55344 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

Approvals of SIP submittals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the federal

SIP approval does not impose any new

requirements, I certify that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

If the approval is converted to a

disapproval under section 110(k), based

on the State’s failure to meet the

commitments, it will not affect any

existing state requirements applicable to

small entities. Federal disapproval of

the state submittal does not affect its

state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements nor

does it substitute a new federal

requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by December 23,

1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: October 6, 1997.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart HH—New York

2. Section 52.1683 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to

read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) The State of New York’s March 27,

1996 submittal for an enhanced motor

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M) program, as amended on September

16, 1997, and September 17, 1997, is

approved with an interim period to last

18 months. If New York fails to start its

program by November 15, 1998, the

interim approval granted under the

provisions of the NHSDA, which EPA

believes allows the State to take full

credit in its 15 percent plan for all of the

emission reduction credits in its

proposal, will convert to a disapproval

after a finding letter is sent to the State

by EPA.

(d) The State must correct six minor,

or de minimus, deficiencies related to

the CAA requirements for enhanced I/

M. The minor deficiencies are listed in

EPA’s interim final rulemaking on New

York’s motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program published on

October 24, 1997. Although satisfaction

of these deficiencies does not affect the

interim approval status of the State’s

rulemaking, these deficiencies must be

corrected in the final I/M SIP revision

to be submitted at the end of the 18-

month interim period.

(e) EPA is also approving this SIP

revision under Section 110(k) for its

strengthening effect on the plan.

[FR Doc. 97–28273 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–5913–8]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55345

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) today is granting a

petition submitted by General Motors

Corporation (GM) to exclude (or

‘‘delist’’) certain solid wastes from the

lists of hazardous wastes contained in

subpart D of part 261. EPA has

concluded that the petitioned waste is

not a hazardous waste when disposed of

in a Subtitle D landfill. This exclusion

applies only to the wastewater treatment

plant (WWTP) sludge generated at GM’s

Orion Assembly Center in Lake Orion,

Michigan. Today’s action excludes the

petitioned waste from the requirements

of the hazardous waste regulations

under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of

in a Subtitle D landfill, but imposes

testing conditions to ensure that the

future-generated waste remains

qualified for this exclusion.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The regulatory docket for

this final rule which contains the

complete petition and supporting

documents is located at U.S. EPA

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

IL 60604–3590, and is available for

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

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays. Call Steven Pak at

(312) 886–4446 for appointments. The

public may copy material from the

regulatory docket at a cost of $0.15 per

page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

rule, contact Steven Pak at the address

above or at (312) 886–4446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

Under sections 260.20 and 260.22,

facilities may petition EPA to remove

their wastes from hazardous waste

control by excluding them from the lists

of hazardous wastes contained in

subpart D of part 261. Specifically,

section 260.20 allows any person to

petition the Administrator to modify or

revoke any provision of parts 260

through 266, 268 and 273; and section

260.22 provides generators the

opportunity to petition the

Administrator to exclude a waste on a

‘‘generator-specific’’ basis from the

hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must

provide sufficient information to allow

EPA to determine that the waste to be

excluded does not meet any of the

criteria under which the waste was

listed as a hazardous waste. In addition,

where there is reasonable basis to

believe that factors (including

additional constituents) other than those

for which the waste was listed could

cause the waste to be a hazardous waste,

the Administrator must determine that

such factors do not warrant retaining the

waste as a hazardous waste.

B. History of This Rulemaking

On January 12, 1996, GM petitioned

EPA to exclude from hazardous waste

control the WWTP sludge generated at

its Orion Assembly Center. After

evaluating the petition, on April 18,

1997, EPA proposed to exclude GM’s

waste from the lists of hazardous wastes

in subpart D of part 261 (see 62 FR

19087). This rulemaking addresses the

public comments received on the

proposal and finalizes the proposed

decision to grant GM’s petition.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

General Motors Corporation, Orion

Assembly Center, 4555 Giddings Road,

Lake Orion, Michigan 48361–1001

A. Proposed Exclusion

GM petitioned EPA to exclude an

annual volume of 1,500 cubic yards of

WWTP filter press sludge from the list

of hazardous wastes contained in

section 261.31, and subsequently

provided additional information to

complete its petition. The WWTP sludge

is listed as 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 listed

constituents of concern for EPA

Hazardous Waste No. F019 are

hexavalent chromium and cyanide

(complexed) (see Appendix VII of part

261).

In support of its petition, GM

submitted detailed descriptions and

schematic diagrams of its manufacturing

and wastewater treatment processes,

and analytical testing results for

representative samples of the petitioned

waste, including (1) the hazardous

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity; (2)

total constituent and Extraction

Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW–

846 Method 1330) analyses for the eight

toxicity characteristic metals listed in

section 261.24, plus antimony,

beryllium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent

chromium, nickel, tin, thallium,

vanadium, and zinc; (3) total constituent

and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP, SW–846 Method

1311) analyses for 163 volatile and

semi-volatile organic compounds; (4)

total constituent and TCLP analyses for

total sulfide, total cyanide, and

complexed cyanide; and (5) total

constituent analysis for oil and grease,

total organic carbon, and percent solids.

EPA evaluated the information and

analytical data provided by GM and

tentatively determined that GM had

successfully demonstrated that the

petitioned waste is not hazardous. See

the proposed exclusion (62 FR 19087;

April 18, 1997) for a detailed

explanation of EPA’s evaluation.

B. Response to Comments

EPA received public comment on the

April 18, 1997, proposal from one

interested party, the Ecology Center.

Comment: The commenter states that

due to the levels of metals and organic

compounds in the petitioned waste,

land disposal cannot be regarded as

long-term protection of human health

and the environment since the metals

will remain forever and all landfills will

eventually leak. The commenter cites a

General Accounting Office report and

stresses that serious problems, such as

groundwater contamination, are

encountered in a large number of ‘‘stateof-the-art’’ hazardous waste landfills.

Response: EPA has assumed that

disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the

most reasonable, worst-case disposal

scenario for GM’s WWTP sludge. The

impacts of this scenario were predicted

with EPA’s Composite Model for

Landfills (EPACML) which was

developed by EPA to predict the

transport of hazardous constituents

through soil and ground water from a

waste management unit to a receptor

well serving as a drinking-water source.

EPA stated in the final toxicity

characteristic (TC) rule that the

EPACML and the toxicity characteristic

leaching procedure (TCLP) would be

used for the delisting program in the

future (see 55 FR 11833; March 29,

1990). The method EPA uses to apply

the EPACML to delisting yields

conservative yet reasonable estimations

of contaminant fate and transport (56 FR

32993; July 18, 1991). One of the

assumptions EPA used in applying the

EPACML is that any liner beneath the

landfill would eventually fail. Another

assumption is that the landfill is an

infinite source of hazardous

constituents, whereas the levels of

constituents emanating from a landfill

may actually decrease over time. In

addition, the model ignores certain

attenuative mechanisms in the subsoils

that in reality would tend to reduce the

levels of constituents. Thus, EPA has

modeled the WWTP sludge under a

worst-case scenario of a ‘‘leaking’’

Subtitle D landfill and has determined

that the levels of inorganic and organic

constituents at a hypothetical drinking
55346 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

water well are below health-based levels

of concern.

Comment: The commenter states that

while GM’s WWTP sludge appears to

pass the TCLP procedure, Subtitle D

landfills generate unspecified quantities

of organic acids and compounds some

of which may lead to increased metal

solubilities due to complexation

reactions. The commenter concludes

that laboratory procedures cannot be

relied upon to represent real-world

conditions.

Response: While no laboratory test is

universally appropriate in all

circumstances, EPA does not agree with

the commenter that no laboratory

procedure can be relied upon to

represent ‘‘real-world’’ conditions. The

TCLP was designed, through extensive

research and field studies, to simulate

the leaching of both inorganic and

organic compounds under the acidic

conditions expected in actively

decomposing municipal landfills. The

specific environment modeled by the

TCLP is disposal of industrial waste

with municipal waste in a Subtitle D

landfill. EPA believes that this codisposal represents a reasonable worstcase management scenario. EPA also

believes that the extraction fluids

employed in the TCLP procedure are

more aggressive than the organic acids

generated from municipal wastes and

that the TCLP is reasonably accurate in

addressing the mobility of metals and

other constituents. See 51 FR 21653,

June 13, 1986, for further discussion of

the TCLP. EPA is not aware of any

factors that question the appropriateness

of the TCLP for GM’s petitioned waste.

Comment: The commenter states that

because of the metal content of the

WWTP sludge and other metal bearing

wastes generated by the automotive and

related industries, land disposal results

in a loss of valuable and non-renewable

resources. The commenter identifies

several commercially available metal

recovery technologies used by the metal

finishing industry and summarizes the

advantages of metal recovery over

conventional treatment and disposal.

The commenter recommends that GM

conduct an economic and technical

feasibility study using the methodology

of total cost accounting.

Response: One of the objectives of

RCRA is to conserve valuable material

and energy resources by minimizing the

generation of hazardous waste and the

land disposal of hazardous waste by

encouraging process substitution,

materials recovery, properly conducted

recycling and reuse, and treatment.

However, RCRA’s general objectives do

not supersede the specific hazardous

waste listing and delisting scheme

established under RCRA. Having fully

considered all of the relevant factors,

EPA has determined that GM’s

petitioned waste does not meet the

criteria for being considered a

hazardous waste. RCRA’s objective of

resource recovery does not require, and

indeed does not authorize, EPA to

forego or reverse this determination.

Similarly, the national policy under

the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)

establishes a hierarchy which prefers

pollution prevention at the source over

recycling and prefers recycling over

treatment and disposal in an

environmentally safe manner. EPA fully

supports this hierarchy and believes it

sets forth a desirable general order of

preferences for pollution control. Again,

however, this policy is not a statutory or

regulatory mandate. Nothing in the PPA

requires or even contemplates that EPA

must retain materials that EPA finds to

be non-hazardous on the lists of

hazardous wastes simply because there

exists an ability to perform resource

recovery on these materials.

EPA has no authority to retain GM’s

petitioned waste as a listed hazardous

waste simply because doing so would

effectively promote reclamation over

disposal. There is no question that

waste minimization and resource

recovery are desirable and are being

encouraged by the EPA. EPA remains

fully committed, in its waste programs

and elsewhere, to promoting pollution

prevention objectives. While EPA

cannot require GM to evaluate the

feasibility of metals recovery as the

commenter recommends, EPA does

encourage GM to consider the request.

C. Changes to Proposed Verification

Testing Conditions

In the proposed rulemaking, EPA

included delisting levels for 14

constituents that would be protective of

human health and the environment and

that the TCLP/OWEP extract of the

petitioned waste could not exceed.

However, the proposed levels of 180

mg/l for barium and 9 mg/l for

chromium are greater than the

hazardous waste toxicity characteristic

(TC) levels of 100.0 mg/l and 5.0 mg/l

respectively (see section 261.24).

Today’s rule lowers the proposed

delisting levels for barium and

chromium to levels below the TC levels

to ensure that the petitioned waste, even

though otherwise protective of human

health and the environment, remains

below the TC levels.

Paragraph 1 in Table 1 of Appendix

IX to part 261 now reads ‘‘1. Verification

Testing: GM must implement an annual

testing program to demonstrate, based

on the analysis of a minimum of four

representative samples, that the

constituent concentrations measured in

the TCLP (or OWEP, where appropriate)

extract of the waste are within specific

levels. The constituent concentrations

must not exceed the following levels

(mg/l) which are back-calculated from

the delisting health-based levels and a

DAF of 90: Arsenic—4.5; Cobalt—189.;

Copper—126.; Nickel—63.; Vanadium—

18.; Zinc—900.; 1,2-Dichloroethane—

0.45; Ethylbenzene—63.; 4-

Methylphenol—16.2; Naphthalene—90.;

Phenol—1800.; and Xylene—900. The

constituent concentrations must also be

less than the following levels (mg/l)

which are the toxicity characteristic

levels: Barium—100.0; and Chromium

(total)—5.0.’’

D. Final Agency Decision

For the reasons stated in both the

proposal and this rule, EPA’s

conclusion is that GM’s petitioned

waste may be excluded from hazardous

waste control. EPA, therefore, is

granting a final exclusion for the WWTP

sludge generated at a maximum rate of

1,500 tons per year (or 1,500 cubic yards

per year) at GM’s Orion Assembly

Center. This exclusion applies to the

waste described in the petition only if

the requirements described in Table 1 of

part 261 are satisfied.

Although management of the waste

covered by this exclusion is removed

from Subtitle C jurisdiction, this

exclusion applies only where this waste

is disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill

which is permitted, licensed, or

registered by a State to manage

municipal and/or industrial solid waste.

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

The final exclusion being granted

today is issued under the Federal

(RCRA) delisting program. States,

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

more stringent than EPA’s, pursuant to

section 3009 of RCRA. These more

stringent requirements may include a

provision which prohibits a Federallyissued exclusion from taking effect in

the State. Because a petitioner’s waste

may be regulated under a dual system

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

(non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are

urged to contact the State regulatory

authority to determine the current status

of their waste under State law.

Furthermore, some States are

authorized to administer a delisting

program in lieu of the Federal program

(i.e., to make their own delisting

decisions). Therefore, this exclusion

does not apply in those authorized

States.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55347

IV. Effective Date

This rule is effective October 24,

1997. The Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 amended section

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become

effective in less than six months when

the regulated community does not need

the six-month period to come into

compliance. That is the case here,

because this rule reduces the existing

requirements for persons generating

hazardous wastes. These reasons also

provide a basis for making this rule

effective immediately, upon

publication, under the Administrative

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

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must conduct an ‘‘assessment of the

potential costs and benefits’’ for all

‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions. The

effect of this rule is to reduce the overall

costs and economic impact of EPA’s

hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction is achieved

by excluding waste generated at a

specific facility from EPA’s lists of

hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this

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

represent a significant regulatory action

under the Executive Order, and no

assessment of costs and benefits is

necessary. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has also exempted

this rule from the requirement for OMB

review under section (6) of Executive

Order 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, whenever an

agency is required to publish a general

notice of rulemaking for any proposed

or final rule, it must prepare and make

available for public comment a

regulatory flexibility analysis that

describes the impact of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility

analysis is required, however, if the

Administrator or delegated

representative certifies that the rule will

not have any impact on any small

entities.

This rule will not have an adverse

economic impact on any small entities

since its effect would be to reduce the

overall costs of EPA’s hazardous waste

regulations. Accordingly, I hereby

certify that this regulation will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This regulation, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with

this final rule have been approved by

OMB under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L.

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

been assigned OMB Control Number

2050–0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

P.L. 104–4, which was signed into law

on March 22, 1995, EPA generally must

prepare a written statement for rules

with Federal mandates that may result

in estimated costs to State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. When such a

statement is required for EPA rules,

under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA

must identify and consider alternatives,

including the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

EPA must select that alternative, unless

the Administrator explains in the final

rule why it was not selected or it is

inconsistent with law. Before EPA

establishes regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must develop under

section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, giving them

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the regulatory

requirements. The UMRA generally

defines a Federal mandate for regulatory

purposes as one that imposes an

enforceable duty upon State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

EPA finds that today’s proposed

delisting decision is deregulatory in

nature and does not impose any

enforceable duty upon State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

In addition, today’s delisting decision

does not establish any regulatory

requirements for small governments and

so does not require a small government

agency plan under UMRA section 203.

IX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

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

6921(f).

Dated: October 6, 1997.

Norman R. Niedergang,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics

Division.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended

as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 261

continues to read as follows:

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

6922, and 6938.

2. Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261

is amended to add the following waste

stream in alphabetical order by facility

to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

General Motors Corporation ..................... Lake Orion, Michigan .................. Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge from the chemical

conversion coating (phosphate coating) of aluminum (EPA

Hazardous Waste No. F019) generated at a maximum annual

rate of 1,500 tons per year (or 1,500 cubic yards per year),

after October 24, 1997 and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill.
55348 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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

Facility Address Waste description

1. Verification Testing: GM must implement an annual testing

program to demonstrate, based on the analysis of a minimum

of four representative samples, that the constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP (or OWEP, where appropriate)

extract of the waste are within specific levels. The constituent

concentrations must not exceed the following levels (mg/l)

which are back-calculated from the delisting health-based levels and a DAF of 90: Arsenic—4.5; Cobalt—189; Copper—

126; Nickel—63; Vanadium—18; Zinc—900; 1,2-

Dichloroethane—0.45; Ethylbenzene—63; 4-Methylphenol—

16.2; Naphthalene—90; Phenol—1800; and Xylene—900. The

constituent concentrations must also be less than the following

levels (mg/l) which are the toxicity characteristic levels: Barium—100.0; and Chromium (total)—5.0.

2. Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM significantly changes

the manufacturing or treatment process or the chemicals used

in the manufacturing or treatment process, GM may handle

the WWTP filter press sludge generated from the new process

under this exclusion after the facility has demonstrated that the

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

new hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261

have been introduced.

3. Data Submittals: The data obtained through annual verification

testing or paragraph 2 must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region

5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604–3590, within 60

days of sampling. Records of operating conditions and analytical data must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on

site for a minimum of five years and must be made available

for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy

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

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–28274 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 24

[WT Docket No. 97–82; FCC 97–342]

Installment Payment Financing for

Personal Communications Services

(PCS) Licensees

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this Second Report and

Order the Commission orders

resumption of installment payments for

the broadband Personal

Communications Services (PCS) C and F

blocks, with the payment deadline

reinstated as of March 31, 1998. The

Commission adopts disaggregation,

amnesty, and prepayment options

designed to assist C block licensees

experiencing financial difficulties.

These options will allow C block

licensees to build systems or surrender

spectrum to the Commission for

reauction. The Commission’s objectives

in this proceeding are to ensure that the

C block licensees have opportunities to

provide service to the public while

maintaining the fairness and integrity of

the Commission’s auctions program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the

rule changes herein is December 23,

1997. The information collection

contained in these rules becomes

effective on OMB approval but no

sooner than December 23, 1997. The

Commission will publish a document

on a later date announcing the effective

date of the information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerome Fowlkes or Sandra Danner,

Auctions and Industry Analysis

Division, Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau, at (202) 418–0660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Second Report and Order in WT Docket

No. 97–82, adopted on September 25,

1997 and released on October 16, 1997,

is available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

The complete text may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857–3800.

The complete Second Report and Order

also is available on the Commission’s

Internet home page (http://

www.fcc.gov).

Summary of Action

I. Background

1. In the Competitive Bidding Fifth

Report and Order, the Commission

established a variety of incentives to

encourage small businesses to

participate in the auction of C block 30

MHz and F block 10 MHz broadband

PCS licenses. See Implementation of

Section 309(j) of the Communications

Act—Competitive Bidding, Fifth Report

and Order, 59 FR 37566 (July 22, 1994)

(Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and

Order). Provisions to promote

participation by small businesses in

broadband PCS included limiting

eligibility in the initial C and F block

auctions to entrepreneurs and small

businesses, offering varying bidding

credits, and offering installment

payment plans. The installment

payment plan for C block permitted

licensees that qualified as small

businesses to pay 90% of the bid price

over a period of ten years, with interest

only paid for the first six years and

interest and principal for the remaining

four. See 47 CFR § 24.711(b)(3). In

addition, there were other installment

payment options available for bidders