated by similar operations in

other states and regions.

EPA Response:

The Agency believes

that the expedited delisting procedures

and requirements set forth in this

proposal are appropriate for similar

automotive assembly facilities outside

the State of Michigan, subject to the

discretion of the regulatory agency (state

or region).

(4) Comment:

Alternatives to

landfilling like recycling should be

allowed within the petition process.

EPA Response:

The risk assessment

model currently used by the Agency

cannot predict the risks from exposure

to waste that are managed through

recycling. EPA's conditional delisting

policy is that in order to reduce the

uncertainty caused by potential

unrestricted use or management of

delisted waste, delistings apply only to

wastes managed in the type of unit (e.g.,

"a landfill") modeled in the delisting

risk assessment. EPA recognizes that

several recent rulemakings related to

RCRA-listed hazardous wastes have

proposed conditional exemptions from

the regulatory definition of "solid

waste" when such wastes, by

virtue of

their being recycled, are treated more as

commodities than as wastes. For

example, see 68 FR 61588, October 28,

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

17030

?

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

2005. The Agency is not aware of any

recycling or reclamation of F019

sludges; therefore, EPA believes that

current market conditions do not

support the recycling of F019 waste for

the purposes of recovering the metal

content of such waste. EPA has

requested comment on whether this

understanding is accurate and whether

recycling of F019 waste is economically

feasible under today's market

conditions. See 72 FR 2224, January 18,

2007. If recycling of F019 wastes

becomes economically feasible or

beneficial in the future, the Agency will

consider its options for how to address

this, including through a subsequent

rulemaking, such as the ongoing

rulemaking related to the definition of

solid waste.

(5)

Comment:

Analytical methods

should be specified in the pre-approved

common sampling plan instead of

requiring each participant to submit a

site-specific list of methods.

EPA Response:

Allowing the

petitioner to choose an analytical

method which meets the data quality

objectives specific to the delisting

petition provides flexibility. Data

quality objectives will vary depending

on the allowable levels that are

a

function of the volume of petitioned

waste. The Agency believes that the

flexibility of performance based

methods results in better data.

(6) Comment:

Detection limits should

not be required prior to sampling since

they cannot be adequately predicted

without a way to estimate matrix effects.

EPA Response:

Although matrix

effects cannot be assessed in advance of

laboratory analysis, a laboratory should

be able to provide estimated detection

levels and reporting levels which are

lower than, or at least equal to, the

allowable delisting level for each

constituent.

(7)

Comment:

Since the process

generating the sludge is extremely

stable, verification sampling should be

conducted on an annual, instead of

quarterly, basis. The requirement that

any process change is promptly reported

and the exclusion suspended until EPA

gives written approval that the delisting

can continue is an adequate safeguard

justifying the decrease in sample event

frequency.

EPA Response:

Verification data

submitted in conjunction with past

delistings of this waste have shown

significant variation on a quarterly basis

over longer periods of time. Annual

sampling would not detect such

variations. Once enough verification

data are collected to support a statistical

analysis, a change in the frequency of

verification sampling and/or sampling

parameters may be considered.

(8)

Comment:

The final Federal

Register should make it clear that

assembly plants that manufacture light

trucks are also eligible for the project.

EPA Response:

Today's notice

specifically defines eligible facilities as

inclusive of manufacturers of light

trucks.

(9)

Comment:

The table of maximum

allowable levels in the March 7, 2002

proposed rule contains errors in the

columns for vinyl chloride.

EPA Response:

A missing space or tab

in the table caused the error. The

maximum allowable concentrations

proposed for 2,000 cubic yards of waste

should have been 115 mg/kg total and

0.00234 mg/L TCLP.

V. Final Rule Granting This Petition

A. What decision is EPA finalizing?

Today the EPA is finalizing an

exclusion to conditionally delist an

annual volume of 2,000 cubic yards of

wastewater treatment plant sludges

generated at AAI from conversion

coating on aluminum.

On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to

exclude or delist this wastewater

treatment sludge from the list of

hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and

accepted public comment on the

proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA

considered all comments received, and

we believe that this waste should be

excluded from hazardous waste control.

After EPA proposed the exclusion for

AAI in 2002, the Agency promulgated

the Methods Innovation Rule (MIR)(70

FR 34538, June 14, 2005). The MIR

reformed RCRA-related testing and

monitoring by restricting requirements

to use the methods found in "Test

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,

Physical/Chemical Methods," also

known as "SW-846," to those situations

where the method is the only one

capable of measuring the property (i.e.,

it is used to measure a method-defined

parameter). In addition, the MIR revised

several conditional delistings to

specifically mention method-defined

parameters incorporated by reference at

§ 260.11 consistent with the Office of

Federal Register's revised format for

incorporation by reference. Therefore,

EPA is including a specific reference to

SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and

9071B (method-defined parameters) for

the generation of the leachate extract in

the quarterly verification testing

requirement for the AAI delisting. SW-

846 Method 1311 must be used for

generation of the leachate extract used

in the testing of the delisting levels if oil

and grease comprise less than 1% of the

waste. SW-846 Method 1330A must be

used for generation of the leaching

extract if oil and grease comprise 1% or

more of the waste. SW-846 Method

9071B must be used for determination

of oil and grease. SW-846 Methods

1311, 1330A, and 9071B are

incorporated by reference in 40 CFR

260.11.

B. What are the terms of this exclusion?

AAI must dispose of the waste in a

lined Subtitle D landfill which

is

permitted, licensed, or registered by a

state to manage industrial solid waste.

AAI must obtain and analyze on a

quarterly basis a representative sample

of the waste. AAI must verify that the

concentrations of the constituents of

concern do not exceed the allowable

levels set forth in this exclusion. The

list of constituents for verification is a

subset of those initially tested for and is

based on the occurrence of constituents

at the majority of facilities participating

in the expedited process to delist F019

and the concentrations detected relative

to the allowable levels.

This exclusion applies only to a

maximum annual volume of 2,000 cubic

yards and is effective only if all

conditions contained in this rule are

satisfied.

C.

When is the delisting effective?

This rule is effective April 6, 2007.

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. This rule reduces rather

than increases the existing requirements

and, therefore, is effective immediately

upon publication under the

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant

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

D.

How

does this action affect

the

states?

Today's exclusion is being issued

under the federal RCRA delisting

program. Therefore, only states subject

to federal RCRA delisting provisions

would be affected. This exclusion is not

effective in states that have received

authorization to make their own

delisting decisions. Also, the exclusion

may not be effective in states having a

dual system that includes federal RCRA

requirements and their own

requirements. EPA allows states to

impose their own 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

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

?

17031

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. If a participating facility transports

the petitioned waste to or manages the

waste in any state with delisting

authorization, it must obtain a delisting

from that state before it can manage the

waste as nonhazardous in the state.

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 final rule does

not have federalism implications. It will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified

in

Executive Order 13132, "Federalism,"

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

Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this rule. Similarly, because this rule

will affect only a particular facility, this

final rule does not have tribal

implications, as specified in Executive

Order 13175, "Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments" (65 FR 67249, November

9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175

does not apply to this rule.

This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045,"Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks" (62

FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866, and because the

Agency does not have reason to believe

the environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children. The

basis for this belief is that the Agency

used the DRAS program, which

considers health and safety risks to

infants and children, to calculate the

maximum allowable concentrations for

this rule.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, "Actions Concerning

Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is

not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

This rule does not involve technical

standards; thus, the requirements of

section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not

apply.

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801

et seq., as

added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of

1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report which includes a

copy of the rule to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 804

exempts from section 801 the following

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency

management or personnel; and (3) rules

of agency organization, procedure, or

practice that do not substantially affect

the rights or obligations of non-agency

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

required to submit a rule report

regarding today's action under section

801 because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, and Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001(0 RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

692110.

Dated: March 19, 2007.

Margaret M. Guerriero,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics

Division.

■ For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended

as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

■

1. The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

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

6922, and 6938.

■

2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part

261 the following wastestream is added

in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

Excluded Under §§260.20 and 260.22

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility/address

Waste description

AutoAlliance International

Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan.

Wastewater treatment

sludges, F019,

that are generated by AutoAlliance International, Inc. (AAI) at Flat Rock,

Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards per year. The sludges must be disposed of in a lined

landfill with leachate collection which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted

wastewater treatment sludges in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of

April 6, 2007.

1.

Delisting Levels: (A) The concentrations in a leachate extract of the waste measured in any sample must not

exceed the following levels (mg/L): arsenic-0.3; cadmium-0.5; chromium-4.95; lead-5; nickel-90.5; sele-

nium-1; tin-721; zinc-898; p-cresol-11.4; and formaldehyde-84.2. (B) The total concentration measured

in any sample must not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): mercury-8.92; and formaldehyde-689.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

17032

Federal Register

/ Vol.

72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—WASTES

EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility/address

Waste description

2.

Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting levels, AAI must

collect and analyze one representative sample of the waste on a quarterly basis. Sample collection and anal-

yses, including quality control procedures, must be performed using appropriate methods. SW-846 Method

1311 must be used for generation of the leachate extract used in the testing of the delisting levels if oil and

grease comprise less than 1% of the waste. SW-846 Method 1330A must be used for generation of the leach-

ing extract if oil and grease comprise 1% or more of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B must be used for de-

termination of oil and grease. SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40

CFR 260.11.

3.

Changes in Operating Conditions: AAI must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing process, the chemi-

cals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment

process

change significantly. AAI must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has

demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the delisting levels and that no new hazardous constituents list-

ed k Appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced and it has received written approval from EPA.

4.

Data Submittals: AM must submit the data obtained through verification testing or as required by other condi-

tions of this rule to both U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 and MDEQ, Waste and

Hazardous Materials Division, Hazardous Waste Section, at P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909. The

quarterly verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted annually upon the anniversary

of the effective date of this exclusion. AAI must compile, summarize and maintain on site for a minimum of five

years records of operating conditions and analytical data. AAI must make these records available for inspec-

tion. A signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12) must accompany all data.

5.

Reopener Language: (a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste AM possesses or is otherwise made

aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the

delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a level in the leachate higher than the specified delisting

level, or is in the groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable groundwater concentra-

tion in paragraph (e), then AAI must report such data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator within 10 days

of first possessing or being made aware of that data.

(b)

Based on the information described in paragraph (a) and any other information received from any source,

the

Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information

requires

Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking

the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.

(c)

If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the

Re-

gional

Administrator will inform AN in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary

to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed

action and

a statement providing AAI with an opportunity to present Information as to why the proposed Agency action Is

not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. AM shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Admin-

istrator's notice to present the information.

(d)

If after 30 days AAI presents no further information, the Regional

Administrator will issue a

final written deter-

mination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any re-

quired action described In the Regional Administrator's determination shall become effective immediately, un-

less the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.

(e)

Maximum Allowable Groundwater Concentrations (pg/L): arsenic-5; cadmium-5; chromium-100; lead-15;

nickel-750; selenium-50; tin-22,500; zinc-11,300;

p-cresol-188; and formaldehyde-1,380.

•

•

•

•

[FR Doc. 07-1650 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

49 CFR Part 1002

(STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 14)]

Regulations Governing Fees for

Services Performed in Connection

With Licensing and Related Services-

2007 Update

AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION:

Final Rule.

SUMMARY: The Board adopts its 2007

User Fee Update and revises its fee

schedule to recover the costs associated

with the January

2007 Government

salary increases and to reflect changes

in overhead costs to the Board.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

These rules are effective

May

6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David T. Groves,

(202) 245-0327, or

Anne Quinlan, (202) 245-0309. (MD

for the hearing impaired:

1-800-877-

8339.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The

Board's regulations at

49 CFR 1002.3

require that the Board's user fee

schedule be updated annually. The

regulation at

49 CFR 1002.3(a)

provides

that the entire fee schedule or selected

fees can be modified more than once a

year, if necessary. Fees are revised based

on the cost study formula set forth at

49

CFR 1002.3(d).

Because Board employees received a

salary increase of

2.64% in January

2007,

the Board is updating its user fees

to recover the increased personnel costs.

With certain exceptions, all fees,

including those adopted or amended in

Regulations Governing

Fees

for Services

Performed in Connection With licensing

and

Related Services-2002 New Fees,

STB Ex Parte No.

542 (Sub-No. 4) (STB

served Mar. 29,

2004) will also be

updated based on the cost formula

contained in

49 CFR 1002.3(d). In

addition, changes to the overhead costs

borne by the Board are reflected in the

revised fee schedule.

The fee increases adopted here result

from the mechanical application of the

update formula in

49 CFR

1002.3(d),

which was adopted through notice and

comment procedures in Regulations

Governing Fees for Services-1987

Update,

4

I.C.C.2d

137

(1987). No new

fees are being proposed in this

proceeding. Therefore, the Board finds

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

ATTlit CIA MEHT S-2-

77690

?

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules

"Rules and Regulations" section of this

Federal Register publication.

Dated: December 14,2004.

Donald S. Welsh,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

(FR Doc. 04-28196 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 6560-5D-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RME R03-0AR-2004-DC-0001; FRL-7855-

4 ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; District

of Columbia; Amendments to the Size

Thresholds for Defining Major Sources

and to the NSR Offset Ratios for

Sources of VOC and NOx

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve

revisions to the District of Columbia (the

District) State Implementation Plan

(SW). The revisions reduce the size

thresholds for defining major sources

and increase the new source review

(NSR) offset ratio requirements for

sources of ozone precursors to meet the

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for 1-

hour ozone nonattainment areas

classified as severe. These amendments

to the District's SIP are required

pursuant to the reclassification of the

Metropolitan Washington, DC 1-hour

ozone nonattainment area from serious

to severe. In the Final Rules section of

this Federal Register, EPA is approving

the District's SIP submittal as a direct

final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial submittal and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this action, no further

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

DATES:

Comments must be received in

writing by January 27, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,

identified by Regional Material in

EDocket (RME) ID Number R03

-

OAR-

2004-DC-0001 by one of the following

methods:

A.

Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the

on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

B.

Agency Web site:

http://

www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/RME,

EPA's electronic public docket and

comment system, is EPA's preferred

method for receiving comments. Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

C.

E-mail:

morris.makeba@epa.gov.

D.

Mail: R03-0AR02004-DC-0001,

Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

E.

Hand Delivery: At the previously-

listed EPA Region III address. Such

deliveries are only accepted during the

Docket's normal hours of operation, and

special arrangements should be made

for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:

Direct your comments to

RME ID No. R03-0AR-2004-DC-0001.

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.docket.epagov/rmepubt

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 RME,

regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME

and the Federal regulations.gov Web

sites are 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 RME or 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 RME

index at

http://www.docket.epa.gov/

rmepub/.

Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly

available, i.e., 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 either electronically in RME or

in hard copy during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the District submittal are

available at the District of Columbia

Department of Public Health, Air

Quality Division, 51 N Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by e-

mail at

millerlinda@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

For

further information on this proposed

approval of revisions to 20 DCMR

Chapters 1, 2, 7 and 8 which reduce the

major source size thresholds and

increase the offset ratio requirements in

order to satisfy the mandatory CAA

requirements pursuant to the

reclassification of the Metropolitan

Washington DC 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area from serious to

severe, please see the information

provided in the direct final action, with

the same title, that is located in the

"Rules and Regulations" section of this

Federal Register publication.

Dated: December 14,2004.

Donald S. Welsh,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

(FR Doc. 04-28198 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6660-60-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW

-FAL-7855-5]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a

petition submitted by Shell Oil

Company (Shell Oil Company) to

exclude (or del ist) a certain liquid waste

generated by its Houston, TX Deer Park

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register /

Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28,

2004 /Proposed

Rules?

77691

facility from the lists of hazardous

wastes.

EPA used the Delisting Risk

Assessment Software (DRAS) in the

evaluation of the impact of the

petitioned waste on human health and

the environment.

EPA 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 exclude the

petitioned waste from the requirements

of hazardous waste regulations under

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA).

If finalized, EPA would conclude that

Shell Oil Company's petitioned waste is

nonhazardous with respect to the

original listing criteria. EPA would also

conclude that Shell Oil Company's

process minimizes short-term and long-

term threats from the petitioned waste

to human health and the environment.

DATES:

EPA will accept comments until

February 11, 2005. EPA will stamp

comments received after the close of the

comment period as late. These late

comments may not be considered in

formulating a final decision. Your

requests for a hearing must reach EPA

by January 12, 2005. The request must

contain the information prescribed in 40

CFR 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES:

Please send three copies of

your comments. You should send two

copies to the Section Chief of the

Corrective Action and Waste

Minimization Section, Multimedia

Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-

C), Environmental Protection Agency,

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

You should send a third copy to Nicole

Beetle, Waste Team Leader, Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality,

5425 Polk Avenue, Suite A, Houston,

TX 77023. Identify your comments at

the top with this regulatory docket

number: "F-04–TEXDEL–Shell Oil."

You should address requests for a

hearing to Ben Banipal, Chief of the

Corrective Action and Waste

Minimization Section, Multimedia

Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-

C), Environmental Protection Agency,

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Comments may also be submitted

electronically to Michelle Peace at

peace.michelle@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Overview Information

A.

What Action Is EPA Proposing?

B.Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve This

Delisting?

C. How Will Shell Oil Company Manage

the Waste, if it Is Delisted?

D.

When Would the Proposed Delisting

Exclusion be Finalized?

E.

How Would This Action Affect the

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 Shell Oil Company

Petition EPA

To Delist?

B.

Who Is Shell Oil Company and What

Process Does it use To Generate the

Petitioned Waste?

C.

How Did Shell Oil Company Sample

and Analyze the Data in This Petition?

D.

What Were the Results of Shell Oil

Company's Analysis?

E.

How did EPA Evaluate the Risk of

Delisting This Waste?

F.

What Did EPA Conclude About Shell Oil

Company'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 Shell Oil Company

Violates the Terms and Conditions?

V. Public Comments

A.

How may I as an Interested Party

Submit Comments?

B.

How may I Review the Docket or Obtain

Copies of the Proposed Exclusions?

VI. Regulatory Impact

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

X. Executive Order 13045

XI. Executive Order 13084

XII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancements Act

XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing:

(1)

To grant Shell Oil Company's

delisting petition to have its multisource

landfill leachate underlying the

Minimum Technology Requirements

(MTR) hazardous waste landfill

excluded, or delisted, from the

definition of a hazardous waste; and

subject to certain verification and

monitoring conditions.

(2)

To use the Delisting Risk

Assessment Software (DRAS) 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.

B.

Why

Is

EPA Proposing To Approve

This Delisting?

Shell Oil Company's petition requests

an exclusion from the F039 waste listing

pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22.

Shell Oil Company does not believe that

the petitioned waste meets the criteria

for which EPA listed it. Shell Oil

Company also believes no additional

constituents or factors could cause the

waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of

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 nonhazardous with

respect to the original listing criteria. (If

EPA had found, based on this review,

that the waste remained hazardous

based on the factors for which the waste

was originally listed, EPA would have

proposed to deny the petition.) EPA

evaluated the 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

Shell Oil Company's facility is based on

the information submitted in support of

this rule, including descriptions of the

wastes and analytical data from the Deer

Park, TX facility.

C.

How Will Shell Oil Company Manage

the Waste if it Is Delisted?

If the leachate is delisted, Shell will

make piping modifications to allow the

leachate to be routed to the North

Effluent Treater (NET) for treatment.

The treated effluent will be discharged

through an Texas Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (TPDES) permitted

outfall.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

77692

?

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules

D. When Would the Proposed 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

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 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 states to impose their own

non-RCRA regulatory requirements that

are more stringent than EPA's, under

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

These more stringent requirements may

include a provision that prohibits a

Federally issued exclusion from taking

effect in the state. Because a dual system

(that is, both Federal (RCRA) and state

(non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a

petitioner's waste, EPA urges petitioners

to contact the state regulatory authority

to establish the status of their wastes

under the state law.

EPA has also authorized some states

(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma,

Georgia, Illinois) to administer an RCRA

delisting program in place of the Federal

program, that is, to make state delisting

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion

does not apply in those authorized

states unless that state makes the rule

part of its authorized program. If Shell

Oil Company transports the petitioned

waste to or manages the waste in any

state with delisting authorization, Shell

Oil Company must obtain delisting

authorization from that state before it

can manage the waste as nonhazardous

in the state.

IL 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) The wastes 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), (2) the wastes meet the

criteria for listing contained in

§§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (3) the wastes

are mixed with or derived from the

treatment, storage or disposal of such

characteristic and listed wastes and

which therefore become hazardous

under §§261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i),

known as the "mixture" or "derived-

from" rules, respectively.

Individual waste streams may vary,

however, depending on raw materials,

industrial processes, and other factors.

Thus, while a waste described in these

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, §§ 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 consider the

wastes 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 (that is,

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and

toxicity) 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 nonhazardous 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 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 Shell Oil Company

Petition EPA To Delist?

On January 29, 2003, Shell Oil

Company petitioned EPA to exclude

from the lists of hazardous wastes

contained in § 261.31, multisource

landfill leachate (F039) generated from

its facility located in Deer Park, Texas.

The waste falls under the classification

of listed waste pursuant to §261.31.

Specifically, in its petition, Shell Oil

Company requested that EPA grant a

standard exclusion for 3.36 million

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

multisource landfill leachate.

B.

Who Is Shell Oil Company and What

Process Does it Use To Generate the

Petitioned Waste?

Shell Oil Company refines high sulfur

crude oil from Mexico into products

including gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel,

fuel oil, lube oil and others. The

hazardous wastes included incinerator

ash, spent catalysts and filters,

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004/Proposed Rules

?

77693

Chloronated Plate Interceptor (CPI)

sludge from the refinery wastewater

treatment plant, NET and primary solids

from Shell Chemical and the South

Effluent Treater (SET). The wastes

disposed of in the minimum

technological requirements (MTR)

landfill for the past four years have been

Class 1 and Class 2 nonhazardous

wastes. The landfill is designed to meet

the minimum technological

requirements specified in

40 CFR

§ 264.301. The design includes a

primary leachate collection system and

liner (underlying the deposited waste)

followed by a secondary leachate

collection system. Leachate from this

landfill requires offsite disposal as an

F039 (multisource leachate) listed

waste. However, analytical data

collected monthly for this aqueous

stream shows that

it is not a

characteristic waste and contains little

to no detectable concentrations of

organic constituents.

C. How Did Shell Oil Company Sample

and Analyze the Data in This Petition?

To support its petition, Shell Oil

Company submitted:

(1)

Historical information on past

waste generation and management

practices;

(2)

Results of the total constituent list

for

40 CFR part

264 Appendix IX

volatiles, semivolatiles, metals,

pesticides, herbicides, dioxins and

PCBs;

(3)

Results of the constituent list for

40 CFR part 264

Appendix IX on

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles,

semivolatiles, and metals;

(4)

Analytical constituents of concern

for F039;

(5) Results from total

oil

and grease

analyses;

(6)

Multiple pH testing for the

petitioned waste.

D. What Were the Results of Shell Oil

Company's Analyses?

EPA believes that the descriptions of

the Shell Oil Company analytical

characterization provide

a

reasonable

basis to grant Shell Oil Company's

petition for an exclusion of the

multisource landfill leachate. EPA

believes the data submitted in support

of the petition show the multisource

landfill leachate is non-hazardous.

Analytical data for the multisource

landfill leachate samples were used in

the

DRAS to

develop delisting levels.

The data summaries for detected

constituents are presented in Table I.

EPA has reviewed the sampling

procedures used by Shell Oil Company

and has determined that it satisfies EPA

criteria for collecting representative

samples of the variations in constituent

concentrations in the multisource

landfill leachate. In addition, the data

submitted in support of the petition

show that constituents in Shell Oil

Company's waste are presently below

health-based levels used in the delisting

decision-making. EPA believes that

Shell Oil Company has successfully

demonstrated that the multisource

landfill leachate is non-hazardous.

TABLE

I.—MAXIMUM TCLP

CONCENTRATIONS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEUSTING CONCENTRATION OF THE

MULTISOURCE LANDFILL LEACHATE AT THE SHELL OIL COMPANY DEER PARK,

TX FACILITY 1

Constituent

TCLP analyses

(m9A)

Maximum allow-

able delisting con-

centration levels

(mgt)

Antimony

?

0.0092

0.0204

Arsenic ?

0.011

20.385

Barium

?

0.252

2.92

Copper

?

0.00553

418.00

Chromium ?

0.0122

5.0

Cobalt ?

0.0126

2.25

Nickel

?

0.0368

1.13

Selenium ?

0.0128

0.0863

Acetone ?

0.033

1.46

Acetophenone

?

0.0031

1.58

Benzene ?

0.013

0.022

Dichloroethane, 1,2

?

0.0014

a0803

Ethylbenzene

?

0.00098

4.51

Napthalene ?

0.0061

1.05

Phenanthrene

3 ?

0.0014

1.39

Phenol ?

0.056

9.46

M/0,2,3,7,8 ?

0.00000000325

0.0000926

Trichloropropane ?

0.00025

0.000574

Xylenes (total)

?

0.0016

97.60

'These 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.

2

EPA defers to the maximum allowable delisting concentration based on the MCL. As a result, Shell Oil Company's analytical sampling results

and consequent DRAS analysis meet the criteria for the proposed delisting petition approval.

3

The DRAS program does not have a delisting concentration for phenanthrene. Consequently EPA substituted anthracene into the DRAS pro-

gram to set a delisting level for phenanthrene. Anthracene has similar toxicological and health based properties as phenanthrene. The DRAS

program contains a complete risk-based dataset for anthracene. Shell Oil Company's phenanthrene analytical sampling results and consequent

DRAS analysis using anthracene input parameters meet the criteria for the proposed phenanthrene delisting level.

4

Shell ran TCLP analysis only for the liquid wastes, total analysis were excluding because similar analytical results would be provided.

E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk

of

Delisting This Waste?

For this delisting determination, EPA

used such information gathered to

identify plausible exposure routes (i.e.,

groundwater, surface water, air) for

hazardous constituents present in the

petitioned waste. EPA determined that

disposal in a surface impoundment is

the most reasonable, worst-case disposal

scenario

for Shell Oil Company's

petitioned waste. EPA applied the

Delisting Risk Assessment Software

(DRAS) described in

65 FR 58015

(September 27, 2000) and

65 FR 75637

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

77694?

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules

(December 4, 2000), to predict the

maximum allowable concentrations of

hazardous constituents that may be

released from the petitioned waste after

disposal and determined the potential

impact of the disposal of Shell Oil

Company's petitioned waste on human

health and the environment. A copy of

this software can be found on the world

wide web at

http://www.epa.gov/

earthlr6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dras.htm.

In

assessing potential risks to groundwater,

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

groundwater at a hypothetical receptor

well down gradient from the disposal

site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic

risk of 10- s

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

EPA health-based numbers. Using the

maximum compliance-point

concentrations and EPA's 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

groundwater.

EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate

and transport model represents a

reasonable worst-case scenario for

possible groundwater contamination

resulting from disposal of the petitioned

waste in a surface impoundment, and

that 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

ensures that the waste, once removed

from hazardous waste regulation, will

not pose a significant threat to human

health 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

from the surface impoundment). As in

the above groundwater analyses, the

DRAS

uses

the risk level, the health-

based 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 site-

specific factors when applying the fate

and transport model. EPA does control

the type of unit where the waste is

disposed. The waste must be disposed

in the type of unit the fate and transport

model evaluates.

EPA also considers the applicability

of groundwater monitoring data during

the evaluation of delisting petitions. In

this case, Shell Oil Company will

dispose of its wastewater in its TPDES

permitted NET unit, with existing

groundwater contamination sources.

The groundwater contamination is

currently being addressed and managed

through a RCRA Corrective Actions

Program. Consequently the groundwater

data would not be relevant to this

exclusion. Therefore, EPA has

determined that it would be

unnecessary to request groundwater

monitoring data.

EPA believes that the descriptions of

Shell Oil Company hazardous waste

process and analytical characterization

provide a reasonable basis 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 calculate the

maximum allowable concentration of

chemical constituents in the waste are

presented in Table I. Based on the

comparison of results from the DRAS

and maximum TCLP concentrations

found in Table I, the petitioned waste

should be delisted because no

constituents of concern tested are likely

to be present or formed as reaction

products or by-products in Shell Oil

Company's waste.

F. What Did EPA Conclude About Shell

Oil Company's Analysis?

EPA concluded, after reviewing Shell

Oil Company's processes that no other

hazardous constituents of concern, other

than those for which tested, are likely to

be present or formed as reaction

products or by-products in the waste. In

addition, on the basis of explanations

and analytical data provided by Shell

Oil Company, pursuant to § 260.22, EPA

concludes that the petitioned waste 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 Shell Oil

Company's petition, EPA also

considered the potential impact of the

petitioned waste via non-groundwater

routes (i.e., air emission and surface

runoff). With regard to airborne

dispersion in particular, EPA believes

that exposure to airborne contaminants

from Shell Oil Company's petitioned

waste is unlikely. Therefore, no

appreciable air releases are likely from

Shell Oil Company waste under any

likely disposal conditions. EPA

evaluated the potential hazards

resulting from the unlikely scenario of

airborne exposure to hazardous

constituents released from Shell Oil

Company's waste in an open surface

impoundment. 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 Shell Oil Company's multisource

landfill leachate.

H.

What Is EPA's Evaluation of This

Delisting Petition?

The descriptions of Shell Oil

Company's 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 exclusion. The data

submitted in support of the petition

show that constituents in the waste are

below the maximum allowable

leachable concentrations

(see

Table I).

EPA believes Shell Oil Company's

process will substantially reduce the

likelihood of migration of hazardous

constituents from the petitioned waste.

Shell Oil Company's process also

minimizes short-term and long-term

threats from the petitioned waste to

human health and the environment.

Thus, EPA believes Shell Oil

Company should be granted an

exclusion for the multisource landfill

leachate. EPA believes the data

submitted in support of the petition

show Shell Oil Company's multisource

landfill leachate is non-hazardous. EPA

has reviewed the sampling procedures

used by Shell Oil Company and has

determined that it satisfies EPA criteria

for collecting representative samples of

variable constituent concentrations in

the multisource landfill leachate. The

data submitted in support of the petition

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules

?77695

show that constituents in Shell Oil

Company's waste are presently below

the compliance point concentrations

used in the delisting decision and

would not pose a substantial hazard to

the environment, EPA believes that

Shell Oil Company has successfully

demonstrated that the multisource

landfill leachate is non-hazardous.

EPA therefore, proposes to grant an

exclusion to Shell Oil Company, in Deer

Park, Texas, for the multisource landfill

leachate described in its petition. EPA's

decision to exclude this waste is based

on descriptions of the treatment

activities associated with the petitioned

waste and characterization of the

multisource landfill leachate.

If EPA finalizes the proposed rule,

EPA will no longer regulate the

petitioned waste 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, Shell Oil Company,

must comply with the requirements in

40 CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1.

The text below gives the rationale and

details of those requirements.

(1)

Delisting Levels

This paragraph provides the levels of

constituents for which Shell Oil

Company must test the multisource

landfill leachate, below which these

wastes would be considered non-

hazardous.

EPA selected the set of inorganic and

organic constituents specified in

Paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261,

Appendix IX, Table 1, (the exclusion

language) based on information in the

petition. EPA compiled the inorganic

and organic constituents list from the

composition of the waste, descriptions

of Shell Oil Company's treatment

process, previous test data provided for

the waste, and the respective health-

based levels used in delisting decision-

making. These delisting levels

correspond to the allowable levels

measured in the total concentrations.

The limits described here do not relieve

Shell Oil Company of its duty to comply

with discharge limits in its TPDES

permit.

(2)

Waste Holding and Handling

The purpose of this paragraph is to

ensure that Shell Oil Company manages

and disposes of any multisource landfill

leachate that contains hazardous levels

of inorganic and organic constituents

according to Subtitle C of RCRA.

Managing the multisource

leachate as a hazardous waste until

initial verification testing is performed

will protect against improper handling

of hazardous material. If EPA

determines that the data collected under

this Paragraph do not support the data

provided for in the petition, the

exclusion will not cover the petitioned

waste. The exclusion is effective upon

publication in the Federal Register but

the disposal as non-hazardous cannot

begin until the verification sampling is

completed.

(3)

Verification Testing Requirements

Shell Oil Company must complete

a

rigorous verification testing program on

the multisource landfill leachate to

assure that the treated multisource

landfill leachate does not exceed the

maximum levels specified in Paragraph

(1) of the exclusion language. This

verification program operates on two

levels.

The first part of the verification

testing program consists of testing the

multisource landfill leachate for

specified indicator parameters as per

Paragraph (1) of the exclusion language.

If EPA determines that the data

collected under this Paragraph do not

support the data provided for the

petition, the exclusion will not cover

the generated wastes. If the data from

the initial verification testing program

demonstrate that the leachate meets the

delisting levels, Shell Oil Company may

request quarterly testing. EPA will

notify Shell Oil Company, in writing, if

and when it may replace the testing

conditions in paragraph (3)(A) with the

testing conditions in (3)(B) of the

exclusion language.

The second part of the verification

testing program is the quarterly testing

of representative samples of multisource

landfill leachate for all constituents

specified in Paragraph (1) of the

exclusion language. EPA believes that

the concentrations of the constituents of

concern in the multisource landfill

leachate may vary over time.

Consequently this program will ensure

that the leachate is evaluated in terms

of variation in constituent

concentrations in the waste over time.

The proposed subsequent testing

would verify that Shell Oil Company

operates a landfill where the constituent

concentrations of the multisource

landfill leachate do not exhibit

unacceptable temporal and spatial

levels of toxic constituents.

EPA is proposing to require Shell Oil

Company to analyze representative

samples of the multisource landfill

leachate quarterly during the first year

of waste generation. Shell Oil Company

would begin quarterly sampling 60 days

after the final exclusion as described in

Paragraph (3)(B) of the exclusion

language.

EPA, per Paragraph 3(C) of the

exclusion language, is proposing to end

the subsequent testing conditions after

the first year, if Shell Oil Company has

demonstrated that the waste

consistently meets the delisting levels.

To confirm that the characteristics of the

waste do not change significantly over

time, Shell Oil Company must continue

to analyze a representative sample of the

waste on an annual basis. Annual

testing requires analyzing the full list of

components in Paragraph (1) of the

exclusion language. If operating

conditions change as described in

Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language;

Shell Oil Company must reinstate all

testing in Paragraph (1) of the exclusion

language. Shell Oil Company must

prove through a new demonstration that

their waste meets the conditions of the

exclusion.

If the annual testing of the waste does

not meet the delisting requirements in

Paragraph 1, Shell Oil Company must

notify EPA according to the

requirements in Paragraph 6 of the

exclusion language. The facility must

provide sampling results that support

the rationale that the delisting exclusion

should not be withdrawn.

(4)

Changes in Operating Conditions

Paragraph (4) of the exclusion

language would allow Shell Oil

Company the flexibility of modifying its

processes (for example, changes in

equipment or change in operating

conditions) to improve its treatment

process. However, Shell Oil Company

must prove the effectiveness of the

modified process and request approval

from EPA. Shell Oil Company must

manage wastes generated during the

new process demonstration as

hazardous waste until it has obtained

written approval and Paragraph (3) of

the exclusion language is satisfied.

(5) Data Submittals

To provide appropriate

documentation that Shell Oil

Company's multisource landfill leachate

is meeting the delisting levels, Shell Oil

Company must compile, summarize,

and keep delisting records on-site for a

minimum of five years. It should keep

all analytical data obtained through

Paragraph (3) of the exclusion language

including quality control information

for five years. Paragraph (5) of the

exclusion language requires that Shell

Oil Company furnish these data upon

request for inspection by any employee

or representative of EPA or the state of

Texas.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

77696?

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules

If the proposed exclusion is made

final, it will apply only to 3.36 million

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

multisource landfill leachate, generated

at the Shell Oil Company facility after

successful verification testing.

EPA would require Shell Oil

Company to file a new delisting petition

under any of the following

circumstances:

(a) If it significantly alters the

manufacturing process treatment system

except as described in Paragraph (4) of

the exclusion language;

(b)

If it uses any new manufacturing

or production process(es), or

significantly changes from the current

process(es) described in their petition;

Or

(c) If it makes any changes that could

affect the composition or type of waste

generated.

Shell Oil Company must manage

waste volumes greater than 3.36 million

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

multisource landfill leachate as

hazardous until EPA grants a new

exclusion.

When this exclusion becomes final,

Shell Oil Company's management of the

wastes covered by this petition would

be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction.

Shell Oil Company must either treat,

store, or dispose of the waste in an on-

site facility. If not, Shell Oil Company

must ensure that it delivers the waste to

an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal

facility that has a state permit, license,

or register to manage municipal or

industrial solid waste.

(6) Reopener

The purpose of Paragraph (6) of the

exclusion language is to require Shell

Oil Company 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. Shell Oil Company must also

use this procedure if the waste sample

in the annual testing fails to meet the

levels found in Paragraph 1. 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

EPA 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

Shell Oil Company 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.

EPA believes that it has the authority

under RCRA and the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 551

(1928)

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 delistings is merited in light

of EPA's experience. See Reynolds

Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62

FR 63458 where the delisted waste

leached at greater concentrations in the

environment than the concentrations

predicted when conducting the TCLP,

thus 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 § 553 (b).

(7) Notification Requirements

In order to adequately track wastes

that have been delisted, EPA is

requiring that Shell Oil Company

provide a one-time notification to any

state regulatory agency through which

or to which the delisted waste is being

carried. Shell Oil Company must

provide this notification 60 days before

commencing this activity.

B. What Happens

if

Shell Oil Company

Violates the Terms and Conditions?

If Shell Oil Company 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 Shell

Oil Company to conduct the appropriate

waste analysis and comply with the

criteria explained above in Paragraph (1)

of the exclusion.

V. Public Comments

A. How Can I as an Interested Party

Submit Comments?

EPA is requesting public comments

on this proposed decision. Please send

three copies of your comments. Send

two copies to Section Chief of the

Corrective Action and Waste

Minimization Section (6PD-C),

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy

to Nicole Bealle, Waste Team Leader,

Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality, 5425 Polk Avenue Suite A,

Houston, TX 77023. Identify your

comments at the top with this regulatory

docket number: "F-04-TEXDEL-Shell

Oil." You may submit your comments

electronically to Michelle Peace at

peace.michelle@epa.gov.

You should submit requests for a

hearing to Ben Banipal, Section Chief of

the Corrective Action and Waste

Minimization Section (6PD-C),

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202.

B. How May I Review the Docket or

Obtain Copies of the Proposed

Exclusion?

You may review the RCRA regulatory

docket for this proposed rule at the

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202. It is available for viewing

in EPA Freedom of Information Act

Review Room from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444

for appointments. The public may copy

material from any regulatory docket at

no cost for the first 100 pages, and at

fifteen cents per page for additional

copies.

VI.

Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must conduct an "assessment of the

potential costs and benefits" for all

"significant" regulatory actions.

The proposal to grant an exclusion is

not significant, since its effect, if

promulgated, would be to reduce the

overall costs and economic impact of

EPA's hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction would be

achieved by excluding waste generated

at a specific facility from EPA's lists of

hazardous wastes, thus enabling a

facility to manage its waste as

nonhazardous.

Because there is no additional impact

from this proposed rule, this proposal

would not be a significant regulation,

and no cost/benefit assessment is

required. The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has also exempted this

rule from the requirement for OMB

review under Section (6) of Executive

Order 12866.

VII.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an agency

is required to publish a general notice

of rulemaking for any proposed or final

rule, it must prepare and make available

for public comment a regulatory

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register/Vol.

69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 /Proposed Rules

?

77697

flexibility analysis which describes the

impact of the rule on small entities (that

is, small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility

analysis is required, however, if the

Administrator or delegated

representative certifies that the rule will

not have any impact on a small entities.

This rule, if promulgated, will not

have an adverse economic impact on

small entities since its effect would be

to reduce the overall costs of EPA's

hazardous waste regulations and would

be limited to one facility. Accordingly,

EPA hereby certifies that this proposed

regulation, if promulgated, will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This regulation, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

VIII.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and record-

keeping requirements associated with

this proposed rule have been approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(Public Law 96-511,44 U.S.C. 3501

et

seq.)

and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2050-0053.

IX.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

Public Law 104-4, which was signed

into law on March 22,1995, EPA

generally must prepare a written

statement for rules with Federal

mandates that may result in estimated

costs to state, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year.

When such a statement is required for

EPA rules, under section 205 of the

UMRA EPA must identify and consider

alternatives, including the least costly,

most cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. EPA must select that

alternative, unless the Administrator

explains in the final rule why it was not

selected or it is inconsistent with law.

Before EPA establishes regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must

develop under section 203 of the UMRA

a small government agency plan. The

plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments,

giving them meaningful and timely

input in the development of EPA

regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

them on compliance with the regulatory

requirements.

The UMRA generally defines a

Federal mandate for regulatory purposes

as one that imposes an enforceable duty

upon state, local, or tribal governments

or the private sector.

EPA finds that this delisting decision

is deregulatory in nature and does not

impose any enforceable duty on any

state, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. In addition, the proposed

delisting decision does not establish any

regulatory requirements for small

governments and so does not require a

small government agency plan under

UMRA section 203.

X. Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 is entitled

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

This order applies to any rule that EPA

determines (1) is economically

significant as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, EPA must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by EPA. This proposed rule

is not subject to E.O. 13045 because this

is not an economically significant

regulatory action as defined by

Executive Order 12866.

XI.

Executive Order 13084

Because this action does not involve

any requirements that affect Indian

Tribes, the requirements of section 3(b)

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments.

If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must

provide to the Offi

ce Management and

Budget, in a separately identified

section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of

affected tribal governments, a summary

of the nature of their concerns, and

a

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments to have "meaningful and

timely input" in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities of Indian tribal

governments. This action does not

involve or impose any requirements that

affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

XII.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, EPA is directed to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices,

etc.)

developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. Where available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards are not used by

EPA, the Act requires that EPA to

provide Congress, through the OMB, an

explanation of the reasons for not using

such standards.

This rule does not establish any new

technical standards and thus, EPA has

no need to consider the use of voluntary

consensus standards in developing this

final rule.

XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

"meaningful and timely input by state

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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 "

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

impose substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by state and

local governments, or EPA consults with

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

77698?Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / PropOsed Rules

state and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts state

law unless EPA consults with state and

local officials early in the process of

developing the proposed regulation.

This action does not have federalism

implication. It will not have a

substantial direct effect on 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, because it

affects only one facility.

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: November 9, 2004.

Carl E. Edlund,

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, Region 6.

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 Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part

261 add the following waste stream in

alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261-Waste

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22.

TABLE 1 .-WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility?

Address

Waste Description

Shell Oil Company .... Deer Park, TX

?

•

Multisource landfill leachate (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F039) generated at a maximum an-

nual rate of 3.36 million gallons (16,619 cu. yards) per calendar year after (insert publication

date of the final rule) and disposed in accordance with the TPDES permit.

The Delisting Levels set do not relieve Shell Oil Company of its duty to comply with the limits

set in its TPDES permit. For the exclusion to be valid, Shell Oil Company must implement a

verification testing program that meets the following Paragraphs:

(1) Delisting Levels:

All total concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the fol-

lowing levels (mg/I). The petitioner must analyze the aqueous waste on a total basis to meas-

ure constituents in the multisource landfill leachate.

Multisource landfill leachate (i) Inorganic Constituents Antimony-0.0204; Arsenic-0.385; Barium-

2.92; Copper-418.00; Chromium-5.0; Cobalt-2.25; Nickel-1.13; Selenium-0.0863; Thallium-

0.005

(ii) Organic Constituents Acetone-1.46; Acrylonitrtle-0.00745; Acetophenone-1.58; Benzene-

0.0222; Cresol, p-0.0788; Bis(2-chlorethyl)ether-0.00583; Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthlate-15800.00;

Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-0.00478; DKhloroethane, 1,2-0.0803; Dimethoate-3.15;

Dimethyphenol, 2,4-0.405; Dinitrophenol-0.0293; Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-0.00451; Dinitrololuene,

2,6-0.00451; Diphenylthydrazine-0.00484; Dichloroethylene, 1,1-0.00719; Ethylbenzene-

4.51; Kepone-0.00407; Methacrylonitrile-0.00146; Methanol-7.32; Napthalene-1.05;

Nitrobenzene 0.00788; Nitrosodiethylamine-0.000258; Nitrosodimethylamine-0.000076;

Nitrosodl-n-butylamine-0.000826; N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine-0.000553; N-Nitrosopiperdine-

0.000102; N-Nitrosopyrrolidine-0.000841; N-Nitrosomethylethylamine-0.000176; PCB's-

0.000841; Pentachlorophenol-1.58; Phenol-9.46; Pyridlne-0.0146; 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents

as TEQ-0.0000926; Trichloropropane-0.000574; Vinyl Chloride-0.0019; Xylenes (total)-97.60

(2)

Waste Management

(A)

Shell Oil Company must manage as hazardous all multisource landfill leachate generated,

until it has completed initial verification testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as ap-

propriate, and valid analyses show that Paragraph(1) is satisfied.

(B)

Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the multisource landfill leachate that do

not exceed the levels set forth In Paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. Shell Oil Company can

manage and dispose of the non-hazardous multisource landfill leachate according to all appli-

cable solid waste regulations.

(C)

If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the Delisting Levels set in Paragraph (1),

Shell Oil Company can collect one additional sample and perform expedited analyses to

verify if the constituent exceeds the delisting level. If this sample confirms the exceedance,

Shell Oil Company must, from that point forward, treat the waste as hazardous until it is dem-

onstrated that the waste again meets the levels in Paragraph (1).

(D)

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

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

ceedance.

(E)

Upon completion of the Verification Testing described in Paragraph 3(A) and (B) as appro-

priate and the transmittal of the results to EPA, and if the testing results meet the require-

ments of Paragraph (1), Shell Oil Company may proceed to manage its multisource landfill

leachate as non-hazardous waste. If Subsequent Verification Testing indicates an exceed-

ance of the Delisting Levels in Paragraph (1), Shell Oil Company must manage the multi-

source landfill leachate as a hazardous waste until two consecutive quarterly testing samples

show levels below the Delisting Levels in Table I.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 /

Proposed Rules?77699

TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC

SOURCES—Continued

Facility

?

Address

?

Waste Description

(3)

Verification Testing Requirements

Shell Oil Company must perform sample collection and

analyses, including quality control procedures, according to appropriate methods such as

those found in SW-846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the

use of SW-846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used

without substitution). If EPA judges the process to be effective under the operating conditions

used during the initial verification testing, Shell Oil Company may replace the testing required

in Paragraph (3)(A) with the testing required in Paragraph (3)(B). Shell Oil Company must

continue to test as specified in Paragraph (3)(A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing

that testing in Paragraph (3)(A) may be replaced by

Paragraph (3)(B).

(A)

Initial Verification Testing:

After EPA grants the final exclusion, Shell Oil

Company must do

the following:

(i)

Within 60 days of this exclusion becoming final, collect eight samples, before disposal, of the

multisource landfill leachate.

(ii)

The samples are to be analyzed and compared against the Delisting Levels in Paragraph

(1)

(iii)

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

verification analytical test data for the multisource landfill leachate, including analytical quality

control information for the first thirty (30) days of operation after this exclusion becomes final.

If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the multisource landfill leachate that do

not exceed the levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are also non-hazardous in two consecutive

quarters after the first thirty (30) days of operation after this exclusion become effective, Shell

Oil

Company can manage and dispose of the multisource landfill leachate according to all

applicable solid waste regulations.

(B)

Subsequent Verification Testing

Following written notification by EPA, Shell Oil Company

may substitute the testing conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A). Shell

Oil Company must continue to

monitor operating conditions, and analyze two representative samples of the multisource

landfill leachate for each quarter of operation during the

first year

of waste generation. The

samples must represent the waste generated during the quarter. After the first year of analyt-

ical sampling verification sampling can be performed on a single annual sample of the multi-

source landfill leachate. The results are to be compared to the Delisting Levels in Condition

(1).

(C)

Termination of Testing:

(i)

After the first year of quarterly testing, if the Delisting Levels in

Paragraph (1) are being

met,

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

fies Shell Oil Company in writing, the company may end quarterly testing.

(ii)

Following cancellation of the quarterly testing, Shell Oil Company must continue to test a

representative sample for all constituents listed in Paragraph (1) annually.

(4)

Changes in Operating Conditions-.

If Shell Oil

Company significantly changes the process

described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could

significantly affect the composition or type of waste generated as established under Para-

graph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, changes In equipment or operating conditions of

the treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing; it may no longer handle the wastes gen-

erated from the new process as nonhazardous until the wastes meet the Delisting Levels set

in Paragraph (1) and it has received written approval to do so from EPA.

(5)

Data Submittals

Shell Oil Company must submit the information described below. If Shell

Oil Company fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the re-

quired records on-site for the specified lime, EPA, at Its discretion, will consider this sufficient

basis to reopen the exclusion as described in Paragraph 6. Shell Oil Company must

(A)

Submit the data obtained through Paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, Region 6 Corrective

Action and Waste Minimization Section, EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-

2733, Mail Code, (6PD-C) within the time specified.

(B)

Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from Paragraph (3), summa-

rized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.

(C)

Furnish these records and data when EPA or the state of Texas request them for inspec-

tion.

(D)

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

the truth and accuracy of the data submitted:

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

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

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

information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete.

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

(their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility

for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this infor-

mation is true, accurate and complete.

If any of this information is determined by EPA in its

sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or

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

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

by

EPA and

that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company's RCRA

and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company's reliance on the void exclusion.

(6)

Reopener

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

77700

Federal Register

/ Vol.

69,

No.

248 /

Tuesday, December

28, 2004 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC

SOURCES—Continued

Facility?

Address

Waste Description

(A)

If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Shell Oil Company possesses or is other-

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

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

any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the

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

report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being

made aware of that data.

(B)

If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in Paragraph 1,

Shell Oil Company must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of

first possessing or being made aware of that data.

(C)

If Shell Oil Company fails to submit the information described in Paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or

(6)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make

a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires EPA action to

protect human health and/or the environment.

Further

action may include suspending, or re-

voking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and

the environment.

(D)

If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require action, EPA's

Division Director win 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 state-

ment of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to

present information as to why the proposed action by EPA is not necessary. The facility shall

have 10 days from the date of the Division Directors notice to present such Information.

(E)

Following the receipt of information from the facility described in Paragraph (6)(D) or (if no

information is presented under Paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in

Paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination

describing EPA's actions that are necessary to protect human health and/or the environment.

Any required action described in the Division Director's determination shall become effective

immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise.

(7)

Notification Requirements

Shell Oil Company must do the following before transporting the

delisted waste. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting peti-

tion 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 begin-

ning such activities.

(B)

Update the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted waste into a different disposal

facility.

(C)

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

possible revocation of the decision.

[FR Doc. 04-28199 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45

am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AL106

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Critical Habitat

Designation for Four Vernal Pool

Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool

Plants in California and Southern

Oregon

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule, reopening of

public

comment period.

SUMMARY:

We,

the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), announce

that we are soliciting additional

comments on certain areas included in

our September 24, 2002, proposed rule

(hereinafter referred to as the September

2002 proposal) to

designate critical

habitat for

4 vernal pool crustaceans and

11 vernal pool plants in California and

southern Oregon (67 FR

59884).

We

issued a final rule based on the

September 2002 proposal on August 6,

2003 (68 FR 46684).

In the final rule we

excluded certain specific lands that had

been included in the September

2002

proposal. We excluded these lands

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of

the Act

based on either policy or economic

reasons. On October

28, 2004, a court

remanded the final designation to the

Service in part, ordering the Service to

make a new determination as to whether

to designate the excluded areas

(Butte

Environmental Council

v.

Norton,

NO.

CIV.

S-04-0096 (ED. Cal. Oct.

28,

2004). The

August 6, 2003, final rule is

still in effect while we reconsider the

exclusions from the proposed rule and

make a new final determination.

Pursuant to the court order, we will

evaluate the exclusions made to our

proposal in two separate actions:

(1) A

re-evaluation of exclusions based on

policy or non-economic reasons

addressed herein; and (2) a re-

evaluation of exclusions based on

economic concerns in a subsequent

Federal Register notice. Comments

previously submitted on the September

2002 proposal need not be resubmitted

because we will incorporate them into

the public record as part of this

reopening of the comment period and

will fully consider them in development

of a new final rule.

DATES: We

will accept public comments

on the policy (non-economic)

exclusions to our September

2002

proposal and any new information

concerning the 15 vernal pool species

addressed in this critical habitat

designation until January 27, 2005.

ADDRESSES:

If you wish to comment,

you may submit your comments and

materials by any one of several methods:

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

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

?

49187

ANE MA D Worcester, MA (Revised(

Worcester Regional Airport, MA

(Lat. 42°16'02" N, long. 71°52'32" W)

Spencer Airport, MA

(Lat. 42°12'26"

N,

long. 71°57'53" W)

That airspace extending upward from the

surface to and including 3,500 feet MSL

within a 4.2-mile radius of Worcester

Regional Airport, excluding that airspace

from the surface up to but not including

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

Spencer Airport. This

Class

D airspace area

is effective during the specific dates and

times established in advance by a Notice to

Airmen. The effective date and time will

thereafter be continuously published in the

Airport/Facility Directory.

*?

*?

*?

*

Issued in Jamaica, New York, on August

17, 2005.

John G. McCartney,

Acting Area Director, Eastern Terminal

Operations.

(FR Doc. 05-16740 Filed 8-22-05; 8:45 am]

WILING CODE 4915-13-m

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-21226; Airspace

Docket No. 05-AS0-8]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Marion, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class

E airspace at Marion, KY. Area

Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning

System (GPS) Standard Instrument

Approach Procedures (SLAP) Runway

(RWY)

7

and RWY 25 have been

developed for Marion-Crittenden

County Airport. As a result, controlled

airspace extending upward from 700

feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is

needed to contain the SIAPs and for

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations

at Marion-Crittenden County Airport.

The operating status of the airport will

change from Visual Flight Rules (VFR)

to include IFR operations concurrent

with the publication of the SLAP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 27,

2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Ward, Manager, Airspace and

Operations Branch, Eastern En Route

and Oceanic Service Area, Federal

Aviation Administration, P.O. Box

20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;

telephone (404) 305-5586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On June 8, 2005,

the FAA proposed to

amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by

establishing Class E airspace at Marion,

KY, (70 FR 33403). This action provides

adequate Class E airspace for IFR

operations at Marion-Crittenden County

Airport. Designations for Class E

airspace areas extending upward from

700 feet or more above the surface of the

earth are published in FAA Order

7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, and

effective September 16, 2004, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

part 71.1. The Class E designations

listed in this document will be

published subsequently in this Order.

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA.

No comments objecting to the proposal

were received.

The Rule

This amendment to part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) establishes Class E airspace at

Marion, KY.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a "significant

regulatory action" under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a "significant

rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

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

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

■

1. The authority citation for Part

71

continues to read as follows:

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

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

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§71.1 [Amended]

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 14

CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9L, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 2, 2003, and effective

September

16, 2003, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph

6005 Class E Airspace Areas

Extending Upward from 700 feet or More

Above the Surface of the Earth.

«

?

=

?

«

?

*

ASO

KY E5 Marion, KY [NEWT

Marion-Crittenden County Airport, KY

(Lat. 37°20'04"N, long. 88°06'54" W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.7—radius of

Marion-Crittenden County Airport; excluding

that airspace within the Sturgis, KY, Class E

airspace area.

*

?

*?

*

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 29,

2005.

Mark D.

Ward,

Acting Area Director, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

(FR Doc. 05-16746 Filed 8-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-14

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FFIL-7957-6]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is granting petitions

submitted by Shell Oil Company (Shell

Oil Company) to exclude (or delist)

certain wastes generated by its Houston,

TX Deer Park facility from the lists of

hazardous wastes. This final rule

responds to petitions submitted by Shell

Oil Company to delist F039 and F037

wastes.

The F039 waste is generated

from the refinery wastewater treatment

plant, North Effluent Treater (NET) and

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

49188?

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

primary solids from Shell Chemical and

the South Effluent Treatment (SET). The

F037 waste North Pond Sludge is

generated from the process wastewater,

gravel and road base that has settled

from storm water flow to the pond.

After careful analysis and use of the

Delisting Risk Assessment Software

(DRAS), EPA has concluded the

petitioned wastes are not hazardous

waste. The F039 exclusion applies to

3.36 million gallons per year (16,619

cubic yards) of multi-source landfill

leachate. The F037 exclusion is a one

time exclusion for 15,000 cubic yards of

the sludge. Accordingly, this f

i

nal rule

excludes the petitioned wastes from the

requirements of hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

EFFECTIVE DATE:

August 23, 2005.

ADDRESSES:

The public docket for this

final rule is located at the

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202, and is available for

viewing in EPA Freedom of Information

Act review room on the 7th floor from

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call

(214) 665-6444 for appointments. The

reference number for this docket is F-

04–TEXDEL–Shell Oil. The public may

copy material from any regulatory

docket at no cost for the first 100 pages

and at a cost of $0.15 per page for

additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ben

Banipal, Section Chief of the Corrective

Action and Waste Minimization

Section, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division (613D–C),

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202. For technical information

concerning this notice, contact Michelle

Peace, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202, at (214) 665-7430, or

peace.michellee@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Overview Information

A.

What action is EPA finalizing?

B.

Why is EPA approving this action?

C. What are the limits of this exclusion?

D.

How will Shell Oil Company manage

the wastes, if they are delisted?

E.When is the final delisting exclusion

effective?

F. How

does this final rule affect states?

II. Background

A.

What is a delisting?

B.What regulations allow facilities to

delist a waste?

C.

What information must the generator

supply?

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste

Information and Data

A. What waste did Shell Oil Company

petition EPA to delist?

B.

How much waste did Shell Oil

Company propose to delist?

A. How did Shell Oil Company sample and

analyze the waste data in these petitions?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusions

A. Who submitted comments on the

proposed rules?

B.

Where were the comments and what are

EPA's responses to them?

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I.

Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

After evaluating the petitions for Shell

Oil Company, EPA proposed, on

December 28, 2004 and February 9,

2005, respectively, to exclude the

wastes from the lists of hazardous waste

under § 261.31. EPA is finalizing:

(1)

The decision to grant Shell Oil

Company's delisting petition to have its

F039 multi-source landfill leachate

underlying the Minimum Technology

Requirements (MTR) hazardous waste

landfill excluded, or delisted, from the

definition of a hazardous waste; and

subject to certain verification and

monitoring conditions; and

(2)

The decision to grant Shell Oil

Company's delisting petition to have its

North Pond F037 sludge excluded, or

delisted, from the definition of a

hazardous waste, once it is disposed in

a Subtitle D landfill.

B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?

Shell Oil Company's petitions request

a delisting from the F039 and F037

wastes listing under 40 CFR 260.20 and

260.22. Shell Oil Company does not

believe that the petitioned waste meets

the criteria for which EPA listed it.

Shell Oil Company also believes no

additional constituents or factors could

cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's

review of these petitions included

consideration of the original listing

criteria, and the additional factors

required by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).

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

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4)

(hereinafter all sectional references are

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated).

In making the final delisting

determination, EPA evaluated the

petitioned wastes against the listing

criteria and factors cited in

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

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner

that the wastes are nonhazardous with

respect to the original listing criteria. (If

EPA had found, based on this review,

that the waste remained hazardous

based on the factors for which the waste

was originally listed, EPA would have

proposed to deny the petition.) EPA

evaluated the wastes with respect to

other factors or criteria to assess

whether there is a reasonable basis to

believe that such additional factors

could cause the wastes to be hazardous.

EPA considered whether the wastes are

acutely toxic, the concentrations of the

constituents in the wastes, their

tendency to migrate and to

bioaccumulate, their persistence in the

environment once released from the

waste, plausible and specific types of

management of the petitioned waste, the

quantities of waste generated, and waste

variability. EPA believes that the

petitioned wastes do not meet the listing

criteria and thus should not be listed

wastes. EPA's final decision to delist

wastes from Shell Oil Company's

facility is based on the information

submitted in support of this rule,

including descriptions of the wastes and

analytical data from the Deer Park, TX

facility.

C.

What Are the Limits of This

Exclusion?

This exclusion applies to the waste

described in the Shell Oil Company

petitions only if the requirements

described in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix

IX, Table 1 and the conditions

contained herein are satisfied.

D.

How Will Shell Oil Company Manage

the Wastes, If They Are Delisted?

If the multi-source landfill leachate is

delisted, Shell Oil Company will make

piping modifications to allow the

leachate to be routed to the North

Effluent Treater (NET) for treatment.

After its treatment, the multi-source

landfill leachate will be discharged

through a TPDES-permitted outfall in

compliance with its TPDES permit. If

F037 North Pond Sludge is delisted,

Shell Oil Company will dispose of it in

a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,

licensed, or registered by a state to

manage industrial waste.

E.

When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion

Effective?

This rule is effective August 23, 2005.

The Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 amended section

3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(6)(1),

allow rules to become effective in less

than six months after the rule is

published when the regulated

community does not need the six-month

period to come into compliance. That is

the case here because this rule reduces,

rather than increases, the existing

requirements for persons generating

hazardous waste. This reduction in

existing requirements also provides a

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

---

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

?

49189

basis for making this rule effective

immediately, upon publication, under

the Administrative Procedure Act,

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

F. How Does This Final Rule Affect

States?

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion

under the Federal RCRA delisting

program, only states subject to Federal

RCRA delisting provisions would be

affected. This would exclude states

which have received authorization from

EPA to make their own delisting

decisions.

EPA allows states to impose their own

non-RCRA regulatory requirements that

are more stringent than EPA's, under

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

These more stringent requirements may

include a provision that prohibits a

Federally issued exclusion from taking

effect in the state. Because a dual system

(that is, both Federal (RCRA) and State

(non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a

petitioner's waste, EPA urges petitioners

to contact the State regulatory authority

to establish the status of their wastes

under the State law.

EPA has also authorized some states

(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma,

Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA

delisting program in place of the Federal

program, that is, to make state delisting

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion

does not apply in those authorized

states unless that state makes the rule

part of its authorized program. If Shell

Oil Company transports the petitioned

waste to or manages the waste in any

state with delisting authorization, Shell

Oil Company must obtain delisting

authorization from that state before it

can manage the waste as nonhazardous

in the state.

II. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

A delisting petition is a request from

a generator to EPA or another agency

with jurisdiction to exclude or delist,

from the RCRA list of hazardous waste,

waste the generator believes should not

be considered hazardous under RCRA.

B.

What Regulations Allow Facilities To

Delist a Waste?

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,

facilities may petition EPA to remove

their wastes from hazardous waste

regulation by excluding them from the

lists of hazardous wastes contained in

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition

the Administrator to modify or revoke

any provision of 40 CFR parts 260

through 265 and 268. Section 260.22

provides generators the opportunity to

petition the Administrator to exclude a

waste from a particular generating

facility from the hazardous waste lists.

C.

What Information Must the Generator

Supply?

Petitioners must provide sufficient

information to EPA to allow EPA to

determine that the waste to be excluded

does not meet any of the criteria under

which the waste was listed as a

hazardous waste. In addition, the

Administrator must determine, where

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe

that factors (including additional

constituents) other than those for which

the waste was listed could cause the

waste to be a hazardous waste and that

such factors do not warrant retaining the

waste as a hazardous waste.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste

Information and Data

A.

What Wastes Did Shell Oil Company