Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2219 

when an inherent secondary entrapment 

protection device senses an obstruction 

and initiates a reversal, a control 

activation shall not move the door 

downward until the operator reverses 

the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 

mm). The test is to be performed as 

described in § 1211.7(b)(3). 

5. Section 1211.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1211.14 [Amended] 

(a) * * * 

(b) Specific required instructions. 

(1) * * * 

(2) The User Instructions shall 

include the following instructions: 

Important Safety Instructions 

Warning—To reduce the risk of severe 

injury or death: 

1. Read and Follow all Instructions. 

2. Never let children operate, or play 

with door controls. Keep the remote 

control away from children. 

3. Always keep the moving door in 

sight and away from people and objects 

until it is completely closed. No One 

Should Cross the Path of the Moving 

Door. 

4. NEVER GO UNDER A STOPPED 

PARTIALLY OPEN DOOR. 

5. Test door opener monthly. The 

garage door MUST reverse on contact 

with a 11⁄2 inch object (or a 2 by 4 board 

laid flat) on the floor. After adjusting 

either the force or the limit of travel, 

retest the door opener. Failure to adjust 

the opener properly may cause severe 

injury or death. 

6. For products requiring an 

emergency release, if possible, use the 

emergency release only when the door 

is closed. Use caution when using this 

release with the door open. Weak or 

broken springs may allow the door to 

fall rapidly, causing injury or death. 

7. Keep Garage Door Properly 

Balanced. See owner’s manual. An 

improperly balanced door could cause 

severe injury or death. Have a qualified 

service person make repairs to cables, 

spring assemblies and other hardware. 

8. Save These Instructions. 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–580 Filed 1–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 261 and 302 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2006–0984, FRL–8270–7] 

RIN 2050–AG15 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System: Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Amendment to 

Hazardous Waste Code F019 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend 

today the list of hazardous wastes from 

non-specific sources (called F-wastes) 

under 40 CFR 261.31 by modifying the 

scope of the EPA Hazardous Waste No. 

F019 (Wastewater treatment sludges 

from the chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum except from zirconium 

phosphating in aluminum can washing 

when such phosphating is an exclusive 

conversion coating process). The 

Agency would be amending the F019 

listing to exempt wastewater treatment 

sludges from zinc phosphating, when 

such phosphating is used in the motor 

vehicle manufacturing process. EPA is 

proposing two options that would 

require that the wastes be disposed in a 

landfill unit that meets certain liner 

design criteria. These proposed 

modifications to the F019 listing would 

not affect any other wastewater 

treatment sludges either from the 

chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum, or from other industrial 

sources. Additionally, this action would 

amend the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) list of Hazardous Substances 

and Reportable Quantities under 40 CFR 

302.4 so that the F019 listing 

description is consistent with the 

proposed amendment to F019 under 40 

CFR 261.31. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 19, 2007. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

must be received by OMB on or before 

February 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2006–0984 by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

rcra.docket@epamail.epa.gov, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2006– 

0984. 

• Mail: Comments may be submitted 

by mail to: OSWER Docket, Office of 

Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2006– 

0984. Please include a total of three 

copies of your comments. In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on 

the information collection provisions to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, Public 

Reading Room, Room 3334, EPA West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. RCRA–2006–0984. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays) and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2006– 

0984. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as a part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2220 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. The Public 

Meeting Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the OSWER Docket and the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James Michael of the Office of Solid 

Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

(E-mail address and telephone number: 

michael.james@epa.gov, (703) 308–

8610). For information on the 

procedures for submitting CBI data, 

contact Ms. LaShan Haynes (5305W), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, (E-mail address 

and telephone number: 

haynes.lashan@epa.gov, (703) 605–

0516). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Who is Potentially Affected by This 

Proposed Rule? 

This regulation could directly affect 

businesses that generate certain wastes 

from the manufacturing of motor 

vehicles in the (1) automobile 

manufacturing industry and (2) light 

truck/utility vehicle manufacturing 

industry (NAICS codes 336111 and 

336112, respectively). Other motor 

vehicle manufacturing industries (e.g., 

heavy duty truck or motor home 

manufacturing (NAICS code 336120)) 

are not affected by this rule. The wastes 

affected by this proposed rule are 

wastewater treatment sludges generated 

from the chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum using a zinc phosphating 

process and are currently listed as EPA 

Hazardous Waste No. F019 (see 40 CFR 

261.31). If the rule is promulgated in 

either of the two ways it is proposed 

today, these wastes would not be 

hazardous waste, provided the wastes 

are disposed in a landfill unit that meets 

certain liner design criteria. Impacts on 

potentially affected entities are 

summarized in Section VI of this 

Preamble. The document, ‘‘Estimate of 

Potential Economic Impacts for 

USEPA’s Proposed Amendment to 

RCRA Hazardous Wastecode F019 to 

Exclude Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 

Industries,’’ presents an analysis of 

potentially affected entities (hereinafter, 

referred to as the Economics 

Background Document). This document 

is available in the docket established in 

support of today’s proposed rule. 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are at least 14 current generators 

within the motor vehicle manufacturing 

industry consisting of six auto and eight 

light truck/utility vehicle plants and up 

to 39 other facilities in these two 

industries that may begin applying 

aluminum parts and could potentially 

generate F019 waste. 

To determine whether your facility is 

affected by this action, you should 

examine 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 

carefully, along with the proposed 

regulatory language amending Chapter I 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). This language is found at the end 

of this Federal Register notice. If you 

have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section entitled 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information submitted on a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternative and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions that you 

used and provide any technical 

information and/or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at your 

estimate in sufficient detail to allow for 

it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Preamble Outline 

I. Legal Authority 

II. List of Acronyms 

III. Overview 

Purpose of This Proposed Rule 

IV. Background 

A. How EPA Regulates Hazardous Waste 

B. Overview of the F019 Listing 

C. Regulatory History of F006/F019 

D. Description of the Zinc PhosphatingConversion Coating Process at Motor 

Vehicle Manufacturing Plants 

E. Amount of F019 Sludge Generated by 

the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 

Industry 

F. Composition of the F019 Sludge 

G. How F019 Sludge Is Currently Managed 

V. Approach Used in This Proposed Listing 

Amendment 

A. Concentration-Based Approach vs. 

Disposal in a Landfill Meeting Certain 

Liner Design Criteria 

B. Overview of the Risk Assessment 

1. EPA’s Approach To Assessing Potential 

Risks to Human Health and the 

Environment 

2. How EPA Chose Constituents of 

Potential Concern for Evaluation 

3. Evaluation of Potential Human Health 

and Environmental Risks 

4. Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment 

Results 

VI. Implementation of the F019 Proposed 

Rule 

A. Land Disposal Conditions 

1. How Generators Document Compliance 

With the Landfill Condition 

2. Consequences of Failing To Meet the 

Disposal Conditions and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

3. Land Disposal Restrictions 

B. Interrelationships Between Proposed 

Rule and Current F019 Delistings 

VII. State Authorization 

VIII. Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Designation and List of 

Hazardous Substances and Reportable 

Quantities 

IX. Relationship to Other Rules—Clean Water 

Act 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2221 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Legal Authority 

EPA proposes these regulations under 

the authority of Sections 2002 and 

3001(b) and (f), 3004(d)–(m) and 3007(a) 

of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended by the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, 

most importantly by the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921(b), 

6924(d)–(m) and 6927(a). These statutes 

combined are commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act’’ (RCRA) and will be 

referred to as such for the remainder of 

this Notice. 

Because EPA is modifying the 

national listing of F019, EPA believes 

the appropriate statutory authority is 

that found in section 3001 (b), rather 

than the authority in section 3001 (f). 

RCRA section 3001 (f) pertains solely to 

the exclusion of a waste generated at a 

particular facility in response to a 

petition. Accordingly, neither the 

procedures nor the standards 

established in that provision, or in 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 260.22 are 

applicable to this rulemaking. 

Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is the 

authority under which the CERCLA 

aspects of this rule are promulgated. 

II. List of Acronyms 

ACRONYMS

Acronym Definition 

BRS .................. Biennial Reporting System 

CBI .................... Confidential Business Information 

CERCLA ........... Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR .................. Code of Federal Regulations 

COPCs ............. Constituents of Potential Concern 

CWA ................. Clean Water Act 

DAF .................. Dilution and Attenuation Factor 

DRAS ................ Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

EPA .................. Environmental Protection Agency 

ICR ................... Information Collection Request 

IWEM ................ Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model 

LDR .................. Land Disposal Restrictions 

MCL .................. Maximum Contamination Limit 

NAICS ............... North American Industrial Classification System 

NTTAA .............. National Technology and Transfer Act 

OMB ................. Office of Management and Budget 

OSWER ............ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

PRA .................. Paperwork Reduction Act 

POTW ............... Publicly Owned Treatment Works ppm parts per million 

RCRA ............... Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFA .................. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RQ .................... Reportable Quantity 

SIC .................... Standard Industrial Classification 

TRI .................... Toxics Release Inventory 

UMRA ............... Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

WWT ................. Wastewater Treatment 

III. Overview 

Purpose of the Proposed Rule 

The Agency is proposing to amend 

the list of hazardous wastes from nonspecific sources under 40 CFR 261.31 by 

modifying the scope of EPA Hazardous 

Waste No. F019, which currently reads: 

‘‘Wastewater treatment sludges from the 

chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum except from zirconium 

phosphating in aluminum can washing 

when such phosphating is an exclusive 

conversion coating process.’’ The 

Agency is proposing 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. 

Specifically, under the two options 

proposed today, these wastes would not 

be hazardous if they are disposed in a 

landfill unit subject to, or otherwise 

meeting, certain liner requirements. 

Wastes that meet this condition would 

be exempted from the listing from their 

point of generation, and would not be 

subject to any RCRA Subtitle C 

management requirements for 

generation, storage, transport, treatment, 

or disposal (including the land disposal 

restrictions). Generators of such wastes 

may be exempted from the F019 listing 

if they meet the condition for 

exemption, and they maintain adequate 

records. EPA is proposing to require 

generators to keep records showing that 

they used a landfill that meets the 

design requirements. 

The motor vehicle manufacturing 

industry incorporates aluminum into 

vehicle parts and bodies for the purpose 

of making them lighter-weight and thus 

more capable of increasing gas mileage. 

However, when aluminum is 

incorporated into the body of an 

automobile, the conversion coating step 

in the manufacturing process results in 

the generation of a RCRA-listed 

hazardous waste (F019) in the form of 

a wastewater treatment sludge from the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2222 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

conversion coating process, while the 

wastewaters from the conversion 

coating of steel in the same industry do 

not generate a listed hazardous waste. 

By removing the regulatory controls 

under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the use 

of aluminum in motor vehicles. The 

Agency believes that the incorporation 

of aluminum will be advantageous to 

the environment since lighter-weight 

vehicles are capable of achieving 

increased fuel economy and associated 

decreased exhaust air emissions. 

IV. Background 

A. How EPA Regulates Hazardous 

Waste 

EPA’s regulations establish two ways 

of identifying solid wastes as hazardous 

under RCRA. A waste may be 

considered hazardous if it exhibits 

certain hazardous properties 

(‘‘characteristics’’) or if it is included on 

a specific list of wastes EPA has 

determined are hazardous (‘‘listing’’ a 

waste as hazardous) because the Agency 

found them to pose substantial present 

or potential hazards to human health or 

the environment. EPA’s regulations in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (40 

CFR) define four hazardous waste 

characteristic properties: ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity (see 

40 CFR 261.21–261.24). As a generator, 

you must determine whether or not a 

waste exhibits any of these 

characteristics by testing, or by using 

your knowledge of the process that 

produced the waste (see § 262.11(c)). 

EPA may also conduct a more specific 

assessment of a waste or category of 

wastes and ‘‘list’’ them if they meet 

criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11. Under 

the third criterion, identified in 40 CFR 

261.11 (a)(3), the Agency may list a 

waste as hazardous if it contains 

hazardous constituents identified in 40 

CFR part 261, Appendix VIII, and if EPA 

concludes that ‘‘the waste is capable of 

posing a substantial present or potential 

hazard to human health or the 

environment when improperly treated, 

stored, transported, or disposed of, or 

otherwise managed.’’ EPA places 

chemicals on the list of hazardous 

constituents in Appendix VIII ‘‘if they 

have been shown in scientific studies to 

have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or 

teratogenic effects on humans or other 

life forms.’’ See 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3). 

When listing a waste, the Agency also 

adds any hazardous constituents that 

serve as the basis for listing the waste 

to 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII. 

The regulations at 40 CFR 261.31 

through 261.33 contain the various 

hazardous wastes the Agency has listed 

to date. Section 261.31 lists waste 

generated from non-specific sources, 

known as ‘‘F-wastes,’’ and contain 

wastes that are usually generated by 

various industries or types of facilities. 

Today’s proposed regulations would 

revise the listing for one of these wastes, 

F019. 

If a waste exhibits a hazardous 

characteristic, or is listed as a hazardous 

waste, then it is subject to federal 

requirements under RCRA. Facilities 

that generate, transport, treat, store or 

dispose of such waste must meet 

hazardous waste management 

requirements, including the need to 

obtain permits to operate, are commonly 

referred to as ‘‘Subtitle C’’ facilities. 

(Subtitle C is the subsection of RCRA 

that governs the management of 

hazardous waste. EPA standards and 

procedural regulations implementing 

Subtitle C are found generally at 40 CFR 

parts 260 through 273.) 

The RCRA regulations provide a form 

of relief for listed wastes through a sitespecific process known as ‘‘delisting.’’

The regulations governing the delisting 

process are given at 40 CFR 260.20 and 

260.22. These regulations set out a 

procedure and standards by which 

persons may demonstrate that a specific 

waste from a particular generating 

facility should not be regulated as a 

listed hazardous waste under Subtitle C 

of RCRA. Under these regulations, any 

person may petition EPA to remove its 

waste from regulation by excluding it 

from the lists of hazardous wastes 

contained in Part 261. EPA has granted 

delistings to various facilities that 

generate or manage F019 wastes, 

including motor vehicle manufacturing 

plants. (See Section IV.D.) As a 

condition to some of the granted 

delistings, the facility generating that 

waste must periodically sample and 

analyze the waste for the presence and 

quantity of specific chemical 

constituents of concern. This periodic 

sampling and analysis is called 

‘‘verification sampling.’’ In some cases, 

facilities submit the results of the 

verification sampling and analysis to 

EPA to ensure that the waste’s 

continuing status of nonhazardous is 

appropriate. 

A solid waste, that is determined not 

to be a listed and/or characteristic 

hazardous waste, may be managed at 

‘‘Subtitle D’’ facilities. These facilities 

are approved by state and local 

governments and generally impose less 

stringent requirements on management 

of wastes than Subtitle C facilities. 

Subtitle D is the statutory designation 

for that part of RCRA that deals with 

disposal of nonhazardous solid waste. 

EPA regulations affecting Subtitle D 

facilities are found at 40 CFR parts 240 

through 247, and 255 through 258. 

Regulations for Subtitle D landfills that 

accept municipal waste (‘‘municipal 

solid waste landfills’’) are in 40 CFR 

part 258. 

B. Overview of F019 Listing 

Hazardous Waste No. F019 is defined 

as ‘‘Wastewater treatment sludges from 

the chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum except from zirconium 

phosphating in aluminum can washing 

when such phosphating is an exclusive 

conversion coating process.’’ The 

hazardous constituents for which the 

waste is listed are hexavalent chromium 

and cyanide (complexed). The F019 

wastewater treatment sludge is 

generated from the rinses and overflows 

from the chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum. Chemical conversion coating 

processes involve the application of a 

coating to a previously deposited metal 

or a base metal for increased corrosion 

protection, lubricity, preparation of the 

surface for additional coatings, or 

formulation of a special surface 

appearance. This manufacturing 

operation includes chromating, 

phosphating, metal coloring and 

immersion plating. 

Phosphate conversion coatings 

produce a mildly protective layer of 

insoluble crystalline phosphate on the 

surface of a metal. Phosphate coatings 

are used to provide a more suitable base 

for paints and other inorganic coatings, 

to condition the surfaces for cold 

forming operations by providing a base 

for drawing compounds and lubricants, 

and to impart corrosion resistance to the 

metal surface by the coating itself or by 

providing a suitable base for rustpreventive oils or waxes. Phosphate 

conversion coatings are formed by the 

immersion of iron, steel or zinc plated 

steel in a dilute solution of phosphoric 

acid plus other reagents. Phosphate 

conversion coatings can also involve 

spray-on applications. 

C. Regulatory History of F006/F019 

On May 19, 1980, EPA published an 

interim final rule listing ‘‘wastewater 

treatment sludges from electroplating 

operations’’ as EPA Hazardous Waste 

No. F006. See 40 CFR 261.31 (45 FR 

33112). The hazardous constituents for 

which this waste was listed are 

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel 

and complexed cyanide. In response to 

comments on the interim final 

regulation, the listing was modified on 

November 12, 1980 (45 FR 74884) to 

read as follows: ‘‘wastewater treatment 

sludges from electroplating operations 

except from the following processes: (1) 

Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; 

(2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2223 

1Note that aluminum conversion coating using 

the zinc phosphating process utilizes nickel, as 

noted in section IV.D.; thus, nickel is a potential 

constituent of concern in the waste at issue in this 

proposed amendment. 

2The analytical data for sludge samples show the 

presence of chromium and cyanide. Chromium 

appears to arise, in part, from the use of trivalent 

chromium in ‘‘sealing’’ during the rinsing step in 

the process; the source of trace levels of cyanide is 

not clear. However, levels of hexavalent chromium 

and cyanide were not present at levels of concern 

based on EPA’s risk assessment (i.e., the ‘‘Technical 

Support Document: Assessment of Potential Risks 

from Managing F019 Waste from Motor Vehicle 

Manufacturing Industry’’ in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking); also see Section V.B. 

plating (segregated basis) on carbon 

steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum 

plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/ 

stripping associated with tin, zinc and 

aluminum plating on carbon steel; and, 

(6) chemical etching and milling of 

aluminum.’’

Additionally, in response to other 

comments, the Agency separated 

‘‘wastewater treatment sludges from the 

chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum’’ from the F006 listing and 

listed them as F019. Commenters had 

argued that these sludges should not be 

listed as F006 because they do not 

contain all four of the constituents for 

which F006 was listed. That is, 

commenters contended that these 

wastes do not typically contain 

cadmium and nickel. EPA agreed that 

these wastes did not typically contain 

cadmium and nickel, but maintained 

that, since the wastes contain 

hexavalent chromium and complexed 

cyanides, they should nevertheless be 

regulated. The Agency, therefore, listed 

them as hazardous waste, F019, and 

only listed hexavalent chromium and 

complexed cyanides as the constituents 

of concern for these wastes in Appendix 

VII of Part 261.1

On December 2, 1986 (51 FR 43350), 

EPA issued an interpretive rule stating 

that the Agency had re-evaluated its 

previous interpretations of the scope of 

the application of F006 and had 

determined that those interpretations 

were overly broad. As a result, the 

Agency stated that the following 

processes were not included in the F006 

listing: chemical conversion coating, 

electroless plating and printed circuit 

board manufacturing. EPA further 

clarified that the F006 listing includes 

wastewater treatment sludges from: (1) 

Common and precious metals 

electroplating, except tin, zinc 

(segregated basis), aluminum and zinc 

plating on carbon steel; (2) anodizing, 

except sulfuric acid anodizing of 

aluminum; (3) chemical etching and 

milling, except when performed on 

aluminum; and, (4) cleaning and 

stripping, except when associated with 

tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on 

carbon steel. While this interpretation 

removed chemical conversion coating 

from the scope of F006, it did not affect 

the F019 listing. That is, wastewater 

treatment sludges from the chemical 

conversion coating of aluminum 

continued to be regulated as F019. 

Through a number of delistings and 

the Agency’s evaluation for today’s 

proposal, EPA has since learned that 

one of the chemical conversion coating 

operations—zinc phosphating—may not 

result in the generation of a hazardous 

wastewater treatment sludge. (See 

discussion below describing the zinc 

phosphating process.) Therefore, EPA is 

proposing today to amend the F019 

listing to exempt the wastewater 

treatment sludges from zinc 

phosphating, when such phosphating is 

used at motor vehicle manufacturing 

plants, provided certain disposal 

conditions are met. 

EPA is not reopening any aspect of 

the F019 listing other than those 

specifically identified in this proposal, 

and will not respond to any comments 

that address issues beyond the specific 

proposals outlined in this notice. 

D. Description of the Zinc PhosphatingConversion Coating Process at Motor 

Vehicle Manufacturing Plants 

The zinc phosphating process at 

motor vehicle manufacturing plants is a 

multiple stage immersion process. The 

number of stages in the zinc 

phosphating process may vary from 

plant to plant, but they generally 

involve: cleaning and surface 

preparation, rinsing, conversion coating 

and rinsing. 

Cleaning and surface preparation: 

The purpose of this stage is to remove 

the physical contaminants from the 

surface of the assembled vehicle body so 

that the conversion coating will be 

applied evenly and continuously across 

the metal surfaces. Typical surface 

contaminants are metal working oil, rust 

protection oil, dirt and oxides from 

corrosion. Since the surface of the metal 

becomes part of the coating, this stage 

is particularly important. Improper 

processing can result in blisters or poor 

appearance in the metal finish. Cleaning 

and surface preparation is typically 

done first with water and surfactants 

followed by an alkaline solution. The 

alkaline solution removes microscopic 

layers of metal to ensure that metal is 

exposed and available for the chemical 

conversion reactions. 

Rinsing: The rinse stage stops the 

metal removal by washing away the 

alkaline solution. Rinsing is done with 

water followed by an alkaline rinse 

conditioner, which prepares the metal 

surface for the conversion coating 

process. 

Conversion coating: During this stage, 

the conversion coating process converts 

the metal surface of the assembled 

vehicle bodies by dissolving the metal 

and forming ‘‘sites’’ into which the zinc 

phosphate coating is deposited. The 

zinc phosphate coating provides a 

stable, corrosion resistant base for 

painting. The phosphated conversion 

coating bath contains phosphoric acid 

with certain metals (zinc and 

manganese) and accelerators such as 

nickel. Fluoride is added to control 

crystal structure and maintain the 

composition of the bath. Hexavalent 

chromium and complexed cyanides are 

not used in this zinc phosphating 

conversion coating process.2

Rinsing: Once the conversion coating 

process is completed, the assembled 

vehicle bodies go through a water rinse 

to stop the conversion coating process 

and to remove any excess salts from the 

metal surfaces. A final acidic rinse is 

then used to seal the pores in the zinc 

phopshate coating and to remove any 

excess materials from the metal 

surfaces. During this final rinse, a 

sealant is added for additional corrosion 

protection. From here, the assembled 

vehicle bodies then proceed to the 

painting process. 

E. Amount of F019 Sludge Generated by 

the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 

Industry 

As of 2003, 11 automobile 

manufacturing plants (NAICS 336111) 

generated a total of 5,300 tons per year 

of F019 sludge ranging between 177 and 

1,249 tons per year per plant (average of 

477 tons per year per plant), and 12 

light truck/utility vehicle manufacturing 

plants (NAICS 336112) generated a total 

of 9,300 tons per year of F019 sludge 

ranging between 112 to 1,620 tons per 

year per plant (average of 772 tons per 

year per plant). As of year-end 2005, 

EPA regional offices have delisted 47 

former F019 generators in 19 industries, 

including 35,000 cubic yards (i.e., about 

35,000 tons) per year of F019 sludge 

formerly generated by 15 motor vehicle 

manufacturing plants. Historically, 

between 1995 and 2003, the annual 

count of F019 generators in the motor 

vehicle manufacturing industries 

affected by this proposed rule has 

fluctuated between 10 to 22 generators, 

and between 8,000 to 13,000 tons per 

year of F019 sludge generated. 

F. Composition of the F019 Sludge 

The F019 sludge from motor vehicle 

manufacturers is generated from 

dewatering of wastewater, typically 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2224 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

3As noted in Section V.B. below, the Federal 

regulations for municipal solid waste landfills 

require that new units (and lateral expansions of 

existing units) meet design criteria for composite 

liners and leachate collection systems (or other 

approved performance standards). A composite 

liner as defined in § 258.40 consists of a 

combination of a synthetic liner and an underlying 

compacted soil/clay liner. Disposal in hazardous 

waste landfills would also be allowed, because the 

regulations in § 264.301 and § 265.301 include 

composite liners. 

4For this option, EPA assumes that single clay 

liners, even in older landfills, would meet the 

typical construction standards, i.e., the clay liner 

would have a low hydraulic conductivity (i.e., 1 × 

10¥7 cm/sec) and be of sufficient thickness to 

ensure structural stability (i.e., 2 to 3 feet of 

compacted clay). EPA seeks comment on this 

assumption. 

yielding a pressed ‘‘filter cake’’ with a 

solids content that ranges between 30% 

and 50% by weight. Reviewing the 

Material Safety Data Sheets for the 

chemicals used in, and prior to, the 

conversion coating process indicates 

that a wide range of elements can be 

expected to be present in the 

wastewaters and the sludges resulting 

from wastewater treatment. 

The specific chemical constituents 

that are found in motor vehicle 

manufacturers’ F019 sludge, listed in 

order of frequency found, are nickel, 

fluoride, zinc, barium, copper and 

chromium (all found in 100% of a 

selected number of samples reviewed); 

tin, formaldehyde, lead, cobalt, 

mercury, sulfide and xylenes (found in 

70–99% of a selected number of 

samples reviewed); acrylamide, 

vanadium, arsenic, cyanide, hexavalent 

chromium, and ethylbenzene (found in 

50–69% of a selected number of 

samples reviewed). 

G. How F019 Sludge Is Currently 

Managed 

According to data from the 2003 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report 

(http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/brs/ 

brs_query.html), F019 sludges generated 

by motor vehicle manufacturers are 

disposed in RCRA Subtitle C regulated 

facilities, after de-watering, stabilization 

and/or other treatment. Although two of 

the 17 generators in the motor vehicle 

manufacturing industry reportedly 

disposed their F019 sludges onsite 

(about 300 tons/year), all of the 22 

automobile and light truck/utility 

vehicle manufacturing plants in 2003 

reported managing F019 sludges offsite 

at RCRA Subtitle C regulated landfills in 

six states (IL, LA, MI, OK, PA, and SC), 

located at transport distances of 19 to 

1,500 miles (average 400 miles). 

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, 

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 requests 

comment on whether our understanding 

is accurate and whether recycling of 

F019 waste is economically feasible 

under today’s market conditions. 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. 

V. Approach Used in This Proposed 

Listing Amendment 

A. Concentration-Based Approach vs. 

Disposal in a Landfill Meeting Certain 

Liner Design Criteria 

On April 22, 2005, EPA, through a 

posting on EPA’s website, indicated that 

the Agency was in the process of 

considering a possible amendment to 

the F019 hazardous waste listing under 

RCRA. This possible amendment would 

have exempted waste water treatment 

sludges from the zinc phosphating 

processes at automotive assembly plants 

in the motor vehicle manufacturing 

industry when concentrations of 

constituents of concern in those wastes 

fell below risk-based exemption levels. 

On the F019 Web page, EPA provided 

waste sampling data and the 

methodology that the Agency would use 

in considering the revision of the F019 

listing using a concentration-based 

approach. Interested parties were 

invited to review and comment on the 

information collected to support the 

possible amendment that EPA was 

considering. The comment period for 

the web posting closed on June 1, 2005. 

Twelve comments were received. All 

commenters supported a revision to the 

F019 listing, although some expressed 

concern regarding testing conditions for 

potential chemicals of concern in the 

waste and how the concentration-based 

exemption would be structured. Copies 

of these comments are included in the 

docket for today’s proposed rulemaking. 

Below in Section V. B., EPA presents 

a detailed discussion of the Agency’s 

approach in assessing the potential risks 

to human health and the environment 

and how EPA chose the potential 

constituents of concern that could be 

used in the concentration-based 

approach. However, as the Agency 

conducted the risk analysis and 

developed the implementation schemes 

to go with this approach, several issues 

arose. First, a variety of issues arose 

related to establishing precise 

exemption concentrations for the waste, 

including: the amount of waste 

ultimately disposed in the modeled 

landfill (which is dependent on annual 

volume and years of disposal); which 

toxicity benchmarks to use (e.g., 

drinking water standards or other 

health-based values); and exposure 

assumptions built into the Delisting 

Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) 

model (e.g., groundwater consumption 

for different age groups). (See Section V. 

B. for a more detailed discussion on the 

documentation of the DRAS model.) 

Second, in order to accommodate the 

wide range in the volumes of F019 

wastewater treatment sludges generated 

at the different automotive assembly 

plants, the Agency would need to 

develop different exemption levels for 

each of the constituents of concern for 

the various annual waste volumes (e.g., 

500 cubic yards to 5000 cubic yards per 

year at 500 cubic yard intervals). In 

order to ensure compliance with the 

concentration-based approach, the 

automotive assembly plants would need 

to maintain detailed records on the 

amount of waste generated and 

implement a representative sampling 

and analysis program to ensure that they 

met the exemption levels for the volume 

of waste each facility generated 

annually. Furthermore, two constituents 

were identified that presented potential 

risks to human health (arsenic and 

nickel) in an unlined landfill scenario as 

modeled by DRAS version 2. Rather 

than attempt to define precise 

exemption levels for constituents of 

concern, the Agency believes that it is 

simpler to require disposal in a landfill 

that is subject to certain liner design 

requirements. The Agency is proposing 

two options for the liner design 

requirements. Under option one, EPA is 

proposing that the landfill unit meet the 

liner requirements for municipal 

landfills in 40 CFR 258.40 or other liner 

designs containing a composite liner.3

Under option two, the Agency is 

proposing to allow disposal in statepermitted municipal solid waste 

landfills (subject to regulations in 40 

CFR 258) and state-permitted industrial 

solid waste landfills (subject to Federal 

regulations at 40 CFR 257), provided the 

landfill unit includes at least a single 

clay liner,4 and also in permitted 

hazardous waste landfills. This second 

option could ease implementation, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2225 

5See General Motors Corporation Oklahoma City 

Assembly Plant Delisting Petition for F019 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge Filter Cake, 

Section 3, Facility Operations in the docket. 

6 ‘‘RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document’’. 

EPA906–D–98–001. Interim Final. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid 

Waste. Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX April 2002. 

7 ‘‘Industrial Waste Management Evaluation 

Model (IWEM) User’s Guide.’’ EPA530–R–02–013. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of 

Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. August 2002, and 

‘‘Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model 

(IWEM) Technical Background Document.’’

EPA530–R–02–012. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC 

August 2002. 

8 ‘‘EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration 

with Transformation Products EPACMTP: User’s 

Guide.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC 1997, 

‘‘EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration 

with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) 

Technical Background Document.’’ EPA530–R–03–

006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of 

Solid Waste. Washington, DC April 2003, and 

‘‘EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration 

with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) 

Parameters/Data Background Document’’. EPA530–

R–03–003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC April 2003. 

9See EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) at http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html. 

because the generator could rely on the 

state permitting agency to assure proper 

liner design. The Agency is seeking 

comment on this second approach, 

because the modeling results indicate 

that units with a less stringent liner 

design may also reduce the risk from the 

hazardous constituents of concern to 

acceptable levels. 

As discussed further below, EPA 

found that disposal of the waste under 

evaluation in such lined landfills would 

ensure protection of human health and 

the environment, without the need for 

testing and tracking of waste volume. 

EPA believes that the proposed 

approaches outlined in today’s notice 

would be easier and less costly to 

implement than the concentration-based 

approach, but provides at least the same 

level of protection for human health and 

the environment. 

B. Overview of the Risk Assessment 

1. EPA’s Approach To Assessing 

Potential Risks to Human Health and 

the Environment 

Today’s action addresses a specific 

type of industrial sludge: sludge 

generated from the management of 

wastewaters generated at motor vehicle 

manufacturing (assembly) facilities. In 

general, industrial wastewater treatment 

sludges consist of suspended solids 

removed from wastewaters during 

treatment, which may involve various 

steps. As described in one delisting 

petition, for example, the treatment 

steps include: grit separation, pH 

adjustment to remove metals, addition 

of a coagulant, clarification to generate 

a dilute sludge, and dewatering of the 

sludge and grit solids via filter presses.5

F019 sludges generated by the motor 

vehicle manufacturing industries are 

currently managed by onsite 

dewatering, followed by truck or rail 

shipment to offsite RCRA-permitted 

hazardous waste landfills. Because 

today’s action proposes to allow 

disposal of the wastewater treatment 

sludge in landfills subject to, or 

meeting, certain design criteria, the 

Agency’s risk assessment involved 

evaluating risks to human health and 

the environment from this landfill 

disposal scenario. (See the ‘‘Technical 

Support Document: Assessment of 

Potential Risks from Managing F019 

Waste from the Motor Vehicle 

Manufacturing Industry’’ in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking for a 

detailed description of the analysis that 

the Agency performed, hereinafter, 

referred to as the Technical Support 

Document.) EPA initially evaluated the 

potential risks posed by a hypothetical 

annual quantity of F019 waste that is 

disposed of in an unlined nonhazardous 

waste landfill, and then evaluated 

potential risks from disposal in landfills 

that use different liner technologies. The 

human health and environmental risk 

evaluation uses several environmental 

fate, transport, and exposure/risk 

models: Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS), version 2.0,6 Tier 1 of 

the Industrial Waste Management 

Evaluation Model (IWEM),7 and EPA’s 

Composite Model for Leachate 

Migration with Transformation Products 

(EPACMTP).8 These models have all 

been peer reviewed; see the Technical 

Support Document for a detailed 

description of the use of these models 

and their peer review. 

EPA’s Regional Offices, and certain 

states, use version 2.0 of the DRAS 

model, or earlier versions of it, to 

determine whether to grant requests for 

delistings under 40 CFR 260.22. The 

DRAS model is a screening tool that 

contains several assumptions that are 

designed to be protective of public 

health. In addition, EPA then adjusted 

the DRAS model results to take into 

account exposures to children. The 

DRAS model assesses human health 

considerations, by assuming that 

populations that live near the landfill 

(nearby residents) may be exposed to 

chemical constituents that are released 

from the waste that is placed in the 

landfill. EPA used the DRAS model to 

calculate the levels of chemical 

constituents in a waste (waste 

concentrations) that would not exceed 

the acceptable levels at the nearby 

receptor. The acceptable levels are 

based on the target risks the Agency 

used in its evaluation. For carcinogens, 

EPA used an increased probability of 

developing cancer that is less than or 

equal to one in one hundred thousand 

(1 × 10¥5). For non-carcinogens, EPA 

used a ‘‘hazard quotient’’ less than or 

equal to 1.0; the hazard quotient is the 

ratio of an individual’s chronic daily 

exposure to a standard, such as the 

chronic reference dose. (The reference 

dose is ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty 

spanning perhaps an order of 

magnitude) of a daily oral exposure for 

a chronic duration (up to a lifetime) to 

the human population (including 

sensitive subpopulations) that is likely 

to be without an appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects during a lifetime.’’) 9

These target risk levels are consistent 

with those discussed in EPA’s 

hazardous waste listing determination 

policy (see the discussion in a proposed 

listing for wastes from the dye and 

pigment industries, December 22, 1994 

(59 FR 66072)). 

The DRAS model assesses 

environmental risk by examining the 

aquatic organisms in a body of surface 

water downhill from the landfill 

(ecological receptors) that are exposed 

to small quantities of chemical 

constituents that are released from the 

waste in the landfill. As with the human 

health considerations, the Agency can 

assess an acceptable risk level for those 

aquatic organisms, such that the 

sustainability of the organisms’

population in the surface water body is 

not compromised. The DRAS model 

then calculates the levels of chemical 

constituents in waste placed in the 

landfill (i.e., waste concentrations) that 

should not be exceeded in order to have 

acceptable levels of these constituents 

in the nearby body of surface water. 

For a landfill disposal scenario, the 

DRAS model predicts how constituents 

of potential concern, or COPCs, will 

move through the environment and 

affect nearby people or aquatic 

organisms. The DRAS model predicts 

releases of COPCs from the waste into 

the groundwater beneath the landfill, 

then accounts for human exposure from 

drinking contaminated groundwater, 

inhaling volatile constituents when 

using contaminated groundwater for 

showering, and dermal contact from 

bathing with contaminated 

groundwater. The DRAS model also 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2226 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

10The 13 motor vehicle manufacturing facilities 

are BMWMC (BMW Manufacturing Corp.), located 

in Greer, South Carolina; Nissan, in Smyrna, 

Tennessee; General Motors (GM) in Lansing, 

Michigan; GM in Lake Orion, Michigan; GM in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (draft petition submitted 

and available only in the EPA Headquarters docket 

for today’s notice); GM in Lordstown, Ohio; GM in 

Pontiac, Michigan; GM in Hamtramck, Michigan; 

GM in Flint, Michigan; GM Grand River in Lansing, 

Michigan; Ford in Wixom, Michigan; Ford in 

Wayne, Michigan; and DaimlerChrysler Jefferson 

North in Detroit, Michigan. 

11For human health, one constituent, sulfide, was 

not evaluated using the DRAS methodology because 

it lacks an appropriate toxicity value. For ecological 

risk, two constituents, sulfide and fluoride, were 

not evaluated using the DRAS methodology because 

they are not present in the DRAS version 2 data 

base for constituents, and lack appropriate toxicity 

values for environmental risks. For another five of 

the 56 constituents, EPA lacked appropriate aquatic 

toxicity benchmarks to complete an environmental 

risk assessment. See the Technical Support 

Document in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking for details. 

predicts releases of COPCs from the 

waste (both waste particles and volatile 

emissions) into the air above the 

landfill. DRAS then accounts for 

inhalation of volatile constituents and 

particles, and for windblown particles 

landing on soil and a child ingesting the 

contaminated soil. Finally, the DRAS 

model predicts releases of COPCs from 

the waste, due to storm water that 

erodes waste from an open landfill and 

runs off into a nearby body of surface 

water. Then the DRAS model takes into 

account human exposure from eating 

fish and drinking contaminated surface 

water, and for the exposures of the fish 

to contaminated surface water. In 

addition, EPA adjusted the DRAS model 

results to take into account exposures to 

children. See the Technical Support 

Document for a complete description of 

the scenario that is modeled in DRAS 

version 2.0, the human health and 

ecological exposure pathways, and the 

data sources the Agency used as model 

inputs. The DRAS version 2.0 technical 

documentation, ‘‘User’s Guide for the 

EPA Region 6 Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software’’ (EPA906–D–98–001) and the 

‘‘Delisting Technical Support 

Document,’’ which is distributed as part 

of the DRAS modeling software, 

provides further details about the 

specific assumptions and the 

mathematical equations that the model 

uses. These documents are in the 

docket. 

2. How EPA Chose Constituents of 

Potential Concern for Evaluation 

Section IV. F. describes briefly the 

constituents likely to be present in 

motor vehicle manufacturers’ F019 

waste. To identify constituents of 

potential concern, EPA reviewed 

information from 13 motor vehicle 

manufacturing facilities’ delisting 

petitions.10 This information included 

material safety data sheets (MSDS’s) that 

identify the specific chemicals used in 

the conversion coating process; these 

chemicals are likely to be present in the 

wastewater that is treated and from 

which F019 sludge results. 

EPA also compiled the analytical data 

received from the 13 facilities’ delisting 

petitions (and from verification 

sampling at several facilities) into a 

spreadsheet that is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. These 13 

facilities analyzed F019 sludge samples 

for approximately 240 chemical 

constituents. Many chemicals were not 

found in the F019 sludge at the 

detection limits used. If these ‘‘nondetect’’ chemicals were not mentioned 

on the material safety data sheets, then 

EPA did not evaluate these constituents 

further. For example, petitioners 

analyzed sludge samples for pesticides, 

such as 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 

(Dinoseb); however, these were not 

found in the MSDS’s or in the sludge 

samples, nor would one expect to find 

them in a motor vehicle manufacturing 

facility’s wastewater treatment sludge. 

Of the constituents analyzed in the 

F019 wastes, 56 were detected in one or 

more samples. EPA evaluated the 

concentrations reported by the 

petitioners for these 56 chemicals 

(including concentrations that 

laboratories reported as estimates). The 

Agency used the DRAS model 

methodology to evaluate potential risks 

for 55 detected constituents for human 

health risks and 49 for environmental 

risks.11

3. Evaluation of Potential Human Health 

and Environmental Risks 

For both human health and 

environmental risk evaluations, EPA’s 

analysis assumed the disposal of a total 

waste volume of 90,000 cubic yards of 

F019 into a landfill. This waste volume 

corresponds to either a 4,500 cubic 

yards per year disposal rate for 20 years, 

or a 3,000 cubic yards per year disposal 

rate for 30 years. EPA believes it is quite 

unlikely that motor vehicle 

manufacturers would dispose of 

amounts greater than 90,000 cubic yards 

for an extended period of time in the 

same landfill based on a review of the 

delisting facilities’ stated annual F019 

sludge production quantities. EPA 

examined the information contained in 

the delisting petitions submitted and 

more recent data provided by facilities 

in the motor vehicle manufacturing 

industry. Combining the data from both 

sources for past generation of this waste, 

EPA found that the volumes of sludges 

disposed ranged from 426 to 3,892 cy/ 

yr (median was 1,088 cy/yr, and the 

90th percentile ranked value was 

approximately 2,900 cy/yr). Therefore, 

the use of 3,000 cubic yards per year or 

4,500 cubic yards per year represents a 

protective upper-bound for the waste 

volumes reported by the generators and 

is likely to overestimate volumes 

currently produced by the automotive 

industry. A number of the constituents 

detected in the waste appear to be 

present at levels that may be of concern 

from a human health viewpoint. (None 

of the constituents that EPA evaluated 

for potential environmental harm 

appeared to be present at levels of 

concern.) When using the maximum 

detected concentrations and a total 

volume of 90,000 cubic yards disposed 

in a landfill, the DRAS modeling 

indicated that two of the 55 waste 

constituents evaluated for human health 

effects showed an estimated hazard 

quotient greater than 1, or showed an 

individual’s estimated lifetime potential 

excess cancer risk to be greater than one 

in one hundred thousand. 

Based on the assessment using DRAS, 

the Agency determined that only two 

constituents (arsenic and nickel) had 

maximum detected values that exceeded 

the levels that DRAS modeling 

indicated would result in an acceptable 

exposure level. (The other constituents 

had estimated hazard quotients less 

than 1 and estimated individual lifetime 

excess cancer risk of less than one in 

one hundred thousand.) For nickel in 

groundwater used as drinking water, the 

estimated hazard quotient was three. 

For arsenic in groundwater used as 

drinking water, the estimated individual 

excess lifetime cancer risk was three in 

one hundred thousand. Thus, using 

protective exposure assumptions, the 

Agency found that disposing of a total 

of 90,000 cubic yards of waste 

(equivalent to 3,000 cubic yards 

disposed per year for 30 years) 

containing these two constituents, at 

their maximum detected concentrations 

in an unlined landfill, exceeded the 

DRAS limit by up to a factor of 3. The 

Technical Support Document describes 

the DRAS modeling and results, with 

discussion and conclusions, in 

considerably greater detail. 

As described above, two constituents 

(arsenic and nickel) were at levels that 

may be of concern using upper-bound 

assumptions for waste quantities 

disposed and constituent concentrations 

in unlined landfills. Furthermore, the 

constituents were reported to be 

prevalent in the waste samples. 

Therefore, EPA examined the robustness 

of one of the key assumptions of the 

DRAS version 2.0 modeling—modeling 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2227 

12 In IWEM, a single cay liner is a layer of 

compacted clay three feet thick (hydraulic 

conductivity of 1 x 10¥7 cm/sec), and a composite 

liner consists of a geomembrane liner (high density 

polyethylene) overlying the clay layer. 

13The results for zinc and several other metals 

(lead, copper, and barium) demonstrated that 

composite lined landfills reduced risks from 

landfill releases factors of 133 to 269 compared to 

unlined units. See ‘‘Risk Assessment Technical 

Background Document for the Dye and Pigment 

Industry Hazardous Waste Listing Determination,’’

November 10, 2003, Table 2–1b, page 2–4. 

14This second proposed option would also allow 

disposal in a hazardous waste landfill regulated 

under § 264.301 or § 265.301, which require 

composite liner systems. 

disposal in a landfill without a liner. 

Within the past 15 years, changes to 

landfill requirements in the United 

States (the promulgation of federal 

regulations that require municipal solid 

waste landfills to meet certain leakage 

prevention requirements, and 

requirements for collecting and 

managing landfill gases, e.g., see 40 CFR 

258.40) have caused substantial changes 

in landfill practices. The majority of 

municipal solid waste landfills, and 

probably many landfills that accept 

nonhazardous industrial solid waste but 

not municipal solid waste, now are 

designed, built, and operated with liner 

systems that typically include 

composite liners and leachate collection 

systems (or other approved performance 

standards). The potential risks found by 

the DRAS version 2.0 modeling were all 

from groundwater exposure pathways. 

As a result, current landfills with liner 

systems and leachate collection systems 

should dramatically lessen impacts on 

local groundwater conditions. 

DRAS does not have an option to 

model the impact of liners on landfill 

releases. Therefore, to examine the 

potential impact of liners, the Agency 

compared the levels calculated by the 

Industrial Waste Management 

Evaluation Model (IWEM), for singlelined and composite-lined landfills.12

IWEM is the ground-water modeling 

component of the Guide for Industrial 

Waste Management, used for 

recommending appropriate liner system 

designs for the management of RCRA 

Subtitle D industrial waste. The initial 

IWEM evaluation (Tier 1) provides a 

screening assessment with results that 

are protective over a range of conditions 

and situations. The results of the IWEM 

analysis indicate that the use of a 

composite-lined landfill would result in 

acceptable risk levels for the two key 

constituents of concern. The IWEM 

generally uses more protective 

assumptions than the DRAS model. For 

example, the IWEM model assumes that 

the drinking water well is at a fixed 

location along the center line of the 

potential plume of contamination at a 

distance of 150 meters from the unit; the 

DRAS model allows the well location to 

vary downgradient from the unit. 

To further examine the effectiveness 

of composite liners, EPA also used the 

modeling performed for lined landfills 

in the recent listing rule for dye and 

pigment production wastes (February 

24, 2005, 70 FR 9138). In this rule, the 

Agency established a conditional 

exemption for wastes disposed in 

landfills meeting specified liner design 

requirements, similar to the proposal in 

today’s notice. The results from that 

effort show that composite-lined 

landfills provided significant protection 

(about two orders of magnitude) 

compared to an unlined unit.13

Therefore, based on both the IWEM 

results and the modeling in the dye and 

pigment waste listing, EPA believes that 

disposal of F019 sludges from motor 

vehicle manufacturers in compositelined landfills (or other approved 

performance standards) is protective of 

human health and the environment. 

The Agency also considered whether 

the presence of just a single clay liner 

would be sufficient to reduce the risks 

below levels of concern. In addition to 

the IWEM results that showed disposal 

in a composite-lined landfill was 

protective, this analysis also yielded 

levels that would be allowed for a 

landfill with a single clay liner and for 

an unlined landfill. For nickel, the 

levels that would be allowed for a single 

clay liner were approximately 3-fold 

higher than the allowable levels for an 

unlined unit. For arsenic, the allowable 

level for a single clay liner was 

approximately 7-fold higher than the 

allowable level for an unlined unit. 

Thus, a single clay liner (as defined in 

the IWEM model assumptions) may be 

sufficiently protective to allow disposal 

in a unit with such a single liner, 

because a single clay liner may reduce 

the risks from these constituents to 

levels below the DRAS levels of 

concern. (EPA is somewhat uncertain 

about the appropriateness of extending 

the apparent margin of safety afforded 

by a single clay liner from one model 

(IWEM) to another model’s results 

(DRAS), and we are seeking comment 

on this approach.) Therefore, EPA is 

requesting comment on a second 

regulatory option that would allow 

disposal of this waste in all statepermitted municipal solid waste 

landfills (regulated under 40 CFR Part 

258) and state-permitted industrial solid 

waste landfills (regulated under 40 CFR 

Part 257), even those that do not meet 

the liner design requirements in 

§ 258.40, provided the landfills are 

equipped with at least a single clay 

liner.14 The second option, for example, 

would allow disposal in a statepermitted municipal landfill that was 

constructed prior to the effective date 

for the § 258.40 regulations (an 

‘‘existing’’ unit), provided the unit had 

at least a single clay liner. EPA expects 

that this would provide additional 

regulatory flexibility for generators, and 

would not be likely to result in adverse 

health effects. 

Therefore, EPA is taking comment on 

a second option, which would allow 

disposal in a landfill with a single clay 

liner, as well as allowing disposal in 

landfills with the more protective 

composite liner systems. Under this 

option, the regulatory language for the 

F019 could be revised to read as 

follows. 

Wastewater treatment sludges from the 

manufacturing of motor vehicles using a zinc 

phosphating process will not be hazardous if 

the wastes are either: disposed in a Subtitle 

D municipal or industrial landfill unit that is 

equipped with a single clay liner and is 

permitted, licensed or otherwise authorized 

by the state; or disposed in a unit that is 

subject to, or otherwise meets, the liner 

requirements in § 258.40, § 264.301, 

§ 265.301. 

EPA is requesting comments on 

whether adequate clay liners are found 

in active older municipal landfill units 

and industrial solid waste landfills, and 

whether this requirement would 

provide any significant regulatory relief 

for generators by meaningfully 

expanding their disposal options. EPA 

is also seeking comment on the 

likelihood of generators of the F019 

waste constructing landfill units at their 

facilities and what types of liner 

systems would be used for these onsite 

units. EPA also solicits comment on 

whether the option allowing disposal in 

a landfill unit with a clay liner 

(permitted or licensed by the state) will 

be straightforward to implement or 

whether it will raise implementation or 

compliance issues for the waste 

generator, such as the availability of 

state standards for clay liners in older 

landfills. 

The Agency is seeking comments on 

the level of regulatory relief that would 

be provided by both of these proposed 

approaches. Municipal landfills, for 

example, have been required to have 

composite liners (or performance based 

equivalents) as set out in 40 CFR 258.40, 

except for ‘‘existing’’ units (i.e., 

generally units or cells that existed prior 

to 1993). Therefore, EPA believes that 

most lined landfill units are likely to 

have composite liners. The Agency is 

seeking information on the extent to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2228 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

15Conceptually, ‘‘high-end’’ means above the 

90th percentile of the risk distribution; see 

Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk 

Managers and Risk Assessors, February 26, 1992 

memorandum from F. Henry Habicht, II, Deputy 

Administrator, to Assistant Administrators and 

Regional Administrators. We use the term ‘‘highend’’ here to refer to modeling inputs that are at or 

above the 90th percentile of a data set. 

16Note that the results described as ‘‘central 

tendency’’ here reflect changes in annual waste 

volume, disposal time, and constituent 

concentration (and for non-cancer effects, drinking 

water intake). Other variables, such as the dilution/ 

attenuation factor and exposure frequency (and for 

cancer effects, drinking water intake) remain at 

high-end values. 

which generators would use the option 

of sending waste to units with only 

single clay liners (under proposed 

option two) and any information 

relevant to the existence and likely use 

of landfill units with single clay liners. 

In addition, EPA is seeking comments 

on the burden associated with the 

recordkeeping requirements that would 

result from documenting compliance 

with disposal of the exempt waste in a 

landfill unit with a single clay liner or 

a composite liner. Under the second 

proposed option, the generator would be 

required to document that the waste 

went to a permitted landfill unit that 

was equipped with a clay liner. In this 

case, however, the generator would be 

able to rely on the permitting agency to 

ensure that the clay liner was adequate. 

EPA solicits comments on any issues 

that might be raised by this approach to 

recordkeeping and documentation. 

4. Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment 

Results 

The Technical Background Document 

describes the risk results, and gives 

examples of the known uncertainties 

associated with the risk results. The risk 

results used for this proposal are based 

on the same kinds of data and health 

protective models that the Agency 

typically uses in national-scale waste 

policy decision making. The risk results 

show estimated risks for an individual 

at the ‘‘high-end’’ of the risk 

distribution, and are designed to be 

protective of human health and the 

environment. As such, the resulting risk 

estimates are likely to reflect protective 

outcomes in more than 90 percent of the 

situations modeled.15 When using 

central tendency assumptions 16 for an 

unlined landfill, the hazard quotient for 

nickel was calculated to be 0.1 and the 

cancer risk factor for arsenic was two in 

a million, both values being well below 

the risk thresholds used by the Agency 

in hazardous waste listing 

determinations. 

Our overall assessment is that the 

models we use could overestimate the 

potential adverse effects of disposing of 

the F019 waste in either unlined or 

lined landfills. Thus, actual exposures 

that would be experienced by future 

residents near the landfill will likely be 

lower than those estimated using the 

DRAS version 2 model. Examples of the 

protective assumptions used in the 

high-end DRAS results include: (1) The 

disposal volume (the 90th percentile 

value of 3,000 cubic yards per year in 

the same landfill for 30 years), (2) the 

constituent concentrations (the 

maximum values found in the sampling 

data from the 13 delisting submissions), 

and (3) exposure levels (90th percentile 

value for ingestion of groundwater by 

children for 350 days per year). 

The risk results represent EPA’s 

reasonable efforts in using existing 

knowledge of the national waste 

management system, the science of 

environmental fate and transport of 

chemicals, and the science of toxicology 

to assess the likely hazards of managing 

the F019 waste as nonhazardous. The 

Agency believes that, in spite of some of 

the specific uncertainties that exist, the 

risk estimates provide a useful basis for 

our decision about whether to continue 

to regulate this waste as a hazardous 

waste. EPA is requesting comments on 

our risk assessment approach and on the 

resulting risk estimates. 

VI. Implementation of the F019 

Proposed Rule 

A. Land Disposal Conditions 

The proposed amendment to the F019 

listing exempts certain wastes disposed 

in landfill units that are subject to 

certain liner design requirements. This 

exemption is based on EPA’s risk 

analysis demonstrating that wastes 

disposed in landfills with certain types 

of liners do not present significant risks 

for sludges generated by motor vehicle 

manufacturers. Today’s first proposal 

would allow motor vehicle 

manufacturers (as defined in 

§ 261.31(b)(i)) to manage wastes from 

chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum when using a zinc 

phosphating process as nonhazardous, if 

the wastes are disposed in a landfill 

subject to, or otherwise meeting, the 

landfill requirements in § 258.40, 

§ 264.301 or § 265.301. The second 

proposal in today’s notice would also 

exempt the waste if the generators 

dispose of the waste in a state-permitted 

non-hazardous landfill unit that has, at 

a minimum, a single clay liner. 

The requirements under § 258.40, 

which apply to new municipal solid 

waste landfills or new units at existing 

municipal solid waste landfills, require 

use of a composite liner and leachate 

collection system (or a design meeting a 

protective performance standard and 

approved by the Director of an approved 

state program or by EPA). The 

infiltration rates used by IWEM (and 

also for the Dye and Pigment listing; 70 

FR 9138, February 24, 2005) were based 

on data from landfills with composite 

liners similar to the design required 

under § 258.40. Consequently, EPA’s 

proposed option number one allows 

disposal of wastes in a municipal solid 

waste landfill unit that is subject to the 

§ 258.40 design requirements. EPA is 

specifying that the landfill unit must be 

subject to these requirements because 

some operating landfills may still use 

older units that are not required to meet 

the design requirements in § 258.40. The 

Agency’s risk assessment shows that 

unlined landfills may not be sufficiently 

protective for some of the sludges from 

automobile manufacturing, i.e., higher 

volume sludges with high levels of key 

constituents of concern. Federal law 

requires that all municipal landfills 

comply with the Part 258 landfill 

regulations. Additionally, states have 

permitting programs to implement the 

Part 258 requirements for municipal 

landfills. Permit programs must ensure 

that municipal landfill units in the 

states comply with the § 258.40 design 

standards (see 40 CFR 239.6(e)). 

Consequently, landfill cells subject to 

the Part 258.40 design standards are 

required to comply with the federal 

standards or more stringent state 

standards. 

Some generators of F019 wastes may 

still choose to send wastes to Subtitle C 

hazardous waste landfills. New landfill 

units and lateral expansions of existing 

hazardous waste landfills are required 

to have ‘‘double’’ composite liners 

including synthetic components. See 40 

CFR 264.301 and 265.301. The Agency 

would expect that these liner systems 

have even lower infiltration rates than 

the composite liners required under 

§ 258.40, because the Subtitle C 

requirements include another composite 

liner, in addition to the composite liner 

(or equivalent) required of municipal 

solid waste landfills (e.g., see 

§ 261.301(c)). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to give generators the option 

of sending wastes to landfill units 

subject to these stricter hazardous waste 

liner requirements. 

The Agency is also proposing to 

include a third class of landfills in the 

exemption, namely, Subtitle D 

industrial solid waste landfills that meet 

the liner design requirements in 

§ 258.40 or Subtitle C landfills. These 

‘‘industrial landfills’’ are subject to 

Federal regulations in Part 257, which 

apply to non-municipal, nonhazardous 

waste landfills. While the Part 257 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2229 

17Commercial offsite landfills are subject to 

regulations by states, including liner requirements. 

See the report by Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

(ASTSWMO), ‘‘Non-Municipal, Subtitle D Waste 

Survey,’’ March 1996, and the EPA report, ‘‘State 

Requirements for Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste 

Management Facilities,’’ October 1995. 

18The ‘‘mixture’’ rule at § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) provides 

that, with limited exceptions, any mixture of a 

listed hazardous waste and a solid waste is itself a 

hazardous waste. 

regulations do not have liner 

requirements, states have regulations 

governing the design of such landfills 

that often include requirements for liner 

systems.17 EPA believes that generators 

should have the option of using lined 

industrial landfills that are as protective 

as lined municipal solid waste landfills. 

Therefore, under the first option, EPA 

is proposing that the amended listing 

include an exemption for wastes 

disposed in any landfill that is subject 

to, or meets, the landfill requirements in 

§ 258.40, § 264.301, or § 265.301. Under 

the second option, EPA is proposing an 

alternative approach that would also 

allow disposal of the subject waste in a 

landfill unit with a single clay liner as 

described previously. 

Note, however, that this exemption 

would not apply if wastewaters from 

aluminum conversion coating processes 

using the zinc phosphating process are 

commingled with wastewaters arising 

from aluminum conversion coating 

using other non-exempt processes (e.g., 

chromating processes); the sludge 

resulting from such commingled 

wastewaters would still carry the F019 

waste code, because it would be 

derived, in part, from an aluminum 

conversion coating process that is not 

zinc phosphating. Furthermore, 

aluminum conversion coating sludges 

derived from zinc phosphating at motor 

vehicle manufacturers are still subject to 

the ‘‘mixture rule,’’ and would become 

hazardous waste if mixed with any 

other listed hazardous waste.18 In 

addition, the motor vehicle 

manufacturers would also be subject to 

the requirements of § 268.3 (dilution 

prohibited as a substitute for treatment). 

Finally, if the zinc phosphating sludges 

were generated such that they exhibit 

one of the hazardous waste 

characteristics (see § 261.20 through 

§ 261.24), the waste would continue to 

be regulated as a hazardous waste. 

1. How Generators Document 

Compliance With the Landfill Condition 

Under the proposed option number 

one, generators of wastewater treatment 

sludges claimed to be nonhazardous are 

responsible for ensuring that shipments 

of such waste are placed in landfill 

units that meet the design criteria 

specified in § 258.40, § 264.301, or 

§ 265.301. Under option two, generators 

would also need to document 

compliance if they send their waste 

shipments to a state-permitted landfill 

unit that has an adequate single clay 

liner. Under either option, generators 

wishing to qualify for the exemption 

from the F019 listing would be required 

to maintain records to show that their 

wastes are placed in an appropriate 

landfill unit, whether the unit is at a 

municipal solid waste landfill, 

hazardous waste landfill, or an 

industrial solid waste landfill (in the 

case of option two, this would include 

disposal in a unit with a single clay 

liner). EPA is proposing a flexible 

performance standard that would allow 

the generator to demonstrate that 

shipments of waste were received by a 

landfill unit that is subject to or meets 

the landfill design standards set out in 

the listing description through various 

means. A generator may be able to 

demonstrate fulfillment of the landfill 

disposal condition by means of a signed 

contract with the owner/operator of a 

municipal solid waste landfill, a 

hazardous waste landfill, or an 

industrial solid waste landfill receiving 

the waste; the generator should also 

retain specific shipping documents to 

demonstrate that the contract was 

implemented. The contract must show 

that the landfill owner/operator would 

use only units subject to the applicable 

Part 258 or Part 264 or Part 265 design 

requirements (under option two, the 

contract, state permit, or documentation 

from the state may also be used to 

document that units meeting the single 

liner specifications would be used). A 

generator may also be able to support a 

claim of fulfilling the landfill design 

requirements by means of signed 

nonhazardous waste bills of lading, 

manifests, or invoices documenting 

delivery, provided they show that 

wastes were placed in municipal solid 

waste landfill units subject to the 

applicable Part 258 design requirements 

or Subtitle C landfill units subject to the 

Part 264 or Part 265 design 

requirements. Similarly, the generator 

would be responsible for documenting 

that non-municipal, nonhazardous 

waste landfill units (industrial landfill 

units) meet the specified liner 

standards. States have regulations 

governing the design of such industrial 

solid waste landfills, and landfill 

operators must have certifications or 

permit conditions available to provide 

to generators who wish to use such 

landfills instead of municipal solid 

waste or hazardous waste landfill units. 

Therefore, state regulations could help 

support a claim that the nonhazardous 

waste bills of lading, manifests, or 

invoices documenting delivery satisfy 

the applicable liner requirements. 

2. Consequences of Failing To Meet the 

Disposal Conditions or Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

Disposal in a landfill subject to or 

meeting the landfill design requirements 

is a condition of the exemption to the 

listing under the two approaches being 

proposed. If a generator does not fulfill 

this condition, the sludges would be 

F019 listed wastes, subject to the 

applicable Subtitle C requirements. 

Therefore, the Agency advises 

generators to properly store the 

wastewater treatment sludges that are 

claimed to be nonhazardous wastes to 

ensure that improper releases do not 

occur. EPA encourages all generators to 

store all wastes in containers, tanks, or 

buildings, so as to reduce potential 

releases to the environment through 

spills, wind dispersal, and precipitation. 

The exemption for these wastes is 

conditioned upon disposal in the 

landfill units that are subject to, or 

otherwise meet, the specified design 

criteria. 

In addition, a generator claiming that 

the wastewater treatment sludges are 

not F019 listed waste must maintain 

sufficient documentation to demonstrate 

that shipments of such waste were 

disposed in a landfill subject to or 

meeting the liner design standards 

specified under the conditional 

exemption. The proposed regulatory 

text (§ 261.31(b)(4)(iii)) specifies 

necessary records that a generator 

claiming the exemption must keep. 

Generators taking advantage of the 

exemption that fail to meet the 

condition of disposing the wastewater 

treatment sludges in a landfill unit that 

meets certain liner design criteria would 

be subject to enforcement action, and 

the wastewater treatment sludges may 

be considered to be hazardous waste 

from the point of their generation. EPA 

could choose to bring an enforcement 

action under RCRA § 3008(a) for all 

violations of hazardous waste regulatory 

requirements occurring from the time 

the wastewater treatment sludges are 

generated up to the time they are finally 

disposed. Releases of hazardous waste 

could also potentially be addressed 

through enforcement orders, such as 

orders under RCRA §§ 3013 and 7003. 

States could choose to take an 

enforcement action for violations of 

state hazardous waste requirements 

under state authorities. 

Generators claiming the exemption 

from the F019 listing must be able to 

demonstrate to the appropriate 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2230 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

19For a facility that generates a volume of 3,000 

cy/yr, an average weekly volume would be about 60 

cy. This would probably require 2 to 3 dumpsters 

(20 to 40 cy in size). Given that generators are 

unlikely to want to store many dumpsters, we 

believe that a 90 day limit is reasonable and would 

not be burdensome. 

20Two facilities were generating delisted F019 

sludges, and one had just added conversion coating 

of aluminum to its process and eventually obtained 

a delisting. See note to docket on site visits by Mr. 

James Michael. 

regulatory agency that the condition of 

the exemption is being met. In 

accordance with existing requirements, 

the facility claiming the exemption 

bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 

conformance with the requirements 

specified in the regulation. See 40 CFR 

261.2(f). 

EPA requests comment on whether 

the proposed record-keeping 

requirements should also be made 

conditions of the exemption, rather than 

established as separate recordkeeping 

requirements. In addition, the Agency 

seeks comments on whether additional 

requirements or conditions are 

necessary to ensure that the waste is not 

improperly disposed or released prior to 

disposal in landfills meeting the landfill 

requirements in § 258.40, § 264.301 or 

§ 265.310 (or under the second proposed 

option, a municipal or industrial solid 

waste landfill with a single clay liner). 

EPA is considering the need to include 

a condition for the exemption that the 

waste be stored so as to minimize 

releases to the environment. The 

regulatory condition being considered 

by the Agency could include the 

following possible regulatory language. 

Generators of wastewater treatment sludges 

that are claimed to be nonhazardous must 

manage such wastes in a manner that 

prevents their loss to the environment. Such 

wastes must be stored in tanks, containers, or 

buildings that are constructed and 

maintained in a way that prevents releases of 

these materials into the environment. At a 

minimum, any building used for this purpose 

must be an engineered structure that has a 

floor, walls and a roof to prevent wind 

dispersal and contact with precipitation. 

Tanks used for this purpose must be 

structurally sound and, if outdoors, must 

have roofs or covers that prevent contact with 

wind and precipitation. Containers, such as 

super sacks, drums, or roll-on/roll-off 

containers, used for this purpose must be 

kept closed except when it is necessary to 

add or remove material, and must be in 

sound condition. Generators may store the 

waste on site for no longer than 90 days. 

EPA may make all or some of these 

requirements conditions in the final 

rule.19

EPA obtained information from 

delisting petitions that indicates 

generators of the F019 sludge store the 

dewatered sludges in containers or bins 

prior to shipment offsite for disposal. 

During visits to three vehicle 

manufacturing plants generating 

sludges, EPA found that sludge 

dewatering equipment and sludge 

containers were kept inside buildings, 

reducing any potential for releases. 

While these management practices may 

reflect the fact that the delisted sludges 

were previously hazardous waste, we 

expect that these practices would 

continue after an exemption.20 We seek 

any further information from 

commenters as to the current sludge 

management practices at facilities that 

currently generate F019 wastes (or 

delisted F019), and any information on 

practices at vehicle manufacturers that 

do not currently generate F019 (i.e., 

plants that do not use aluminum). If 

such information indicates that 

generators are already handling the 

waste to minimize releases, the Agency 

will take this into consideration when 

deciding whether storage conditions are 

necessary. 

3. Land Disposal Restrictions 

The Agency today is proposing to 

amend the F019 listing to exclude 

wastewater treatment sludges from zinc 

phosphating, when such phosphating is 

used at motor vehicle manufacturers. 

These wastewater treatment sludges will 

not be hazardous if the wastes are 

disposed in a landfill unit subject to, or 

otherwise meeting, the landfill 

requirements for the liner systems 

specified in the F019 listing under both 

of the proposed options. 

40 CFR Part 268 prohibits the land 

disposal of RCRA hazardous waste 

unless they have been treated to meet a 

certain level or by a technology 

specified by EPA. See Table 1.Treatment 

Standards for Hazardous Wastes in 

§ 268.40. The land disposal restrictions 

only apply to solid wastes that are 

RCRA hazardous wastes. Therefore, if 

the wastewater treatment sludges are 

disposed in landfill units that are 

subject to or meet the landfill design 

criteria outlined in today’s proposal, 

they would not be hazardous waste from 

the point of generation and, thus, not 

subject to the land disposal restriction 

requirements. 

B. Interrelationship Between Proposed 

Rule and Current F019 Delistings 

The question arises as to the status of 

waste generated by facilities that 

currently have an exemption for their 

wastes through a delisting under 

§ 260.22. Today’s proposed revision to 

the F019 listing would exempt wastes 

from motor vehicle manufacturing 

facilities that meet the landfill disposal 

conditions. Thus, wastes that are to be 

disposed in a subtitle D or subtitle C 

unit that meets the liner design 

standards specified in the listings are 

exempted from the listing from their 

point of generation. As such, the exempt 

waste would not be subject to any RCRA 

subtitle C management requirements for 

generation, storage, transport, treatment, 

or disposal (including land disposal 

restrictions). These exempt wastes 

would never become F019 listed wastes 

(when the specified disposal conditions 

are met), and, thus, the existing 

delistings (including any conditions 

associated with the delisting) would be 

rendered moot by today’s proposal, 

presuming the authorized state adopts 

the rule, where applicable. However, 

EPA realizes that facilities with 

delistings may wish to avoid any 

confusion that might arise in the 

implementation of the exemption 

proposed in today’s notice. Therefore, 

the facility may wish to seek to have its 

delisting withdrawn by the regulatory 

authority (the EPA Region or state), 

unless the facility wishes to continue to 

manage its waste pursuant to its existing 

delisting. However, EPA encourages 

facilities with delistings to be sure that 

the state in which they operate has 

adopted the exemption prior to moving 

to drop an existing delisting. See the 

discussion below in Section VII. State 

Authorization for additional 

information on the authorization 

process. 

VII. State Authorization 

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA 

may authorize a qualified state to 

administer and enforce a hazardous 

waste program within the state in lieu 

of the federal program, and to issue and 

enforce permits in the state. Following 

authorization, the state requirements 

authorized by EPA apply in lieu of 

equivalent Federal requirements and 

become Federally-enforceable as 

requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains 

independent authority to bring 

enforcement actions under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. 

Authorized states also have 

independent authority to bring 

enforcement actions under state law. 

A state may receive authorization by 

following the approval process 

described in 40 CFR part 271. Part 271 

of 40 CFR also describes the overall 

standards and requirements for 

authorization. After a state receives 

initial authorization, new Federal 

regulatory requirements promulgated 

under the authority in the RCRA statute 

do not apply in that state until the state 

adopts and receives authorization for 

equivalent state requirements. The state 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2231 

21The Federal Register (FR) citations for the 15 

delisting determinations for F019 are: GM in Lake 

Orion, Michigan (62 FR 55344, October 24, 1997); 

GM in Lansing, Michigan (65 FR 31096, May 16, 

2000); BMWMC in Greer, South Carolina (66 FR 

21877, May 2, 2001); Nissan in Smyrna, Tennessee 

(67 FR 42187, June 21, 2002); GM in Pontiac, 

Michigan, GM in Hamtramck, Michigan, GM in 

Flint, Michigan, GM Grand River in Lansing, 

Michigan, Ford in Wixom, Michigan, Ford in 

Wayne, Michigan (68 FR 44652, July 30, 2003); 

DaimlerChrylser Jefferson North in Detroit, 

Michigan (69 FR 8828, February 26, 2004); GM in 

Lordstown, Ohio (69 FR 60557, October 12, 2004); 

Ford in Dearborn, Michigan (70 FR 21153, April 25, 

2005); GM in Janesville, Wisconsin (70 FR 71002, 

November 25, 2005); and, GM Saturn in Spring Hill, 

Tennessee (70 FR 76168, December 23, 2005). 

must adopt such requirements to 

maintain authorization. In contrast, 

under RCRA section 3006(g), (42 U.S.C. 

6926(g)), new Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed pursuant to the 

1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments (HSWA) take effect in 

authorized states at the same time that 

they take effect in unauthorized states. 

Although authorized states still are 

required to update their hazardous 

waste programs to remain equivalent to 

the Federal program, EPA carries out 

HSWA requirements and prohibitions in 

authorized states, including the 

issuance of new permits implementing 

those requirements, until EPA 

authorizes the state to do so. Authorized 

states are required to modify their 

programs only when EPA promulgates 

Federal requirements that are more 

stringent or broader in scope than 

existing Federal requirements. 

RCRA section 3009 allows the states 

to impose standards more stringent than 

those in the Federal program. See also 

40 CFR 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized 

states are not required to adopt Federal 

regulations, either HSWA or nonHSWA, that are considered less 

stringent. 

Today’s rule is proposed pursuant to 

non-HSWA authority. The proposed 

changes in this rule are less stringent 

than the current Federal requirements. 

Therefore, states will not be required to 

adopt and seek authorization for the 

proposed changes. EPA will implement 

the changes to the exemptions only in 

those states which are not authorized for 

the RCRA program. Nevertheless, EPA 

believes that this proposed rulemaking 

has considerable merit, and the Agency 

thus strongly encourages states to 

amend their programs and become 

Federally-authorized to implement 

these rules once they become final. 

VIII. Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Designation and List of 

Hazardous Substances and Reportable 

Quantities 

The Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 (CERCLA) defines the term 

‘‘hazardous substance’’ to include RCRA 

listed and characteristic hazardous 

wastes. When EPA adds a hazardous 

waste under RCRA, the Agency also will 

add the waste to its list of CERCLA 

hazardous substances. EPA also 

establishes a reportable quantity, or RQ, 

for each CERCLA hazardous substance. 

EPA provides a list of the CERCLA 

hazardous substances along with their 

RQs in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4. If 

a person in charge of a vessel or facility 

that releases a CERCLA hazardous 

substance in an amount that equals or 

exceeds its RQ, then that person must 

report that release to the National 

Response Center (NRC) pursuant to 

CERCLA section 103. That person also 

may have to notify state and local 

authorities. 

Because today’s rule is proposing to 

modify the scope of the EPA Hazardous 

Waste No. F019 under 40 CFR 261.31 

listing to exclude wastewater treatment 

sludges from zinc phosphating, when 

such phosphating is used in the motor 

vehicle manufacturing process, and if 

the wastes are disposed in a landfill is 

subject to, or meets certain liner design 

requirements, the Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 

302.4 would be modified to adopt the 

same definition and scope. 

IX. Relationship to Other Rules—Clean 

Water Act 

We believe that today’s proposed 

regulatory changes will not: (1) Increase 

the amount of discharged wastewater 

pollutants at the industry or facility 

levels; or (2) interfere with the ability of 

industrial generators and recyclers of 

electroplating residuals to comply with 

the Clean Water Act requirements (e.g., 

Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines, 40 

CFR Part 433). 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735), the Agency must determine 

whether this regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to 

formal review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and to 

the requirements of the Executive Order, 

which include assessing the costs and 

benefits anticipated as a result of the 

proposed regulatory action. The Order 

defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

as one that is likely to result in a rule 

that may: (1) Have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

state, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, although the annual effect 

of this proposed rule is expected to be 

less than $100 million, the Agency has 

determined that today’s proposed rule is 

a significant regulatory action because 

this proposed rule contains novel policy 

issues. As such, this action was 

submitted to OMB for review. Changes 

made in response to OMB suggestions or 

recommendations are documented in 

the docket to today’s proposal. 

The following is a summary of EPA’s 

economic analysis as contained in the 

Economics Background Document in 

support of this proposal, which is 

available for public review and 

comment in the EPA Docket 

(www.regulations.gov). Although 73 

industries in 42 states generate 0.7 

million tons per year of RCRA F019 

hazardous waste sludge as of 1999, the 

scope of this F019 proposed rule is 

limited to the (1) automobile 

manufacturing industry (NAICS 336111) 

and (2) the light truck/utility vehicle 

manufacturing industry (NAICS 

336112). The Agency defined this scope 

in relation to 15 recent (1997–2005) 

delisting final determinations for these 

two motor vehicle manufacturing 

industries in EPA Regions 4 and 5.21

Under the current F019 listing 

description, motor vehicle 

manufacturers become F019 sludge 

generators if they use aluminum parts 

on vehicle bodies which undergo the 

chemical conversion (zinc phosphating) 

process. Motor vehicle manufacturers 

began in the early 1970’s, to substitute 

lighter-weight aluminum parts for 

heavier steel parts to achieve national 

vehicle fleet fuel efficiency and vehicle 

pollutant emission reduction objectives. 

If promulgated, the proposed 

elimination of RCRA Subtitle C 

hazardous waste regulatory 

requirements for waste transport, waste 

treatment/disposal, and waste reporting/ 

recordkeeping in this proposed rule, is 

expected to provide $1.6 to $4.6 million 

per year in regulatory cost savings to 14 

facilities in these two industries which 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2232 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

are known as of 2005 to generate about 

8,700 tons per year of F019 sludge, but 

are not yet delisted (as of year-end 

2005). Although today’s proposed action 

presents alternative RCRA Subtitle D 

non-hazardous waste landfill liner 

specifications (i.e., liner design criteria) 

as possible conditions for exemption of 

F019 sludge from RCRA Subtitle C 

regulation, the economic impact 

analysis does not distinguish landfill 

liner types in this cost savings estimate. 

Secondary impacts of the proposed rule 

may also include potential future RCRA 

regulatory cost avoidance for up to 39 

other facilities in these two industries 

not currently generating F019 sludge, 

but which may begin applying 

aluminum parts in vehicle assembly. 

Furthermore, by reducing regulatory 

costs, EPA anticipates that this rule may 

also induce other motor vehicle 

manufacturing facilities to begin using 

aluminum in vehicles sooner than they 

otherwise would, thereby possibly 

accelerating future achievement of 

national air quality and fuel efficiency 

objectives. The Economics Background 

Document provides estimates for these 

secondary and induced benefits for this 

proposed rule. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1189.18 and 

a copy may be obtained from Susan 

Auby by mail at U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Collection Strategies 

Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington 

DC 20460, by e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 

566–1672. A copy may also be 

downloaded from the Internet at http:// 

www.epa.gov/icr. 

EPA under 40 CFR 261.31(b)(4)(iii), 

proposes to add a recordkeeping 

requirement for generators. The 

proposed rule will require generators 

wanting to demonstrate compliance 

with the provisions of this proposal to 

maintain onsite for a minimum of three 

years documentation demonstrating that 

each shipment of waste was received by 

a landfill unit that is subject to or meets 

the landfill design criteria set out in the 

listing description. An enforcement 

action by the Agency can extend the 

record retention period (§ 268.7(a)(8)) 

beyond the three years. 

EPA estimates that the total annual 

respondent burden for the new 

paperwork requirements in the rule is 

approximately 35 hours per year and the 

annual respondent cost for the new 

paperwork requirements in the rule is 

approximately $2,600. However, in 

addition to the new paperwork 

requirements in the rule, the Agency 

also estimated the burden and cost that 

generators could expect as a result of 

complying with the existing RCRA 

hazardous waste information collection 

requirements for the exempted materials 

(e.g., preparation of hazardous waste 

manifests, biennial reporting). Taking 

both the new proposed and existing 

RCRA requirements into account, EPA 

expects the rule would result in a net 

reduction in national annual paperwork 

burden to the 14 initially affected 

NAICS 336111 and 336112 facilities of 

approximately 920 hours and $67,300. 

As summarized in the Economics 

Background Document and in the prior 

sub-section of this notice, EPA expects 

this net cost savings to be further 

supplemented by annual cost savings to 

these same facilities from reduced waste 

management costs, by the expected shift 

of sludge management from RCRA 

Subtitle C hazardous waste 

management, to RCRA Subtitle D 

nonhazardous waste management. The 

net cost to EPA of administering the rule 

is expected to be negligible, since 

facilities are not required under this 

proposed rule to submit any information 

to the Agency for review and approval. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust 

existing systems to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR Part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA 

has established a public docket for this 

rule, which includes this ICR, under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2006–

0984. Submit any comments related to 

the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA 

and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice for where to 

submit comments to EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities 

potentially subject to this action, ‘‘small 

entity’’ is defined according to the forprofit small business size standards set 

by the Small Business Administration 

(SBA), in reference to the two six-digit 

NAICS code industries affected by this 

action: (1) NAICS 336111 automobile 

manufacturing SBA standard of less 

than 1,000 employees, and (2) NAICS 

336112 light truck and utility vehicle 

manufacturing SBA standard of less 

than 1,000 employees. Today’s action 

does not directly affect small 

governmental jurisdictions (i.e., a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000), or small 

organizations (i.e., any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field). 

According to the most recent U.S. 

Census Bureau ‘‘Economics Census’’

data for these two NAICS codes—for 

data year 2002 published in December 

2004 and May 2005, respectively—there 

were 176 NAICS 336111 establishments 

operated in 2002 by 161 companies, of 

which 154 establishments (88%) had 

less than 1,000 employees (http:// 

www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ 

ec0231i336111t.pdf), and there were 97 

NAICS 336112 establishments operated 

in 2002 by 69 companies, of which 62 

establishments (64%) had less than 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2233 

1,000 employees (http:// 

www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ 

ec0231i336112t.pdf). These census 

statistics reveal that both industries 

consist of large fractions of small 

establishments according to the SBA 

definitions, but the census data do not 

reveal the fraction of companies which 

are small (which is the more relevant 

measure). However, it may be inferred 

that there are large fractions of small 

companies in both industries, because 

of the high degree of parity between 

establishment counts and companies 

counts of 0.96 for NAICS 336111 (i.e., 

154:to:161), and of 0.71 for NAICS 

336112 (i.e., 69:to:97). 

Because this action is designed to 

lower the cost of waste management for 

these industries, this proposal will not 

result in an adverse economic impact 

effect on affected entities. Consequently, 

I hereby certify that this proposal will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency 

may certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on small entities subject to the rule. For 

more information regarding the 

economic impact of this proposed rule, 

please refer to the ‘‘Economics 

Background Document’’ available from 

the EPA Docket (www.regulations.gov). 

EPA therefore concludes that today’s 

proposed rule will relieve regulatory 

burden for all size entities, including 

small entities. The Agency continues to 

be interested in the potential impacts of 

the proposed rule on small entities and 

welcomes comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA must prepare a written analysis, 

including a cost-benefit analysis, for 

proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal 

mandates’’ that may result in 

expenditures to state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. Before promulgating an 

EPA rule for which a written statement 

is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. 

Before EPA establishes any regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, it must 

have developed under section 203 of the 

UMRA a small government agency plan. 

The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 

enabling officials to have meaningful 

and timely input in the development of 

regulatory proposals, and informing, 

educating, and advising small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

does not include a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for state, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. This is 

because this proposed rule imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments. EPA also has 

determined that this rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. In addition, as discussed 

above, the private sector is not expected 

to incur costs exceeding $100 million. 

Therefore, today’s proposed rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

This proposal 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. This rule 

directly affects primarily generators of 

hazardous waste sludges in the NAICS 

3361 motor vehicle manufacturing 

industry group. There are no state and 

local government bodies that incur 

direct compliance costs by this 

rulemaking. State and local government 

implementation expenditures are 

expected to be less than $500,000 in any 

one year. Thus, the requirements of 

Section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this proposal. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Today’s rule 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

the communities of Indian tribal 

governments, nor would it impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Risks and 

Safety Risks 

The Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

applies to any rule that EPA determines 

(1) is ‘‘economically significant’’ as 

defined under Executive Order 12866, 

and (2) the environmental health or 

safety risk addressed by the rule has a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children; and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2234 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This proposal is not subject to the 

Executive Order 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 proposed rule present 

a disproportionate risk to children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This proposed rule reduces regulatory 

burden and as explained in our 

‘‘Economics Background Document,’’

and may possibly induce fuel efficiency 

and energy savings in the national 

motor vehicle fleet. It thus should not 

adversely affect energy supply, 

distribution or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

proposed rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population’’ (February 11, 

1994), is designed to address the 

environmental and human health 

conditions of minority and low-income 

populations. EPA is committed to 

addressing environmental justice 

concerns and has assumed a leadership 

role in environmental justice initiatives 

to enhance environmental quality for all 

citizens of the United States. The 

Agency’s goals are to ensure that no 

segment of the population, regardless of 

race, color, national origin, income, or 

net worth bears disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and 

environmental impacts as a result of 

EPA’s policies, programs, and activities. 

Our goal is to ensure that all citizens 

live in clean and sustainable 

communities. In response to Executive 

Order 12898, and to concerns voiced by 

many groups outside the Agency, EPA’s 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (OSWER) formed an 

Environmental Justice Task Force to 

analyze the array of environmental 

justice issues specific to waste programs 

and to develop an overall strategy to 

identify and address these issues 

(OSWER Directive No. 9200.3–17). 

The Agency’s risk assessment did not 

identify risks from the management of 

the zinc phosphating sludge generated 

by the motor vehicle manufacturing 

industry provided that the waste is 

disposed in a landfill that is subject to 

or meets the landfill design criteria set 

out in today’s proposal. Therefore, EPA 

believes that any populations in 

proximity to the landfills used by these 

facilities should not be adversely 

affected by common waste management 

practices for the wastewater treatment 

sludge. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

materials, Recycling, Waste treatment 

and disposal. 

40 CFR Part 302 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act, Extremely 

hazardous substances, Hazardous 

chemicals, Hazardous materials, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous substances, Hazardous 

wastes, Intergovernmental relations, 

Natural resources, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, 

Waste treatment and disposal, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

Stephen l. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, 6924(y), and 6938. 

2. Section 261.31 is amended by: 

a. In the table in paragraph (a) by 

revising the alphanumeric entry F019. 

b. Amending paragraph (b) by adding 

paragraph (b)(4). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 261.31 Hazardous wastes from specific 

sources. 

(a) * * * 

Industry and EPA 

hazardous waste No. Hazardous waste Hazard code 

*******

F019 .......................... Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium 

phosphating in aluminum can washing when such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process. 

Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing of motor vehicles using a zinc phosphating process 

will not be hazardous if the wastes are disposed in a landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, the landfill requirements in § 258.40, § 264.301 or § 265.301. For the purposes of this listing, motor vehicle manufacturing is defined in paragraph § 261.31(b)(4)(i) of this section; paragraphs § 261.31(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this 

section describe the responsibilities and recordkeeping requirements for motor vehicle manufacturing facilities.

*******


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2235 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) For the purposes of the F019 

listing, the following apply to 

wastewater treatment sludges from the 

manufacturing of motor vehicles using a 

zinc phosphating process. 

(i) Motor vehicle manufacturing is 

defined to include the manufacture of 

automobiles and light trucks/utility 

vehicles (including light duty vans, 

pick-up trucks, minivans, and sport 

utility vehicles). Facilities must be 

engaged in manufacturing complete 

vehicles (body and chassis or unibody) 

or chassis only. 

(ii) Generators of wastewater 

treatment sludges that are claimed to be 

nonhazardous must ensure that 

shipments of such waste are placed in 

landfill units that are subject to or meet 

the landfill design criteria specified in 

the F019 listing description. 

(iii) Generators must maintain in their 

on-site records documentation and 

information sufficient to prove that the 

wastewater treatment sludges to be 

exempted from the F019 listing meet the 

condition of the listing. These records 

must include the volume of waste 

generated and disposed of off-site. 

Generators must maintain these 

documents on site for no less than three 

years. The retention period for the 

documentation is automatically 

extended during the course of any 

enforcement action or as requested by 

the Regional Administrator or the state 

regulatory authority. 

PART 302—DESIGNATION, 

REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND 

NOTIFICATION 

3. The authority citation for part 302 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 

33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. 

4. In § 302.4, Table 302.4 is amended 

by revising the entry for F019 in the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 302.4 Designation of hazardous 

substances. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES

[NOTE: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table] 

Hazardous substance CASRN Statutory 

code ✝ 

RCRA Waste 

No. 

Final RQ 

pounds (Kg) 

* * * * * * * 

F019 ....................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 4 F019 ......... 10 (4.54) 

Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when 

such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process. Wastewater 

treatment sludges from the manufacturing of motor vehicles using a zinc 

phosphating process will not be hazardous if the wastes are disposed in a 

landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, the landfill requirements in 

§ 258.40, § 264.301 or § 265.301. For the purposes of this listing, motor vehicle manufacturing is defined in paragraph § 261.31(b)(4)(i) of this section; 

paragraphs § 261.31(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section describe the responsibilities and recordkeeping requirements for motor vehicle manufacturing facilities. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–640 Filed 1–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0008; FRL–8268–5] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the 

Berkley Products Company Dump 

Priorities List Site from the National 

Priorities List; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region III announces its 

intent to delete Berkley Products 

Company Dump Superfund Site (Site), 

located in West Cocalico Township, 

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania from 

the National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comment on this 

proposed action. The NPL constitutes 

Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300, which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP), which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to Section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). 

EPA bases its proposal to delete the 

Site on the determination by EPA and 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), that 

all appropriate actions under CERCLA, 

other than operation and maintenance 

and five-year reviews, have been 

implemented to protect human health, 

welfare and the environment. However, 

this deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

Section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a direct final notice of 

deletion of Berkley Products Company 

Dump Superfund Site without prior 

notice of intent to delete because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comment. EPA has explained its reasons 

for this deletion in the preamble to the 

direct final deletion. If EPA receives no 

adverse comment(s) on this notice of 

intent to delete or the direct final notice 

of deletion, EPA will not take further 

action. If EPA receives adverse 

comment(s), EPA will withdraw the 

direct final notice of deletion and it will 

not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final deletion notice based 

on this notice of intent to delete. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For additional 

information, see the direct final notice 

of deletion which is located in the Rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

SFUND–1989–0008, by one of the 

following methods: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL