Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion, 17027-17032 [07-1650]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 66 (Friday, April 6, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17027-17032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1650]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 https://www.regulations.gov Web 
site. Publicly available materials from Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-
2007-0213 are available either electronically through https://
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 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend you telephone 
Todd Ramaly at (312) 353-9317 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Ramaly, Waste, Pesticides, and 
Toxics Division, (Mail Code: DU-7J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 
Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-9317; fax number: (312) 
353-4788; e-mail address: ramaly.todd@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized 
as follows:

I. Background
    A. What is a delisting petition?
    B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
    C. What waste did AAI 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?
VI. 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(f) and the background documents for a 
listed waste.
    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.

[[Page 17028]]

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?

    AAI 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 delisting petitions and for EPA to be more 
efficient in evaluating them. Efficiency 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?

    AAI 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, AAI 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.

[[Page 17029]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximum observed concentration    Maximum allowable concentration
       Constituent detected       --------------------------------------------------------------------     GW
                                     Total (mg/kg)     TCLP (mg/L)     Total (mg/kg)     TCLP*(mg/L)   ([mu]g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetone..........................               8.6            0.43                NA             228      3,750
formaldehyde.....................               4.6            0.23               689            84.2      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 AAI 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--[mu]g/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-\6\. 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 [mu]g/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-\5\ 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,

[[Page 17030]]

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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: March 19, 2007.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as 
follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.


0
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 Sec. Sec.  260.20 and 
260.22

           Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Facility/address                    Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
AutoAlliance International     Wastewater treatment sludges, F019, that
 Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan.     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; selenium--
                                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.

[[Page 17032]]

 
                               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 analyses,
                                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
                                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.
                               3. Changes in Operating Conditions: AAI
                                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 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 listed in
                                Appendix VIII of part 261 have been
                                introduced and it has received written
                                approval from EPA.
                               4. Data Submittals: AAI must submit the
                                data obtained through verification
                                testing or as required by other
                                conditions 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 inspection. 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 AAI
                                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
                                concentration 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 Regional
                                Administrator will inform AAI 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. AAI shall have 30 days from the
                                date of the Regional Administrator's
                                notice to present the information.
                               (d) If after 30 days AAI presents no
                                further information, the Regional
                                Administrator will issue a final written
                                determination describing the Agency
                                actions that are necessary to protect
                                human health or the environment. Any
                                required action described in the
                                Regional Administrator's determination
                                shall become effective immediately,
                                unless the Regional Administrator
                                provides otherwise.
                               (e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater
                                Concentrations ([mu]g/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