### Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16/Tuesday, January 26, 1999/Rules and Regulations 

## 3869

R EFRIGERATION AND 

### A IR 

### -C ONDITIONING 

### S ECTOR 

### U NACCEPTAB 

### L E 

### S UBSTITUTES

End-use

All refrigeration and air-conditioning end uses Substitute

Hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and all HFP-containing blends. Decision

Unacceptable

............. Comments

Presents unacceptable

toxicity risk.

[FR Doc. 99–1765 Filed 1–25–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6223–5]



### Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY 

### : Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION 

### : Final rule.

SUMMARY 

### : The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) today is granting a

petition submitted by American Steel

Cord, formerly Kokoku Steel Cord

Corporation, to exclude (or “delist”)

certain solid wastes from the lists of

hazardous wastes contained in Title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations,

Subpart D of Part 261. EPA has

concluded that the petitioned waste is

not a hazardous waste when disposed of

in a Subtitle D landfill. This exclusion

applies only to the wastewater treatment

plant (WWTP) sludge generated by

American Steel Cord in Scottsburg,

Indiana. Today’s action conditionally

excludes the petitioned waste from the

requirements of the hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

when disposed of in a Subtitle D

landfill.

EFFECTIVE DATE 

### : January 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES 

### : The regulatory docket for

this final rule which contains the

complete petition and supporting

documents is located at U.S. EPA

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

IL 60604–3590, and is available for

viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays. Call Judy Kleiman at

(312) 886–1482 for appointments. The

public may copy material from the

regulatory docket at cost of $0.15 per

page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 

### : For

technical information concerning this

notice, contact Judy Kleiman at the

address above or at (312) 886–1842.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

### : I. Background

A. Authority

Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22, facilities

may petition EPA to remove their

wastes from hazardous waste control by

excluding them from the lists of

hazardous wastes contained in Subpart

D of Part 261. Specifically, § 260.20

allows any person to petition the

Administrator to modify or revoke any

provision of Parts 260 through 266, 268

and 273; and § 260.22 provides

generators the opportunity to petition

the Administrator to exclude a waste on

a “facility-specific” basis from the

hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must

provide sufficient information 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,

where there is 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,

the Administrator must determine that

such factors do not warrant retaining the

waste as a hazardous waste.

B. History of this Rulemaking

American Steel Cord petitioned EPA

to exclude its WWTP sludge from

hazardous waste control. After

evaluating the petition, on April 15,

1998, EPA proposed to exclude

American Steel Cord’s waste from the

lists of hazardous wastes in subpart D of

part 261 (see 63 FR 18354). This

rulemaking addresses the public

comments received on the proposal and

finalizes the proposed decision to grant

American Steel Cord’s petition.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

American Steel Cord, Route 1 Box 357K,

Scottsburg, Indiana 47170

A. Proposed Exclusion

American Steel Cord petitioned EPA

to exclude an annual volume of 3,000

cubic yards of WWTP filtercake sludge

from the list of hazardous wastes

contained in § 261.3 1, and subsequently

provided additional information to

complete its petition. The WWTP sludge

is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No.

F006. The listed constituents of concern

for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 are

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and cyanide (complexed) (see Appendix

VII of part 261).

In support of its petition, American

Steel Cord submitted detailed

descriptions and schematic diagrams of

its manufacturing and wastewater

treatment processes, and analytical

testing results for representative

samples of the petitioned waste,

including (1) the hazardous

characteristics of corrosivity, reactivity,

and toxicity; (2) total constituent

analysis and Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (SW–846 Method

1311) analyses for the eight toxicity

characteristic metals listed in § 261.24,

plus copper, nickel, thallium,

vanadium, and zinc; (3) total constituent

and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP, SW–846 Method

1311) analyses for 121 volatile and

semi-volatile organic compounds; (4)

analyses for total sulfide, total cyanide,

and TCLP analysis for cyanide; and (5)

analysis for oil and grease.

EPA evaluated the information and

analytical data provided by American

Steel Cord and tentatively determined

that American Steel Cord had

successfully demonstrated that the

petitioned waste is not hazardous. See

the proposed exclusion (63 FR 18354;

April 15, 1998) for a detailed

explanation of EPA’s evaluation.

B. Response to Comments

EPA received public comment on the

April 15, 1998 proposal from American

Steel Cord and from the Environmental

Defense Fund.

Comment: American Steel Cord

commented that its waste is measured

by weight, not by volume, and that the

Agency was incorrect in assuming a

density of one when converting from

tons to cubic yards. The density of the

waste is considerably less than one, so

that the petitioned waste was more than

950 yd 3 . Furthermore, American Steel

Cord anticipates that the total annual

volume of waste generated could

increase to 3,000 cubic yards and

requested that the exclusion be applied

to this larger volume.

Response: The volume specified in

today’s final rule has been increased to

3,000 cubic yards from the 950 cubic

yards proposed on April 15, 1998. In so

doing, the final allowable levels for each

constituent have been decreased from

## 3870 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16/Tuesday, January 26, 1999/Rules and Regulations

the proposed levels in accordance with

the CML model.

Comment: Commenter stated that the

waste was only evaluated for risk under

the scenario of mismanagement in a

landfill, but the proposed delisting does

not contain language limiting

management of the delisted waste to

disposal in a Subtitle D landfill.

Response: The Agency has recently

adopted the policy that new delistings

apply only to wastes managed in the

type of unit modeled in the delisting

risk assessment. In accordance with this

policy, enforceable language has been

incorporated into the final rule stating

that this exclusion applies only if the

waste is disposed in a Subtitle D landfill

permitted by the State.

Comment: Commenter stated that

there is no discussion of the possibility

that the leachability might be

underestimated by the TCLP or that this

procedure may be affected by the iron

content or other attributes of the waste

such as pH.

Response: Although no laboratory test

can exactly replicate environmental

conditions for all landfills, the Agency

has developed the TCLP to be used as

a reasonable means of predicting

leachability in a solid waste landfill. For

wastes with close to neutral pH, such as

the filtercake from American Steel Cord

which has a pH between 8.5 and 8.9, the

Agency believes that the TCLP is a

reliable test in the absence of extreme

environmental conditions. While some

forms of iron may affect the leachability

of lead bearing wastes, lead is not used

in American Steel Cord’s process and

there is no significant amount of lead in

the waste. Furthermore, there is no

reason to believe that excess iron was

introduced at any time into the process

or the wastestream for the purpose of

reducing the leachability of lead.

Comment: Commenter stated that the

Agency should consider sampling and

other requirements that will ensure that

these factors will not change in the

future.

Response: The exclusion requires

periodic testing to verify that the waste

will remain in compliance with the

conditions of the exclusion. The final

rule also includes language requiring

American Steel Cord to notify the

Agency of any change in process.

Comment: Commenter stated that the

Agency should consider risks posed by

total concentrations via the air pathway.

No support has been offered for the

conclusion that appreciable air releases

are unlikely.

Response: Air modeling was done for

the pathways of inhalation, ingestion of

air borne particulates and air deposition

on soil followed by ingestion by a child. The concentrations of all constituents in

American Steel Cord’s waste were

orders of magnitude below the health

based levels of concern for each of these

pathways. A full discussion of the air

modeling is contained in the docket.

Comment: Commenter stated that

since total concentration is used in

evaluating risk by the air pathway, EPA

should promulgate limits on total

concentrations, as well as limits on the

TCLP concentrations.

Response: Screening levels for this

waste were back calculated and were

determined to be a thousand to a

million times the levels detected in

American Steel Cord’s waste. Thus the

waste is not expected to pose a threat by

the air pathway and the Agency believes

that it is not meaningful to set limits on

totals which would be three to six

orders of magnitude above the

concentrations detected in the waste.

Comment: Commenter stated that the

proposed TCLP limit for xylene in this

waste exceeds the allowable level for

xylene in storage tanks in the air

characteristics study.

Response: The scenario upon which

the air characteristic study was based is

not applicable to American Steel Cord’s

waste. This delisting applies to a limited

quantity of non-liquid waste which will

be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.

Furthermore, the highest total

concentration of xylene in any sample

of this waste was 22 ppb which is well

below air characteristics number of 200

ppm for xylene in waste stored in tanks.

Comment: Commenter stated that the

proposed rule only requires the facility

to meet the applicable delisting levels

but does not require notification of a

change in process which should trigger

Agency verification activities. The EPA

should require notification of changes in

operating conditions.

Response: In the event of a process

change, the facility is required to meet

the established delisting limits and must

perform testing to verify that the levels

established in this rule are being met.

The facility must also verify that no

additional constituents have been

introduced. Data obtained from

verification testing must be submitted to

EPA.

Comment: Commenter stated that the

EPA should add provisions to the final

rule stating that the delisting is only

valid when the waste is disposed of in

a Subtitle D landfill permitted by the

State, since the Agency has not

evaluated all potential mismanagement

scenarios.

Response: Specific language has been

added to paragraph 1 of the final rule

which requires that the waste must be

disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. Comment: Commenter stated that the

EPA should add provisions to the final

rule stating that if the facility plans to

dispose of the waste in a landfill on site,

it must notify the Agency at least 60

days prior to first utilizing an onsite

landfill.

Response: The Agency is requiring

that the waste be disposed of properly

in a Subtitle D landfill regulated by the

State. To dispose of the waste on site,

American Steel Cord would have to

construct a Subtitle D landfill on its

property and obtain all necessary

permits from the State of Indiana. The

US EPA does not regulate which

Subtitle D landfill the waste may be sent

to, nor does the Agency routinely

require notification of wastes disposed

in units regulated by the State.

Comment: Commenter stated that EPA

should add provisions to the final rule

stating that American Steel Cord must

report to EPA receipt of any

environmental data that departs from

the data that were modeled or predicted

in the initial delisting evaluation.

Response: Language has been

included in paragraph 4 of the final rule

which requires the facility to report in

writing any data which might indicate

that the levels in paragraph 1 of this rule

have been exceeded or that the initial

delisting decision was inappropriate or

wrong.

Comment: Commenter stated that the

proposed delisting has failed to include

procedures for suspension or

termination of the exclusion in the

event of mismanagement of delisted

waste.

Response: The Agency has recently

adopted a policy of incorporating

language into all new exclusions which

will allow the Agency to reopen, revoke,

or otherwise suspend the delisting in a

timely manner in the event of

mismanagement. This language will

establish a mechanism to review and act

expeditiously on the delisting when

additional data become available

indicating the initial delisting decision

was inappropriate or wrong.

C. Changes to Proposed Verification

Testing Conditions

In the proposed rulemaking, EPA

included delisting levels for 23

constituents which would be protective

of human health and the environment

and which could not be exceeded in a

TCLP extract of the petitioned waste.

These levels have been lowered in

today’s rule to allow for an increased

volume. In addition, the proposed levels

of 200 mg/l for barium, 10 mg/l for

chromium, 5 mg/l for selenium and 20

mg/l for silver have been lowered to the

levels set in the hazardous waste

### Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16/Tuesday, January 26, 1999/Rules and Regulations 

## 3871

toxicity characteristic in § 261.24 to

ensure that the petitioned waste, even

though protective of human health and

the environment, remains below the TC

levels.

Levels in the proposed rule were

based on “Docket Report on HealthBased Levels and Solubilities Used in

the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,”

December 1994. This document was

revised in May, 1996, and the health

based level for benzo butyl phthlate was

changed from .01 mg/l to 7.0 mg/l, the

health based level for 1,4-

dichlorobenzene was changed from .075

mg/l to .004 mg/l, and the health based

level for cis 1,2-dichloroethene was

changed from .07 mg/l to .4 mg/l. The

delisting levels in today’s final rule are

based on the more recent health based

numbers.

The proposed rule incorrectly allowed

for a level of 10 mg/l chloroform. Under

the proposed rule, the correct level

should have been 1 mg/l. Under today’s

rule, the increased volume lowers the

level for chloroform to .68 mg/l.

Paragraph 1 in Table 1 of Appendix

IX to Part 261 now reads 1. Verification

Testing: American Steel Cord must

implement an annual testing program to

demonstrate, based on the analysis of a

minimum of four representative

samples, that the constituent

concentrations measured in the TCLP

extract of the waste are within specific

levels. The constituent concentrations

must not exceed the following levels

(mg/l) which are back-calculated from

the delisting health-based levels and a

DAF of 68. ArsenicD 3.4 BariumD 100;

CadmiumD .34; ChromiumD 5;

CopperD 88.4; LeadD 1.02; MercuryD

.136; NickelD 6.8; SeleniumD 1; SilverD

5; ZincD 680; CyanideD 13.6; AcetoneD

272; Benzo butyl phthlateD 476;

ChloroformD .68; 1,4-

DichlorobenzeneD .272; cis 1,2-

DichloroetheneD 27.2; Methylene

chlorideD.34; NaphthaleneD 68;

StyreneD 6.8; TetrachloroetheneD .34;

TolueneD 68; and XyleneD 680.

American Steel Cord must measure and

record the pH of the waste using SW

846 method 9045 and must record all

pH measurements performed in

accordance with the TCLP.

D. Final Agency Decision

For the reasons stated in both the

proposal and this notice, EPA has

concluded that American Steel Cord’s

petitioned waste may be excluded from

hazardous waste control. EPA, therefore,

is granting a final exclusion for the

WWTP sludge generated by American

Steel Cord at its facility in Scottsburg,

Indiana. This exclusion applies to the

waste described in the petition only if the requirements described in Table 1 of

part 261 Appendix IX are satisfied.

Although management of the waste

covered by this exclusion is removed

from Subtitle C jurisdiction, this

exclusion applies only where this waste

is disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill

which is permitted, licensed, or

registered by a state to manage

municipal and/or industrial solid waste.

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

The final exclusion being granted

today is issued under the Federal

(RCRA) delisting program. States,

however, are allowed to impose (nonRCRA) regulatory requirements that are

more stringent than EPA’s, pursuant to

section 3009 of RCRA. These more

stringent requirements may include a

provision which prohibits a Federallyissued exclusion from taking effect in

the State. Because a petitioner’s waste

may be regulated under a dual system

(i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and State

(non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are

urged to contact the State regulatory

authority to determine the current status

of their waste under State law.

Furthermore, some States are

authorized to administer a delisting

program in lieu of the Federal program

(i.e., to make their own delisting

decisions). Therefore, this exclusion

does not apply in those authorized

States. If the petitioned waste will be

transported to any State with delisting

authorization, American Steel Cord

must obtain delisting authorization from

that State before the waste may be

managed as nonhazardous in the State.

IV. Effective Date

This rule is effective Janaury 26, 1999.

The Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 amended section

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become

effective in less than six months when

the regulated community does not need

the six-month period to come into

compliance. That is the case here,

because this rule reduces the existing

requirements for persons generating

hazardous wastes. These reasons also

provide a basis for making this rule

effective immediately, upon

publication, under the Administrative

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

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must conduct an “assessment of the

potential costs and benefits” for all

“significant” regulatory actions. The

effect of this rule is to reduce the overall

costs and economic impact of EPA’s

hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction is achieved

by excluding waste generated at a specific facility from EPA’s lists of

hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this

facility to treat its waste as nonhazardous. Therefore, this rule does not

represent a significant regulatory action

under the Executive Order, and no

assessment of costs and benefits is

necessary. 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.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to 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 that

describes the impact of the rule on small

entities (i.e., 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 any small

entities.

This rule will not have an adverse

economic impact on any small entities

since its effect would be to reduce the

overall costs of EPA’s hazardous waste

regulations. Accordingly, I hereby

certify that this regulation will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This regulation, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with

this final rule have been approved by

OMB under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.

L. 96–511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and

have been assigned OMB Control

Number 2050–0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

Pub. L. 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 costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

EPA must select that alternative, unless

## 3872 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16/Tuesday, January 26, 1999/Rules and Regulations

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 today’s proposed

delisting decision is deregulatory in

nature and does not impose any

enforceable duty upon State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

In addition, today’s 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.

IX. Submission to Congress and

General Accounting Office

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

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the final

rule in the Federal Register . This rule

is not a “major rule” as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become

effective on the date of publication in

the Federal Register

.

X. Executive Order 13045—Protection

of Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be “economically

significant” as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have 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 final

rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because

this is not an economically significant

regulatory action as defined by E.O.

12866 and the environmental health or

safety risks addressed by this action do

not have a disproportionate effect on

children.

XI. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 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

Office of Management and Budget 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, E.O.

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 E.O. 12875 do not apply

to this rule.

XII. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 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

Office of 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, E.O. 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting representatives of

Indian tribal governments “to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.” Today’s rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

List 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: December 21, 1998.

Margaret McCue,

Acting 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. Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261

is amended to add the following waste

stream in alphabetical order by facility

to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22



### T ABLE 

### 1.—W ASTES 

### E XCLUDED 

### F ROM 

### N ON 

### -S PECIFIC 

### S OURCES

Facility Address Waste description

### Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16/Tuesday, January 26, 1999/Rules and Regulations 

## 3873

T ABLE 

### 1.—W ASTES 

### E XCLUDED 

### F ROM 

### N ON 

### -S PECIFIC 

### S OURCES 

### —Continued

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

American Steel Cord ... Scottsburg, IN Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge from electroplating operations (EPA Hazardous

Waste No. F006) generated at a maximum annual rate of 3,000 cubic yards per year, after

January 26, 1999, and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill.

1. Verification Testing: American Steel Cord must implement an annual testing program to

demonstrate, based on the analysis of a minimum of four representative samples, that the

constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP extract of the waste are within specific

levels. The constituent concentrations must not exceed the following levels (mg/l) which

are back-calculated from the delisting health-based levels and a DAF of 68. Arsenic—3.4;

Barium—100; Cadmium—.34; Chromium—5; Copper—88.4.; Lead—1.02; Mercury—.136;

Nickel—6.8.; Selenium—1; Silver—5; Zinc—680; Cyanide—13.6; Acetone—272; Benzo

butyl phthlate—476; Chloroform—.68; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene—.272; cis-1,2-

Dichloroethene—27.2; Methylene chloride—.34; Naphthalene—68; Styrene—6.8;

Tetrachloroethene—.34; Toluene—68; and Xylene—680. American Steel Cord must measure and record the pH of the waste using SW 846 method 9045 and must record all pH

measurements performed in accordance with the TCLP.

2. Changes in Operating Conditions: If American Steel Cord significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment

process, American Steel Cord may handle the WWTP filter press sludge generated from

the new process under this exclusion only after the facility has demonstrated that the

waste meets the levels set forth in paragraph 1 and that no new hazardous constituents

listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been introduced.

3. Data Submittals: The data obtained through annual verification testing or compliance with

paragraph 2 must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL

60604–3590, within 60 days of sampling. Records of operating conditions and analytical

data must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on site for a minimum of five years

and must be made available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed

copy of the certification statement in 260.22(I)(12).

4. (a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, American Steel Cord possesses or is

otherwise 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 in Condition (1) is at a level in the leachate higher

than the delisting level established in Condition (1), or is at a level in the ground water or

soil higher than the health based level, then American Steel Cord 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 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 information as to why the proposed Agency action is

not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. The facility shall have 10 days from the

date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present such information.

(d) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (c) or (if no information is presented under paragraph (c) the initial receipt of information described in

paragraph (a), 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.

[FR Doc. 99±1756 Filed 1±25±99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

### FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–129; RM–9076]



### Radio Broadcasting Services; New

Martinsville, WV

AGENCY 

### : Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION 

### : Final rule. SUMMARY 

### : The Commission, at the

request of Seven Ranges Radio

Company, Inc., allots Channel 222A at

New Martinsville, West Virginia, as the

community’s third local FM

transmission service. We will also allow

petitioner to amend its pending

application (File No. BPH±960223MA)

to reflect operation on Channel 222A in

lieu of Channel 258A at New

Martinsville, West Virginia. See 62 FR

26466, May 14, 1997. Channel 222A can

be allotted to New Martinsville in