Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17027 

the objection arises after the comment 

period allowed for in the proposal. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Solid 

Waste Incinerators, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

Dated: March 27, 2007. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

■ 40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows: 

PART 62—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart OO—Rhode Island 

■ 2. Subpart OO is amended by adding 

a new § 62.9995 and a new 

undesignated center heading to read as 

follows: 

Air Emissions From Existing Other 

Solid Waste Incineration Units 

§ 62. 9995 Identification of Plan-Negative 

Declaration. 

On November 5, 2006, the Rhode 

Island Department of Environmental 

Management submitted a letter 

certifying that there are no existing 

other solid waste incineration units in 

the state subject to the emission 

guidelines under part 60, subpart EEEE 

of this chapter. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R05–RCRA–2007–0213; SW–FRL–

8294–8] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’

or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is granting a 

petition to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) 

wastewater treatment plant sludges from 

conversion coating on aluminum 

generated by AutoAlliance 

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

joint venture company in Flat Rock, 

Michigan, from the list of hazardous 

wastes. 

Today’s action conditionally excludes 

the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when disposed of in a lined Subtitle D 

landfill which is permitted, licensed, or 

registered by a State to manage 

industrial solid waste. The exclusion 

was proposed on March 7, 2002 as part 

of an expedited process to evaluate this 

waste under a pilot project developed 

with the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The 

rule also imposes testing conditions for 

waste generated in the future to ensure 

that this waste continues to qualify for 

delisting. 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 6, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established an 

electronic docket for this action under 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2007–

0213. The electronic docket contains all 

relevant documents created after this 

action was proposed as well as a 

selection of pertinent documents from 

the original paper docket for the 

proposed rule, Docket ID No. R5–

MIECOS–01. Certain other material, 

such as copyrighted material, is not 

placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. All documents in the electronic 

docket are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly 

available materials from Docket ID No. 

EPA–R05–RCRA–2007–0213 are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy. Materials from the original paper 

docket, Docket ID No. R5–MIECOS–01, 

are also available in hard copy. You can 

view and copy materials from both 

dockets at the Records Center, 7th floor, 

U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. This 

facility is open from 8:30 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. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
17028 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

B. What regulations allow a waste to be 

delisted? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 

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

the EPA to remove their wastes from 

hazardous waste control by excluding 

them from the lists of hazardous wastes 

contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. 

Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any 

person to petition the Administrator to 

modify or revoke any provision of parts 

260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 

CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a 

generator the opportunity to petition the 

Administrator to exclude a waste from 

the lists of hazardous wastes on a 

‘‘generator specific’’ basis. 

C. What waste did AAI petition to 

delist? 

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. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17029 

Constituent detected 

Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable concentration GW 

(μg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP*(mg/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—μg/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 μg/L. 

EPA also used the DRAS program to 

estimate the aggregate cancer risk and 

hazard index for constituents detected 

in the waste. The aggregate cancer risk 

is the cumulative total of all individual 

constituent cancer risks. The hazard 

index is a similar cumulative total of 

non-cancer effects. The target aggregate 

cancer risk is 1 × 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, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
17030 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2005. The Agency is not aware of any 

recycling or reclamation of F019 

sludges; therefore, EPA believes that 

current market conditions do not 

support the recycling of F019 waste for 

the purposes of recovering the metal 

content of such waste. EPA has 

requested comment on whether this 

understanding is accurate and whether 

recycling of F019 waste is economically 

feasible under today’s market 

conditions. See 72 FR 2224, January 18, 

2007. If recycling of F019 wastes 

becomes economically feasible or 

beneficial in the future, the Agency will 

consider its options for how to address 

this, including through a subsequent 

rulemaking, such as the ongoing 

rulemaking related to the definition of 

solid waste. 

(5) Comment: Analytical methods 

should be specified in the pre-approved 

common sampling plan instead of 

requiring each participant to submit a 

site-specific list of methods. 

EPA Response: Allowing the 

petitioner to choose an analytical 

method which meets the data quality 

objectives specific to the delisting 

petition provides flexibility. Data 

quality objectives will vary depending 

on the allowable levels that are a 

function of the volume of petitioned 

waste. The Agency believes that the 

flexibility of performance based 

methods results in better data. 

(6) Comment: Detection limits should 

not be required prior to sampling since 

they cannot be adequately predicted 

without a way to estimate matrix effects. 

EPA Response: Although matrix 

effects cannot be assessed in advance of 

laboratory analysis, a laboratory should 

be able to provide estimated detection 

levels and reporting levels which are 

lower than, or at least equal to, the 

allowable delisting level for each 

constituent. 

(7) Comment: Since the process 

generating the sludge is extremely 

stable, verification sampling should be 

conducted on an annual, instead of 

quarterly, basis. The requirement that 

any process change is promptly reported 

and the exclusion suspended until EPA 

gives written approval that the delisting 

can continue is an adequate safeguard 

justifying the decrease in sample event 

frequency. 

EPA Response: Verification data 

submitted in conjunction with past 

delistings of this waste have shown 

significant variation on a quarterly basis 

over longer periods of time. Annual 

sampling would not detect such 

variations. Once enough verification 

data are collected to support a statistical 

analysis, a change in the frequency of 

verification sampling and/or sampling 

parameters may be considered. 

(8) Comment: The final Federal 

Register should make it clear that 

assembly plants that manufacture light 

trucks are also eligible for the project. 

EPA Response: Today’s notice 

specifically defines eligible facilities as 

inclusive of manufacturers of light 

trucks. 

(9) Comment: The table of maximum 

allowable levels in the March 7, 2002 

proposed rule contains errors in the 

columns for vinyl chloride. 

EPA Response: A missing space or tab 

in the table caused the error. The 

maximum allowable concentrations 

proposed for 2,000 cubic yards of waste 

should have been 115 mg/kg total and 

0.00234 mg/L TCLP. 

V. Final Rule Granting This Petition 

A. What decision is EPA finalizing? 

Today the EPA is finalizing an 

exclusion to conditionally delist an 

annual volume of 2,000 cubic yards of 

wastewater treatment plant sludges 

generated at AAI from conversion 

coating on aluminum. 

On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to 

exclude or delist this wastewater 

treatment sludge from the list of 

hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and 

accepted public comment on the 

proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA 

considered all comments received, and 

we believe that this waste should be 

excluded from hazardous waste control. 

After EPA proposed the exclusion for 

AAI in 2002, the Agency promulgated 

the Methods Innovation Rule (MIR)(70 

FR 34538, June 14, 2005). The MIR 

reformed RCRA-related testing and 

monitoring by restricting requirements 

to use the methods found in ‘‘Test 

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ also 

known as ‘‘SW–846,’’ to those situations 

where the method is the only one 

capable of measuring the property (i.e., 

it is used to measure a method-defined 

parameter). In addition, the MIR revised 

several conditional delistings to 

specifically mention method-defined 

parameters incorporated by reference at 

§ 260.11 consistent with the Office of 

Federal Register’s revised format for 

incorporation by reference. Therefore, 

EPA is including a specific reference to 

SW–846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 

9071B (method-defined parameters) for 

the generation of the leachate extract in 

the quarterly verification testing 

requirement for the AAI delisting. SW–

846 Method 1311 must be used for 

generation of the leachate extract used 

in the testing of the delisting levels if oil 

and grease comprise less than 1% of the 

waste. SW–846 Method 1330A must be 

used for generation of the leaching 

extract if oil and grease comprise 1% or 

more of the waste. SW–846 Method 

9071B must be used for determination 

of oil and grease. SW–846 Methods 

1311, 1330A, and 9071B are 

incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 

260.11. 

B. What are the terms of this exclusion? 

AAI must dispose of the waste in a 

lined Subtitle D landfill which is 

permitted, licensed, or registered by a 

state to manage industrial solid waste. 

AAI must obtain and analyze on a 

quarterly basis a representative sample 

of the waste. AAI must verify that the 

concentrations of the constituents of 

concern do not exceed the allowable 

levels set forth in this exclusion. The 

list of constituents for verification is a 

subset of those initially tested for and is 

based on the occurrence of constituents 

at the majority of facilities participating 

in the expedited process to delist F019 

and the concentrations detected relative 

to the allowable levels. 

This exclusion applies only to a 

maximum annual volume of 2,000 cubic 

yards and is effective only if all 

conditions contained in this rule are 

satisfied. 

C. When is the delisting effective? 

This rule is effective April 6, 2007. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended section 

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become 

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated community does not need 

the six-month period to come into 

compliance. This rule reduces rather 

than increases the existing requirements 

and, therefore, is effective immediately 

upon publication under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant 

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

D. How does this action affect the 

states? 

Today’s exclusion is being issued 

under the federal RCRA delisting 

program. Therefore, only states subject 

to federal RCRA delisting provisions 

would be affected. This exclusion is not 

effective in states that have received 

authorization to make their own 

delisting decisions. Also, the exclusion 

may not be effective in states having a 

dual system that includes federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements. EPA allows states to 

impose their own regulatory 

requirements that are more stringent 

than EPA’s, under section 3009 of 

RCRA. These more stringent 

requirements may include a provision 

that prohibits a federally issued 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17031 

exclusion from taking effect in the state. 

Because a dual system (that is, both 

federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) 

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s 

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the 

state regulatory authority to establish 

the status of their wastes under the state 

law. If a participating facility transports 

the petitioned waste to or manages the 

waste in any state with delisting 

authorization, it must obtain a delisting 

from that state before it can manage the 

waste as nonhazardous in the state. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

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

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. 

Because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this final rule does 

not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’

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

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. Similarly, because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rule. 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045,‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

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

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

This rule does not involve technical 

standards; thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

apply. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report which includes a 

copy of the rule to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

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

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

6921(f). 

Dated: March 19, 2007. 

Margaret M. Guerriero, 

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics 

Division. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 

261 the following wastestream is added 

in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility/address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

AutoAlliance International 

Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan.

Wastewater treatment sludges, F019, that are generated by AutoAlliance International, Inc. (AAI) at Flat Rock, 

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

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

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

April 6, 2007. 

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

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


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
17032 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility/address Waste description 

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

collect and analyze one representative sample of the waste on a quarterly basis. Sample collection and 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 (μg/L): arsenic—5; cadmium—5; chromium—100; lead—15; 

nickel—750; selenium—50; tin—22,500; zinc—11,300; p-cresol—188; and formaldehyde—1,380. 

* * * * * * * 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Part 1002 

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

Regulations Governing Fees for 

Services Performed in Connection 

With Licensing and Related Services—

2007 Update 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Board adopts its 2007 

User Fee Update and revises its fee 

schedule to recover the costs associated 

with the January 2007 Government 

salary increases and to reflect changes 

in overhead costs to the Board. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: These rules are effective 

May 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David T. Groves, (202) 245–0327, or 

Anne Quinlan, (202) 245–0309. [TDD 

for the hearing impaired: 1–800–877–

8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Board’s regulations at 49 CFR 1002.3 

require that the Board’s user fee 

schedule be updated annually. The 

regulation at 49 CFR 1002.3(a) provides 

that the entire fee schedule or selected 

fees can be modified more than once a 

year, if necessary. Fees are revised based 

on the cost study formula set forth at 49 

CFR 1002.3(d). 

Because Board employees received a 

salary increase of 2.64% in January 

2007, the Board is updating its user fees 

to recover the increased personnel costs. 

With certain exceptions, all fees, 

including those adopted or amended in 

Regulations Governing Fees for Services 

Performed in Connection With Licensing 

and Related Services—2002 New Fees, 

STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 4) (STB 

served Mar. 29, 2004) will also be 

updated based on the cost formula 

contained in 49 CFR 1002.3(d). In 

addition, changes to the overhead costs 

borne by the Board are reflected in the 

revised fee schedule. 

The fee increases adopted here result 

from the mechanical application of the 

update formula in 49 CFR 1002.3(d), 

which was adopted through notice and 

comment procedures in Regulations 

Governing Fees for Services—1987 

Update, 4 I.C.C.2d 137 (1987). No new 

fees are being proposed in this 

proceeding. Therefore, the Board finds 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES