31096 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 17, 2000.

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

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: April 18, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(275) and (c)(276)

to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(275) Reserved.

(276) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on February 23, 2000, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rules 101 and 102, adopted on

December 15, 1999.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–11998 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6606–5]

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 submitted by General Motors

Corporation, Lansing Car Assembly—

Body Plant (GM) in Lansing, Michigan,

to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) certain solid

wastes generated by its wastewater

treatment plant (WWTP) from the lists

of hazardous wastes contained in

subpart D of part 261.

After careful analysis, the EPA has

concluded that the petitioned waste is

not hazardous waste when disposed of

in a Subtitle D landfill. This exclusion

applies to wastewater treatment sludge

generated at GM’s Lansing, Michigan

facility. Accordingly, this final rule

excludes the petitioned waste from the

requirements of hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill

but imposes testing conditions to ensure

that future-generated wastes remain

qualified for delisting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 16, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory

docket for this proposed rule is located

at the U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is

available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call Peter

Ramanauskas at (312) 886–7890 for

appointments. The public may copy

material from the regulatory docket at

$0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

document, contact Peter Ramanauskas

at the address above or at (312) 886–

7890.

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?

II. GM’s Petition to Delist Wastewater

Treatment Sludge

A. What Waste Did GM Petition EPA to

Delist?

B. What Information Must the Generator

Supply?

C. What Information Did GM Submit to

Support This Petition?

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Final Rule

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and

Why?

B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?

C. When Is the Delisting Effective?

D. How Does This Action Affect the States?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the

Proposed Rule?

B. Comments and Responses From EPA

V. Regulatory Impact

VI. Congressional Review Act

VII. Executive Order 12875

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 40

Code of Federal Regulations (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.

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.

B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To

Be Delisted?

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,

facilities may petition the EPA to

remove their wastes from hazardous

waste control by excluding them from

the lists of hazardous wastes contained

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition

the Administrator to modify or revoke

any provision of parts 260 through 266,

268, and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations. Section 260.22

provides generators the opportunity to

petition the Administrator to exclude a

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis

from the hazardous waste lists.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31097

II. GM’s Petition to Delist Wastewater

Treatment Sludge

A. What Waste Did GM Petition EPA to

Delist?

In November 1998, GM petitioned

EPA to exclude an annual volume of

1,250 cubic yards of F019 wastewater

treatment sludges from the chemical

conversion coating of aluminum

generated at its Lansing Car Assembly—

Body Plant located in Lansing, Michigan

from the list of hazardous wastes

contained in 40 CFR 261.31.

B. What Information Must the Generator

Supply?

Petitioners must provide sufficient

information to allow the EPA to

determine that the waste does not meet

any of the criteria for which it was listed

as a hazardous waste. In addition, where

there is a reasonable basis to believe that

factors other than those for which the

waste was listed (including additional

constituents) could cause the waste to

be hazardous, the Administrator must

determine that such factors do not

warrant retaining the waste as

hazardous.

C. What Information Did GM Submit to

Support This Petition?

To support its petition, GM submitted

(1) Descriptions and schematic diagrams

of its manufacturing and wastewater

treatment processes; (2) results of

analyses for the characteristics of

ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity;

(3) total constituent analyses and

Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes

(OWEP, SW–846 Method 1330A)

analyses for the eight toxicity

characteristic metals listed in 40 CFR

261.24, plus antimony, beryllium,

cobalt, copper, hexavalent chromium,

nickel, tin, thallium, vanadium, and

zinc; (4) total constituent and Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP), SW–846 Method 1311 analyses

for 56 volatile and 117 semi-volatile

organic compounds and formaldehyde;

(5) total constituent and TCLP analyses

for sulfide, cyanide, and fluoride; (6)

total constituent and TCLP analyses for

organochlorine pesticides and

chlorinated herbicides; and (7) analysis

for oil and grease, and percent solids.

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Final Rule

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and

Why?

Today the EPA is finalizing an

exclusion to GM for its wastewater

treatment plant sludge generated at the

GM facility in Lansing, Michigan. GM

petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the

wastewater treatment sludge because

GM believes that the petitioned waste

does not meet the RCRA criteria for

which it was listed and that there are no

additional constituents or factors which

could cause the waste to be hazardous.

Review of this petition included

consideration of the original listing

criteria, as well as the additional factors

required by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).

See § 222 of HSWA, 42 United States

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

260.22 (d)(2)–(4). On October 13, 1999,

EPA proposed to exclude or delist GM’s

wastewater treatment sludge from the

list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR

261.31 and accepted public comment on

the proposed rule (64 FR 55443). EPA

considered all comments received, and

for reasons stated in both the proposal

and this document, we believe that

GM’s waste should be excluded from

hazardous waste control.

C. What Are the Terms of This

Exclusion?

GM must dispose of the waste in a

Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,

licensed, or registered by a state to

manage industrial waste. GM must

verify on an annual basis that the

concentrations of the constituents of

concern do not exceed the allowable

levels set forth in this exclusion. This

exclusion applies to a maximum annual

volume of 1,250 cubic yards of waste

water treatment sludge and is effective

only if all conditions contained in

today’s rule are satisfied.

D. When Is the Delisting Effective?

This rule is effective May 16, 2000.

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).

E. How Does This Action Affect the

States?

Because EPA is issuing today’s

exclusion under the federal RCRA

delisting program, only states subject to

federal RCRA delisting provisions

would be affected. This exclusion 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 (nonRCRA) programs) may regulate a

petitioner’s waste, we urge petitioners to

contact the state regulatory authority to

establish the status of their wastes under

the state law.

EPA has also authorized some states

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 GM

transports the petitioned waste to or

manages the waste in any state with

delisting authorization, GM must obtain

a delisting from that state before it can

manage the waste as nonhazardous in

the state.

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

October 13, 1999 from General Motors

Corporation, Ford Motor Company,

DaimlerChrysler Corporation, The

American Zinc Association, Mr. John S.

Olczak, Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality, Alcoa Inc.,

Michigan Manufacturers Association,

Reynolds Metals Company, Alcan

Aluminum Corporation, The Aluminum

Association, and Heritage

Environmental Services, LLC.

B. Comments and Responses From EPA

Comment: Land Disposal Restrictions

(LDRs) are not applicable to waste

which is not hazardous.

Response: LDRs will not apply to

GM’s petitioned waste because the

waste meets the delisting levels at the

point of generation. However, the

Agency believes that in some

circumstances wastes which meet

exemption levels may also have to meet

LDR requirements. The Proposed

Hazardous Waste Identification Rule

(HWIR) in the November 19, 1999

Federal Register states that ‘‘Wastes that

have met the HWIR exemption levels

after the point of generation, however,

would still be subject to LDRs even after

they become exempt from the definition

of hazardous, because LDRs apply to

wastes that are hazardous or have ever

been hazardous.’’

Comment: LDRs for nickel and lead

should not apply to the petitioned waste

31098 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

because LDRs do not apply to these

constituents in F019 waste.

Response: In the proposed rule, the

agency interpreted the requirement to

consider all factors which could cause

the waste to be hazardous to include

consideration of LDRs for all hazardous

constituents. However, since the

universal treatment standards for nickel

and lead are based on technology rather

than on risk, there is no risk basis for

applying them to this waste. These

LDRs will not apply to GM’s petitioned

waste.

Comment: The frequency of

verification testing is unnecessarily

burdensome.

Response: The levels set forth in

condition 1 of this rule must be verified

on an annual basis. The monthly

verification of the treatment standards

in the proposed rule has been

eliminated in today’s final rule. The

agency believes that verification on an

annual basis is appropriate.

Comment: Verification testing for the

pesticides Beta-BHC and DDT is

inappropriate. These constituents were

reported in only the extract from one

sample and the data were rejected due

to laboratory contamination. These

chemicals are not used at this facility

and were not detected in any total

analysis.

Response: The constituents in

question are pesticides which are not

likely to be in the facility’s waste. The

Agency accepts the facility’s statement

that these substances are not used at the

facility and the single TCLP analysis

which indicates their presence should

be rejected on the basis of laboratory

contamination.

Comment: Verification testing should

be limited to Appendix IX metals &

other constituents that were present in

the TCLP extract at greater than 1⁄100 of

the delisting level. Testing for

constituents which do not exceed 1⁄100th

of the delisting level is unnecessary and

overly burdensome.

Response: The Agency believes that

continued testing for all constituents in

condition 1 is appropriate.

Comment: The test for reactivity (if

one becomes available) should be

required only when there is a process

change that could cause the waste to be

reactive.

Response: Delisting policy requires

demonstration that the wastes are not

characteristic. The analysis for total

cyanide in Table 1 of the proposed rule

demonstrates that the waste will not be

reactive for hydrogen cyanide. However,

the concentration of sulfide in this

waste is substantially greater and could

cause the waste to be reactive.

Condition 1(c) has been modified to

specify reactivity for sulfide.

Comment: Zinc is not included in the

list of hazardous constituents in

Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261 and

is not included in the definition of

‘‘underlying hazardous constituent’’ in

§ 268.2(i). Commenter requested that

zinc be eliminated as a hazardous

constituent in GM’s waste.

Response: Zinc is not referred to as a

hazardous constituent in this rule, but it

is a constituent of concern and it can

reasonably be expected to be present at

the point of generation. Table 3 of the

proposed rule, which includes zinc, sets

forth allowable concentration levels for

constituents of concern.

Comment: Chromium VI is one of the

constituents that caused the F019 waste

to be listed and it is not clear that

chromium VI concerns have been

addressed.

Response: The allowable level for

chromium is presented as total

chromium but the allowable level for

total chromium was calculated based on

the conservative assumption that all

chromium in the waste is chromium VI.

Comment: In Condition 5(a) and (c),

10 days is not sufficient time to review

the data and prepare an adequate

response.

Response: The Agency agrees that

more time may be necessary to initially

validate the data, but believes the

allotted time in Condition 5(c) for a

preliminary response is adequate. In the

final rule, the last two lines in

Condition 5(a) have been changed to

read ‘‘* * * then GM must notify the

Regional Administrator in writing

within 10 days and must report the data

within 45 days of first possessing or

being made aware of that data.’’

Condition 5(c) is unchanged.

Comment: GM will be using high

performance liquid chromatography

(HPLC) method for future analysis of

formaldehyde.

Response: We agree that HPLC is an

appropriate method for this constituent.

Comment: The conditions would set a

new and unjustified precedent for all

generators considering delisting.

Response: The conditions in this

delisting are limited to a specific waste

at a specific facility. This rule does not

set standards for other generators.

Comment: Application of different

testing protocols or inconsistency by the

USEPA between petitioners introduces

uncertainty to the exclusion process and

may pose a barrier to interstate

commerce.

Response: The conditions in this

delisting are limited to a specific waste

at a specific facility. The delisting

process excludes waste on a ‘‘generator

specific’’ basis. Due to the variety of

waste types that may be the subject of

a delisting petition, there will always be

the potential that different testing

protocols will be utilized to adequately

characterize the petitioned waste.

Comment: Commenter supports EPA’s

consistent application of the published

TCLP procedure to guide waste

management decisions along with the

published guidance used to exclude

petitioned hazardous waste from

regulation.

Response: As wastes and disposal

environments may vary, the factors

influencing the leachability of wastes

will also vary. For a more complete

assessment of leachability, it may be

necessary to supplement the TCLP with

a modified TCLP as discussed in the

most recent version of the Region 6

Guidance Manual for the Petitioner. The

Region 6 guidance manual is endorsed

and recommended by Region 5.

Comment: The requirement to

compile an annual report and submit

the data to the EPA is an additional

burden on the regulated community as

the facility is already required to

maintain the data for a period of five

years.

Response: Condition 4 of the

proposed rule requires that the data be

compiled, summarized and maintained

on site. Only a summary of the data is

to be submitted to the EPA. Today’s rule

does not require the preparation of an

annual report to the EPA.

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a rule of general applicability and

therefore is not a ‘‘regulatory action’’

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget. Because this

action is a rule of particular

applicability relating to a 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 the rule will

affect only one facility, it will not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as specified in section 203

of UMRA, or communities of tribal

governments, as specified in Executive

Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10,

1998). For the same reason, this rule

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 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31099

also is not subject to Executive Order

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not economically

significant.

This rule does not involve technical

standards; thus, the requirements of

section 12(c) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),

in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. 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.).

VI. Congressional Review Act

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.

VII. 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 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,

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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Hazardous waste, Recycling,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

6921(f).

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Robert Springer,

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 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.

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

*******

General Motors Corporation.

Lansing Car Assembly—

Body Plant.

Lansing, Michigan ....... Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge from the chemical conversion coating

(phosphate coating) of aluminum (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) generated at a

maximum annual rate of 1,250 cubic yards per year and disposed of in a Subtitle D

landfill, after May 16, 2000.

1. Delisting Levels:

(A) The constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP extract may not exceed the

following levels (mg/L): Antimony—0.576; Arsenic—4.8; Barium—100; Beryllium—

0.384; Cadmium—0.48; Chromium (total)—5; Cobalt—201.6; Copper—124.8;

Lead—1.44; Mercury—0.192; Nickel—67.2; Selenium—1; Silver—5; Thallium—

0.192; Tin—2016; Vanadium—28.8; Zinc—960; Cyanide—19.2; Fluoride—384; Acetone—336; m,p—Cresol—19.2; 1,1—Dichloroethane—0.0864; Ethylbenzene—

67.2; Formaldehyde—672; Phenol—1920; Toluene—96; 1,1,1—Trichloroethane—

19.2; Xylene—960.

(B) The total concentration of formaldehyde in the waste may not exceed 2100 mg/

kg.

(C) Analysis for determining reactivity from sulfide must be added to verification testing when an EPA-approved method becomes available.

2. Verification Testing: GM must implement an annual testing program to demonstrate

that the constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP extract (or OWEP, where

appropriate) of the waste do not exceed the delisting levels established in Condition

(1).

31100 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

3. Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM significantly changes the manufacturing or

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

GM must notify the EPA of the changes in writing. GM must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until GM has demonstrated that the

wastes meet the delisting levels set forth in Condition (1), that no new hazardous

constituents listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been introduced, and GM has

received written approval from EPA.

4. Data Submittals: GM must submit the data obtained through annual verification testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (DW–8J), Chicago, IL 60604, within 60 days of sampling. GM must compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and analytical data. GM must make these records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

5. Reopener Language—(a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, GM 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 level predicted by the CML

model, then GM must notify the Regional Administrator in writing within 10 days and

must report the data within 45 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 GM 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 GM with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed

Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. GM shall have 10

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

(d) If after 10 days GM 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.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–12306 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–865; MM Docket No. 97–106, RM–

9044, RM–9741]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Cheyenne, Wyoming and Gering,

Nebraska.

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Allocations Branch at the

request of petitioner, TSB II, Inc. allots

Channel 280C2 at Cheyenne as that

community’s 12th local aural service,

substitutes Channel 239C3 for Channel

280C1 at Gering, Nebraska and modifies

Station’s KOLT–FM license accordingly.

See, 62 FR 15870 (April 3, 1997) The

Branch determined that a new allotment

at Cheyenne was preferable to a

counterproposal of two station upgrade

and one downgrade. Each channel can

be allotted to its respective community

in compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements. The reference coordinates

for a Channel 280C2 allotment at

Cheyenne, Wyoming, are 41–08–17

North Latitude and 104–48–22 West

Longitude. The reference coordinates for

Channel 239C3 at Gering, Nebraska are

41–51–50 North Latitude and 103–42–

20 West Longitude.

DATES: Effective May 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur D. Scrutchins, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 97–106,

adopted March 31, 2000, and released

April 15, 2000. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows: