49252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Test, Aircraft Heaters, dated May 17, 2014, is 

applicable service information. 

(2) If the combustion heater fails the PDT, 

before further flight, do one of the corrective 

actions listed in paragraphs (k)(1) through 

(k)(3) of this AD. 

(k) Combustion Heater Overhaul/Disable/ 

Removal 

If the combustion heater fails the PDT 

required in paragraph (j) of this AD, before 

further flight, do one of the actions in 

paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(3), including all 

subparagraphs of this AD: 

(1) Overhaul the heater and all exterior 

supporting components. No repairs to the 

combustion tube are allowed. Replace any 

defective combustion tube with an FAAapproved airworthy combustion tube. 

Follow, as applicable, Stewart-Warner South 

Wind Corporation South Wind Service 

Manual for Stewart Warner South Wind 

Aircraft Heaters 8240–A, 8240–C, 8259–A, 

8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259–FL1, 8259–GL1, 

8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998, revised: 

December 1969; South Wind Division 

Stewart-Warner Corporation Beech Aircraft 

Corporation Service Manual PM–20688, Part 

No. 404–001039 Heater Assy. (SW 8253–B), 

revised: April 1965; or South Wind Division 

Stewart-Warner Corporation Service Manual 

South Wind Aircraft Heater 8472 Series, 

Form No. 09–1015, issued: April 1975. 

Note 3 to paragraph (k)(1) of this AD: The 

Model 8248 combustion heater is part of the 

8240 series of combustion heaters. The 

Stewart-Warner South Wind Corporation 

South Wind Service Manual for Stewart 

Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240–A, 

8240–C, 8259–A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259– 

FL1, 8259–GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998, 

revised: December 1969, is applicable service 

information. 

(2) Disable the heater by the following 

actions: 

(i) Disconnect and cap the heater fuel 

supply; 

(ii) Disconnect circuit breakers; 

(iii) Tag the main switch ‘‘Heater 

Inoperable’’; and 

(iv) The ventilation blower can stay 

functional. 

(3) Remove the heater by the following 

actions: 

(i) Disconnect and cap the heater fuel 

supply; 

(ii) Disconnect/remove circuit breakers; 

(iii) Remove exhaust pipe extension; 

(iv) Cap the exhaust opening; 

(v) Remove the heater; and 

(vi) Do weight and balance for the aircraft. 

(l) Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for any 

inspection required in paragraph (g) of this 

AD and any overhaul required in paragraph 

(k)(1) of this AD based on any inspection of 

this AD if already done before the effective 

date of this AD following, as applicable, 

Stewart-Warner South Wind Corporation 

South Wind Service Manual for Stewart 

Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240–A, 

8240–C, 8259–A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259– 

FL1, 8259–GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998, 

revised: December 1969; South Wind 

Division Stewart-Warner Corporation Beech 

Aircraft Corporation Service Manual PM– 

20688, Part No. 404–001039 Heater Assy. 

(SW 8253–B), revised: April 1965; or South 

Wind Division Stewart-Warner Corporation 

Service Manual South Wind Aircraft Heater 

8472 Series, Form No. 09–1015, issued: April 

1975. 

Note 4 to paragraph (l)(1) of this AD: The 

Model 8248 combustion heater is part of the 

8240 series of combustion heaters. The 

Stewart-Warner South Wind Corporation 

South Wind Service Manual for Stewart 

Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240–A, 

8240–C, 8259–A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259– 

FL1, 8259–GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998, 

revised: December 1969, is applicable service 

information. 

(2) Repair of the combustion tube is 

prohibited, and this AD does not allow credit 

for any combustion tube repair. 

(m) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits are permitted in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.23 with the 

following limitation: Use of the heater is not 

allowed. 

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) AMOCs approved for AD 81–09–09 (46 

FR 24936, May 4, 1981) are approved as 

AMOCs for this AD. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Chung-Der Young, Aerospace 

Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification 

Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 

60018–4696; telephone (847) 294–7309; fax 

(847) 294–7834 email: chungder.young@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Meggitt Control Systems, 3 

Industrial Drive, Troy, Indiana 47588; 

telephone: (812) 547–7071; fax: (812) 547– 

2488; email: infotroy@meggitt.com; Internet: 

www.stewart-warner.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

13, 2014. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19729 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452; FRL–9915– 

45–Region 7] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA, also, ‘‘the Agency’’ or 

‘‘we’’) is proposing to grant a petition 

submitted by the John Deere Des Moines 

Works (John Deere) of Deere & 

Company, in Ankeny, Iowa to exclude 

or ‘‘delist’’ up to 600 tons per calendar 

year of F006/F019 wastewater treatment 

sludge filter cake generated by John 

Deere’s wastewater treatment system 

from the list of hazardous wastes. 

The Agency has tentatively decided to 

grant the petition based on an 

evaluation of waste-specific information 

provided by John Deere. This proposed 

decision, if finalized, would 

conditionally exclude the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

This exclusion would be valid only 

when the wastewater treatment sludge 

filter cake is disposed of in a Subtitle D 

landfill which is permitted, licensed, or 

otherwise authorized by a State to 

manage industrial solid waste. 

If finalized, EPA would conclude that 

John Deere’s petitioned waste is 

nonhazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria and that there are 

no other current factors which would 

cause the waste to be hazardous. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 19, 2014. EPA will 

stamp comments received after the close 

of the comment period as late. These 

late comments may not be considered in 

formulating a final decision. Any person 

may request a hearing on the proposed 

decision by filing a request to EPA by 

September 4, 2014. The request must 

contain the information prescribed in 40 

CFR 260.20(d). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49253 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

RCRA–2014–0452 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: herstowski.ken@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (913) 551–7631, to the 

attention of Ken Herstowski. 

4. Mail: Ken Herstowski, Air and 

Waste Management Division, Waste 

Remediation and Permits Branch, U.S. 

EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa KS 66219. 

5. Hand Delivery: Ken Herstowski, Air 

and Waste Management Division, Waste 

Remediation and Permits Branch, U.S. 

EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, KS 66219. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. Please contact Ken 

Herstowski at (913) 551–7631. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2014– 

0452. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as 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 or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 7 offices at 11201 

Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219 by 

appointment only during normal hours 

of operation. Appointments must be 

made in advance to view hard copy 

docket materials by contacting Ken 

Herstowski at (913) 551–7631 or by 

email at herstowski.ken@epa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

Herstowski, Air and Waste Management 

Division, Waste Remediation and 

Permits Branch, U.S. EPA Region 7, 

11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 

66219; telephone number: (913) 551– 

7631; fax number (913) 551–7631; email 

address: herstowski.ken@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this 

delisting? 

C. How will John Deere manage the waste, 

if it is delisted? 

D. When would the proposed delisting 

exclusion be finalized? 

II. Background 

A. What is a listed waste? 

B. What is a delisting petition? 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did John Deere petition EPA 

to delist? 

B. How does John Deere generate the 

waste? 

C. How did John Deere sample and analyze 

the petitioned waste? 

D. What were the results of John Deere’s 

analysis of the waste? 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What did EPA conclude about John 

Deere’s waste? 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. When would EPA finalize the proposed 

delisting exclusion? 

B. How will John Deere manage the waste 

if it is delisted? 

C. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

D. What happens if John Deere violates the 

terms and conditions of the exclusion? 

V. How would this action affect the states? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

Title 40 CFR 260.20 allows any 

person to petition the Administrator to 

modify or revoke any provision of parts 

260 through 266, 268 and 273. Section 

260.22(a) specifically provides 

generators the opportunity to petition 

the Administrator to exclude a waste on 

a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis from the 

hazardous waste lists. 

The Agency bases its proposed 

decision to grant a petition on an 

evaluation of waste-specific information 

provided by the petitioner. This 

proposed decision, if finalized, would 

conditionally exclude the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

If finalized, we would conclude the 

petitioned waste from this facility is 

non-hazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria and that the 

waste process used will substantially 

reduce the likelihood of migration of 

hazardous constituents from this waste. 

We would also conclude that the 

processes minimize short-term and 

long-term threats from the petitioned 

waste to human health and the 

environment. The EPA is proposing to 

grant a petition submitted by John Deere 

Des Moines Works of Deere and 

Company (John Deere) located in 

Ankeny, Iowa, to exclude or delist an 

annual volume of 600 tons per year of 

F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge 

filter cake from the lists of hazardous 

waste set forth in title 40 CFR 261.31, 

Hazardous wastes from non-specific 

sources. John Deere claims that the 

petitioned waste does not meet the 

criteria for which EPA listed it, and that 

there are no additional constituents or 

factors which could cause the waste to 

be hazardous. 

Based on the EPA’s evaluation 

described in section III, in which we 

reviewed the description of the process 

which generates the waste and the 

analytical data submitted by John Deere, 

we agree with the petitioner that the 

waste is nonhazardous. We believe that 

the petitioned waste does not meet the 

criteria for which the waste was listed, 

and that there are no other factors which 

might cause the waste to be hazardous. 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing: (1) To grant John 

Deere’s delisting petition to have its 

WWTP sludge excluded, or delisted, 

from the definition of a hazardous 

waste; and subject to certain verification 

and monitoring conditions. (2) To use 

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) to evaluate the potential impact 

of the petitioned waste on human health 

and the environment. The Agency used 

this model to predict the concentration 

of hazardous constituents released from 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the petitioned waste, once it is 

disposed. 

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this 

delisting? 

John Deere’s petition requests an 

exclusion from the F006 waste listing 

pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. 

John Deere does not believe that the 

petitioned waste meets the criteria for 

which EPA listed it. John Deere also 

believes no additional constituents or 

factors could cause the waste to be 

hazardous. EPA’s review of this petition 

included consideration of the original 

listing criteria and the additional factors 

required by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)–(4) 

(hereinafter all sectional references are 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 

In making the initial delisting 

determination, EPA evaluated the 

petitioned waste against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this 

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is non-hazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition. EPA 

evaluated the waste with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the waste is 

acutely toxic, the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste, their tendency 

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 

persistence in the environment once 

released from the waste, plausible and 

specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 

generated, and waste variability. EPA 

believes that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s 

proposed decision to delist waste from 

John Deere is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical data from the John Deere, 

Ankeny, IA facility. 

C. How will John Deere manage the 

waste, if it is delisted? 

If the sludge is delisted, the WWTP 

sludge from John Deere will be disposed 

at a RCRA Subtitle D landfill permitted 

by the Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources. 

D. When would the proposed delisting 

exclusion be finalized? 

RCRA section 3001(f) specifically 

requires EPA to provide a notice and an 

opportunity for comment before 

granting or denying a final exclusion. 

Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion 

until it addresses all timely public 

comments (including those at public 

hearings, if any) on this proposal. 

RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 

U.S.C.A. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to 

become effective in less than six months 

when the regulated facility does not 

need the six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here, 

because this rule, if finalized, would 

reduce the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

EPA believes that this exclusion 

should be effective immediately upon 

final publication because a six-month 

deadline is not necessary to achieve the 

purpose of section 3010(b), and a later 

effective date would impose 

unnecessary hardship and expense on 

this petitioner. These reasons also 

provide good cause for making this rule 

effective immediately, upon final 

publication, under the Administrative 

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

II. Background 

A. What is a listed waste? 

The EPA published an amended list 

of hazardous wastes from nonspecific 

and specific sources on January 16, 

1981, as part of its final and interim 

final regulations implementing section 

3001 of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has 

amended this list several times and 

publishes it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 

261.32. 

We list these wastes as hazardous 

because: (1) They typically and 

frequently exhibit one or more of the 

characteristics of hazardous wastes 

identified in subpart C of part 261 (that 

is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, 

and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria 

for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or 

(3). 

B. What is a delisting petition? 

Individual waste streams may vary 

depending on raw materials, industrial 

processes, and other factors. Thus, 

while a waste described in the 

regulations generally is hazardous, a 

specific waste from an individual 

facility meeting the listing description 

may not be. 

The procedure to exclude or delist a 

waste in 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 

allows a person, or a facility, to submit 

a petition to the EPA or to an authorized 

state demonstrating that a specific waste 

from a particular generating facility is 

not hazardous. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that a waste does not meet 

any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 

CFR 261.11 and that the waste does not 

exhibit any of the hazardous waste 

characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, 

corrosivity, or toxicity. The petitioner 

must present sufficient information for 

the Agency to decide whether any 

factors in addition to those for which 

the waste was listed warrant retaining it 

as a hazardous waste. (See § 260.22, 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background 

documents for the listed wastes.) 

If a delisting petition is granted, the 

generator remains obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that the waste remains 

nonhazardous. 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

In reviewing this petition, we 

considered the original listing criteria 

and the additional factors required by 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), 

and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). We 

evaluated the petitioned waste against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). 

Besides considering the criteria in 40 

CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background 

documents for the listed wastes, EPA 

must consider any factors (including 

additional constituents), other than 

those for which we listed the waste, if 

these additional factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

Our tentative decision to delist waste 

from John Deere’s facility is based on 

our evaluation of the waste for factors or 

criteria which could cause the waste to 

be hazardous. These factors included: 

(1) Whether the waste is considered 

acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the 

constituents; (3) the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste; (4) the 

tendency of the constituents to migrate 

and to bioaccumulate; (5) the 

persistence in the environment of any 

constituents once released from the 

waste; (6) plausible and specific types of 

management of the petitioned waste; (7) 

the quantity of waste produced; and (8) 

waste variability. 

EPA must also consider as hazardous 

wastes, mixtures containing listed 

hazardous wastes and wastes derived 

from treating, storing, or disposing of 

listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 

261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the 

‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules, 

respectively. Mixture and derived-from 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49255 

wastes are also eligible for exclusion but 

remain hazardous until excluded. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did John Deere petition 

EPA to delist? 

On January 28, 2014, John Deere 

(through its consultant) petitioned EPA 

to exclude from the list of hazardous 

wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31, 

F006/F019 Waste Water Treatment 

Sludge Filter Cake (Filter Cake) from 

dewatering sludge generated by the 

plant wastewater treatment facility from 

the John Deere facility located in 

Ankeny, Iowa. The filter cake is subject 

to two waste listings as it is the result 

of treating a mixture of wastewater from 

different manufacturing processes. F006 

is defined in § 261.31 as ‘‘Wastewater 

treatment sludges from electroplating 

operations . . .’’ F019 is defined in 

§ 261.31 as ‘‘Wastewater treatment 

sludges from the chemical conversion 

coating of aluminum . . .’’ John Deere 

claims that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the criteria for which F006 was 

listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent 

chromium, nickel, cyanide (complexed)) 

or for which F019 was listed (i.e., 

hexavalent chromium, cyanide 

(complexed)) and that there are no other 

factors which would cause the waste to 

be hazardous. Specifically, the petition 

request is for a standard exclusion for 

600 tons per calendar year of Filter 

Cake. 

B. How does John Deere generate the 

waste? 

The Filter Cake John Deere generates 

is from the plant wastewater treatment 

facility. Wastewater is generated from a 

variety of manufacturing activities at the 

facility. Approximately 106,000 gallons 

per day of [total] wastewater is 

conveyed to the wastewater treatment 

facility. The wastewater is a 

combination of wastewater from 

washing/cleaning, plating and coating 

metal parts manufactured and/or used 

in the assembly of agricultural 

equipment at the facility. Those 

processes that account for highest 

wastewater generation include: chrome 

electroplating (15,000 gallons per day or 

15,000 gpd) the source of the 

wastewater for the F006 listing, E-Coat 

system (54,000 gpd) the source of the 

F019 listing, heat treat (10,000 gpd), and 

Department 20C Wash Line (16,000 

gpd). The wastewater from chrome 

electroplating is pre-treated to reduce 

hexavalent chromium to trivalent 

chromium before it is transferred to 

John Deere’s wastewater treatment 

facility generating the Filter Cake. All 

wastewater generated onsite is 

transferred to the wastewater treatment 

facility where it is treated to remove 

dirt, oil, grease, metals and other 

constituents before it is discharged 

under a ‘‘Water Contribution Permit’’ 

(Permit Number A10138 issued by the 

[City of Des Moines] Waste Water 

Regulation Authority) via sewers to a 

publicly owned treatment works 

operated by the City of Des Moines. 

C. How did John Deere sample and 

analyze the petitioned waste? 

To support its petition, John Deere 

submitted: (1) Facility information on 

production processes and waste 

generation processes; (2) initial Filter 

Cake composite sample analytical 

results to determine constituents of 

concern (COC); and (3) Analytical 

results from six composite samples of 

Filter Cake for the COC. The initial 

sample was analyzed for EPA’s list of 

hazardous constituents in 40 CFR part 

261, appendix VIII, pesticides, PCBs. 

The COC selected from the initial 

composite sample results are barium, 

chromium, hexavalent chromium, 

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, 

vanadium, zinc, cyanide, acetone and 

methyl ethyl ketone. Both total and 

leachable concentrations of the COC in 

the Filter Cake were determined. 

John Deere generated the sampling 

data used in the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS) under a 

Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (June 2012 Revision). EPA 

believes that the sampling procedures 

used by John Deere satisfy EPA’s criteria 

for collecting representative samples of 

the F006/F019 waste. 

D. What were the results of John Deere’s 

analysis of the waste? 

EPA believes that John Deere’s 

analytical characterization provides a 

reasonable basis to grant John Deere’s 

petition for an exclusion of the 

[wastewater treatment sludge] Filter 

Cake. Furthermore, EPA believes the 

data submitted in support of the petition 

show that the sludge is non-hazardous. 

Analytical data for the wastewater 

treatment sludge samples were used in 

the DRAS to develop delisting levels. 

The data for the total concentration of 

COC in the Filter Cake are as follows: 

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) 

Barium—643; Copper—959; 

Chromium—15,000; Hexavalent 

Chromium—13.6; Cyanide—1.92; 

Lead—291; Mercury—0.635; Nickel— 

1,010; Vanadium—253; Zinc—3,390; 

Acetone—9.13; and Methyl Ethyl 

Ketone—0.191. The data for the leachate 

concentration of COC in the Filter Cake 

are as follows: milligrams per liter (mg/ 

l) Barium—.0272; Copper—0.442; 

Chromium—0.826; Cyanide—<0.01; 

Lead—<0.05; Mercury—0.000702; 

Nickel—0.744; Vanadium—0.0164; 

Zinc—0.403; Acetone—0.001; and 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone—0.001. Note that 

the above levels represent the highest 

COC concentration result reported. If 

the result was reported as ‘‘non-detect’’ 

(shown above by a ‘‘<’’) the detection 

limit was used in the analysis. 

Hexavalent chromium was analyzed 

with DRAS at milligrams per liter (mg/ 

l) 0.0826 (one tenth of the chromium 

leachate value). 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

For this delisting determination, we 

assumed that the waste would be 

disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we 

considered transport of waste 

constituents through groundwater, 

surface water and air. We evaluated 

John Deere’s petitioned waste using the 

Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 

58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR 

75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR 

28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the 

maximum allowable concentrations of 

hazardous constituents that may be 

released from the petitioned waste after 

disposal and determined the potential 

impact of the disposal of John Deere’s 

petitioned waste on human health and 

the environment. To predict the 

potential for release to groundwater 

from landfilled wastes and subsequent 

routes of exposure to a receptor, the 

DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors 

derived from EPA’s Composite Model 

for Leachate Migration and 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP). 

From a release to groundwater, the 

DRAS considers routes of exposure to a 

human receptor of ingestion of 

contaminated groundwater, inhalation 

from groundwater while showering and 

dermal contact from groundwater while 

bathing. 

From a release to surface water by 

erosion of waste from an open landfill 

into stormwater run-off, DRAS evaluates 

the exposure to a human receptor by 

fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking 

water. From a release of waste particles 

and volatile emissions to air from the 

surface of an open landfill, DRAS 

considers routes of exposure of 

inhalation of volatile constituents, 

inhalation of particles, and air 

deposition of particles on residential 

soil and subsequent ingestion of the 

contaminated soil by a child. The 

technical support document and the 

user’s guide to DRAS are included in 

the docket. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

At a benchmark cancer risk of one in 

one hundred thousand (1 × 10¥5) and a 

benchmark hazard quotient of 1.0, the 

DRAS program determined maximum 

allowable concentrations for each 

constituent in both the waste and the 

leachate at an annual waste volume of 

1000 cubic yards disposed in a landfill 

for 20 years after which time the landfill 

is closed. We used the maximum 

reported total and TCLP leachate 

concentrations as inputs to estimate the 

constituent concentrations in the 

groundwater, soil, surface water and air. 

F. What did EPA conclude about John 

Deere’s waste? 

The maximum reported 

concentrations of the hazardous 

constituents found in this waste are 

presented above in section D. The 

maximum allowable total COC 

concentrations in the Filter Cake as 

determined by the DRAS are as follows: 

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) 

Barium—2.85 × 107; Copper—5.34 × 

106; Chromium (III)—4.56 × 1010; 

Hexavalent Chromium—1.36 × 104; 

Cyanide—2.99 × 106; Lead—1.09 × 107; 

Mercury—1.86 × 101; Nickel—4.76 × 

106; Vanadium—1.52 × 108; Zinc—1.38 

× 107; Acetone—3.63 × 108; and Methyl 

Ethyl Ketone—1.45 × 109. The 

maximum allowable leachate COC 

concentrations in the Filter Cake as 

determined by the DRAS are as follows: 

milligrams per liter (mg/l) Copper—1.78 

× 102; Hexavalent Chromium—1.38 × 

101; Cyanide—2.27 × 101; Lead—4.18; 

Nickel—9.78 × 101; Vanadium—2.47 × 

101; Zinc—1.48 × 103; Acetone—3.84 × 

103; and. The maximum allowable 

leachate COC concentrations in the 

Filter Cake as determined by TCLP are 

as follows: milligrams per liter (mg/l) 

Barium—100; Chromium (total)—5; 

Mercury—2 × 10¥1; and Methyl Ethyl 

Ketone—200. The concentrations of all 

constituents in both the waste and the 

leachate are below the allowable 

concentrations. We conclude that John 

Deere’s Filter Cake is not a substantial 

or potential hazard to human health and 

the environment when disposed of in a 

Subtitle D landfill. 

We propose to grant an exclusion for 

the Filter Cake. If this exclusion is 

finalized, John Deere must dispose of 

the Filter Cake in a Subtitle D landfill 

permitted, licensed or otherwise 

authorized by a state RCRA solid waste 

permit program, and will remain 

obligated to verify that the waste meets 

the allowable concentrations set forth 

here. John Deere must also continue to 

determine whether the Filter Cake is 

identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part 

261. 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. When would EPA finalize the 

proposed delisting exclusion? 

HSWA specifically requires the EPA 

to provide notice and an opportunity for 

comment before granting or denying a 

final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not 

make a final decision or grant an 

exclusion until it has addressed all 

timely public comments on today’s 

proposal, including any at public 

hearings. 

Since this rule would reduce the 

existing requirements for persons 

generating hazardous wastes, the 

regulated community does not need a 

six-month period to come into 

compliance in accordance with section 

3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA 

therefore a final rule granting John 

Deere’s petition is proposed to be 

effective immediately upon publication 

in the Federal Register. Similarly, since 

John Deere is already required to 

comply with RCRA Subtitle C for the 

management of the petitioned waste, a 

final rule denying the petition would be 

effective immediately upon publication 

in the Federal Register as the petitioned 

waste would remain status quo—a 

hazardous waste. 

B. How will John Deere manage the 

waste if it is delisted? 

If the petitioned waste is delisted, 

John Deere must dispose of it in a 

subtitle D landfill which is permitted, 

licensed, or otherwise authorized by a 

state to manage industrial waste. 

C. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

The petitioner, John Deere, must 

comply with the conditions which will 

be in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, 

table 1. The text below gives the 

rationale and details of those 

requirements. 

(1) Delisting Levels: This paragraph 

provides the levels of constituents for 

which John Deere must test the WWTP 

sludge, below which these wastes 

would be considered non-hazardous. 

EPA selected the set of constituents and 

levels specified in paragraph (1) of 40 

CFR part 261, appendix IX, table 1, (the 

exclusion language) based on 

information in the petition, information 

from DRAS and variability of the WWTP 

sludge composition. The proposed 

levels EPA compiled the constituents 

list from the composition of the waste, 

descriptions of John Deere’s treatment 

process, previous test data provided for 

the waste, and the respective healthbased levels used in delisting decisionmaking. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: The 

purpose of this paragraph is to ensure 

that John Deere manages and disposes of 

any Filter Cake that contains hazardous 

levels of inorganic and organic 

constituents according to Subtitle C of 

RCRA. Managing the Filter Cake as a 

hazardous waste until initial 

verification testing is performed will 

protect against improper handling of 

hazardous material. Unless and until 

EPA concurs that the initial verification 

data collected under paragraph (3) 

supports the data provided in the 

petition, the exclusion will not cover 

the petitioned waste. The exclusion is 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register but the disposal as 

non-hazardous waste cannot begin until 

two quarters of verification sampling is 

completed and an approval is obtained 

from EPA. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: 

John Deere must implement a 

verification testing program on the Filter 

Cake to assure that the sludge does not 

exceed the maximum levels specified in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. 

The first part of the verification testing 

program is the quarterly testing of 

representative samples of the Filter Cake 

during the first year of waste generation 

(two quarters prior to obtaining written 

EPA approval and two additional 

quarters). The proposed testing would 

verify that John Deere operates a 

treatment facility where the constituent 

concentrations of the Filter Cake do not 

exhibit unacceptable temporal and 

spatial levels of toxic constituents. John 

Deere would begin quarterly sampling 

30 days after the final exclusion as 

described in paragraph (3)(A) of the 

exclusion language. Consequently this 

program will ensure that the sludge is 

evaluated in terms of variation in 

constituent concentrations in the Filter 

Cake over time. Following two 

consecutive quarters of sampling where 

the levels of constituents do not exceed 

the levels in paragraph (1), John Deere 

can then manage and dispose of the 

Filter Cake as non-hazardous in 

accordance with all applicable solid 

waste regulations following EPA 

approval. If EPA determines that the 

data collected under this paragraph does 

not support the data provided in the 

petition, the exclusion will not cover 

the generated Filter Cake. John Deere 

must then prove through a new 

demonstration that its Filter Cake meets 

the conditions of the exclusion. 

The second part of the verification 

testing program is the annual testing of 

representative samples of the Filter 

Cake, per paragraph (3)(B) of the 

exclusion language. To confirm that the 

characteristics of the waste do not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49257 

change significantly over time, John 

Deere must continue to analyze a 

representative sample of the Filter Cake 

on an annual basis. Annual testing 

requires analyzing the full list of 

constituents in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. If operating 

conditions change as described in 

paragraph (4) of the exclusion language, 

John Deere must reinstate all testing in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. 

John Deere must then prove through a 

new demonstration that its Filter Cake 

meets the conditions of the exclusion. If 

the annual testing of the Filter Cake 

does not meet the delisting 

requirements in paragraph (1), John 

Deere must notify EPA according to the 

requirements in paragraph (6) of the 

exclusion language. The facility must 

provide sampling results that support 

the rationale that the delisting exclusion 

should not be withdrawn. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: 

Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language 

would allow John Deere the flexibility 

of modifying its processes (for example, 

changes in equipment or operating 

conditions). However, if significant 

changes to the manufacturing or 

treatment process described in the 

petition, or the chemicals used in the 

manufacturing or treatment process are 

made, then John Deere must prove the 

that the modified process(es)/chemicals 

will not affect the composition or type 

of Filter Cake generated and must 

request approval from EPA. EPA will 

determine if these changes will result in 

additional COCs. John Deere must 

manage Filter Cake generated during the 

new process demonstration as 

hazardous waste until it has obtained 

written approval from EPA and 

paragraph (3) of the exclusion language 

is satisfied. 

If the proposed exclusion is made 

final, it will apply only to a maximum 

of 600 tons per calendar year of Filter 

Cake generated at John Deere after 

successful verification testing. EPA 

would require John Deere to file a new 

delisting petition if it generates waste 

volumes greater than 600 tons per 

calendar year of Filter Cake. John Deere 

must manage these greater volumes as 

hazardous waste unless and until EPA 

grants a new exclusion. 

EPA may review and approve changes 

in writing or alternatively may require 

John Deere to file a new delisting 

petition under any of the following 

circumstances: 

(a) If it significantly alters the 

wastewater treatment process; 

(b) If it significantly changes from the 

current manufacturing process(es) 

described in the John Deere petition; or 

(c) If it makes any changes that could 

affect the composition or type of waste 

generated such that the changes would 

cause any of the constituents in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language 

to potentially be above the delisting 

levels or would introduce any new 

constituents into the waste. 

(5) Data Submittals and 

Recordkeeping: To provide appropriate 

documentation that John Deere’s Filter 

Cake is meeting the delisting levels, 

John Deere must submit reports to EPA 

as specified in the conditions, and must 

compile, summarize, and keep delisting 

records on-site for a minimum of five 

years. It must keep all analytical data 

obtained through paragraph (3) of the 

exclusion language including quality 

control information for five years. 

Paragraph (5) of the exclusion language 

requires that John Deere furnish the data 

upon request for inspection by any 

employee or representative of EPA or 

the State of Iowa. 

(6) Reopener: The purpose of 

paragraph (6) of the exclusion language 

is to require John Deere to disclose new 

or different information related to a 

condition at the facility or disposal of 

the Filter Cake, if it is pertinent to the 

delisting. This provision will allow EPA 

to reevaluate the exclusion, if a source 

provides new or additional information 

to EPA. EPA will evaluate the 

information on which EPA based the 

decision to see if it is still correct, or if 

circumstances have changed so that the 

information is no longer correct or 

would cause EPA to deny the petition, 

if presented. 

This provision expressly requires 

John Deere to report differing site 

conditions or assumptions used in the 

petition in addition to failure to meet 

the annual testing conditions within 10 

days of discovery. If EPA discovers such 

information itself or from a third party, 

it can act on it as appropriate. The 

language being proposed is similar to 

those provisions found in RCRA 

regulations governing no-migration 

petitions at § 268.6. 

It is EPA’s position that it has the 

authority under RCRA and the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to reopen a 

delisting decision when it receives new 

information that calls into question the 

assumptions underlying the delisting. 

EPA believes a clear statement of its 

authority in delisting is merited in light 

of EPA’s experience. See the Federal 

Register notices regarding Reynolds 

Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July 

14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December 

1, 1997) where the delisted waste 

leached at greater concentrations into 

the environment than the 

concentrations predicted when 

conducting the TCLP, leading EPA to 

repeal the delisting. If an immediate 

threat to human health and the 

environment presents itself, EPA will 

continue to address these situations on 

a case-by-case basis. Where necessary, 

EPA will make a good cause finding to 

justify emergency rulemaking. See APA 

section 553(b). 

(7) Notification Requirements: In 

order to adequately track wastes that 

have been delisted, EPA is requiring 

that John Deere provide a one-time 

written notification to any state 

regulatory agency through which or to 

which the delisted waste is being 

transported. John Deere must provide 

this notification 60 days before 

commencing this activity. In addition to 

providing this notification, John Deere 

is advised to verify with each state the 

status of EPA’s delisting decision under 

state law (see the discussion in Section 

V. for specifics). 

D. What happens if John Deere violates 

the terms and conditions of the 

exclusion? 

If John Deere violates the terms and 

conditions established in the exclusion, 

the Filter Cake would not be exempt 

from subtitle C since this is a 

conditional exclusion, and thus the 

Filter Cake would be subject to 

hazardous waste management 

requirements. EPA also could then 

initiate procedures to withdraw the 

exclusion. Where there is an immediate 

threat to human health and the 

environment, EPA will evaluate the 

need for enforcement activities on a 

case-by-case basis. EPA expects John 

Deere to conduct the appropriate waste 

analysis and comply with the criteria 

explained above in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion. 

V. How would this action affect the 

states? 

EPA is issuing this exclusion under 

the Federal RCRA delisting program. 

Thus, upon the exclusion being 

finalized, the wastes covered will be 

removed from subtitle C control under 

the Federal RCRA program. This will 

mean, first, that the wastes will be 

delisted in any State or territory where 

the EPA is directly administering the 

RCRA program (e.g., Iowa, Indian 

Country). Thus, the delisting would be 

valid in Iowa on the effective date of a 

final rule delisting the petitioned waste. 

However, whether the wastes will be 

delisted in other States which have been 

authorized to administer the RCRA 

program will vary depending upon the 

authorization status of the States and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the particular requirements regarding 

delisted wastes in the various States. 

Some generally authorized States 

have not received authorization for 

delisting. Thus, the EPA makes delisting 

determinations for such States. 

However, RCRA allows states to impose 

their own regulatory requirements that 

are more stringent than EPA’s, under 

section 3009 of RCRA. These more 

stringent requirements may include a 

provision that prohibits a Federally 

issued exclusion from taking effect in 

the state, or that requires a State 

concurrence before the Federal 

exclusion takes effect, or that allows the 

State to add conditions to any Federal 

exclusion. The petitioner must contact 

the state regulatory authority in each 

State to or through which it may wish 

to ship its wastes to establish the status 

of its wastes under the state’s laws and 

regulations affecting transport and 

disposal of the petitioned waste. 

EPA has also authorized some states 

to administer a delisting program in 

place of the Federal program, that is, to 

make state delisting decisions. In such 

states, the state delisting requirements 

operate in lieu of the Federal delisting 

requirements. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

states unless the state makes the rule 

part of its authorized program. If John 

Deere transports the Federally excluded 

waste to or manages the waste in any 

state with delisting authorization, John 

Deere must obtain a delisting 

authorization from that state before it 

can manage the waste as non-hazardous 

in that state. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

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

not of general applicability and 

therefore, is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’, 

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

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Similarly, because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this proposed 

rule does not have tribal implications, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used DRAS, which considers health and 

safety risks to children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report which includes a 

copy of the rule to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

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

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Executive Order (EO) 

12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The Agency’s risk 

assessment did not identify risks from 

management of this material in a 

Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA 

believes that any populations in 

proximity of the landfills used by this 

facility should not be adversely affected 

by common waste management 

practices for this delisted waste. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f). 

Dated: August 7, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 261 as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 

261 add the following waste stream in 

alphabetical order by facility to read as 

follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49259 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

John Deere Des 

Moines Works 

of Deere & 

Company.

Ankeny, IA ........ Wastewater Treatment Sludge Filter Cake (WWTS Filter Cake) (Hazardous Waste No. F006/F019) generated from combined onsite wastewater treatment at the Ankeny, IA, facility wastewater treatment plant 

at a maximum annual rate of 600 tons per calendar year and disposed of in a Subtitle D Landfill which 

is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted WWTS Filter Cake. 

John Deere must implement a testing program that meets the following conditions for the exclusion to be 

valid: 

1. Delisting Levels: (A) The WWTS Filter Cake shall not exhibit any of the ‘‘Characteristics of Hazardous 

Waste in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C. (B) All TCLP leachable concentrations (40 CFR 261.24(a)) for the following constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/L for TCLP): Arsenic—5.0; Barium—100.0; 

Cadmium—1.0; Chromium—5.0; Lead—5.0; Mercury 0.2; and, Nickel—32.4. (C) EPA SW–846 Method 

1313 Extraction at pH 2.88, 7 and 13 concentration of Chromium (hexavalent) must not exceed (mg/l) 

0.087. (D) All total concentrations for the following constituents must not exceed the following levels 

(mg/kg): Antimony—103; Arsenic—52; Barium—965; Beryllium—21; Cadmium—10; Chromium (total)— 

22,500; Cobalt—11; Copper—1439; Lead—437; Nickel—1,515; Selenium—52; Silver—26; Thallium—52; 

Tin—68; Vanadium—380; Zinc—5,085; Mercury—1; Chromium (hexavalent)—20; Cyanide—3, Oil and 

Grease—32,250; Acetone—8; Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)—0.3. 

2. Waste Handling and Holding: (A) John Deere must manage as hazardous all WWTS Filter Cake generated until it has completed initial verification testing described in paragraph (3)(A) and valid analyses 

show that paragraph (1) is satisfied and written approval is received from EPA. (B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the WWTS Filter Cake that do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) for two consecutive quarterly sampling events are non-hazardous. After approval is received 

from EPA, John Deere can manage and dispose of the non-hazardous WWTS Filter Cake according to 

all applicable solid waste regulations. (C) Not withstanding having received the initial approval from EPA, 

if constituent levels in a later sample exceed any of the Delisting Levels set in paragraph (1), from that 

point forward, John Deere must treat all the waste covered by this exclusion as hazardous until it is 

demonstrated that the waste again meets the levels in paragraph (1). John Deere must manage and dispose of the waste generated under Subtitle C of RCRA from the time that it becomes aware of any exceedance. 

3. Verification Testing Requirements: John Deere must perform sample collection and analyses in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan submitted with the ‘‘John Deere Des Moines, Iowa, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Delisting of F006 and F019 Filter Cake, June 2012.’’ All samples shall be 

representative composite samples according to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference 

in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 methods might include 

Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,1110A, 

1310B, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System 

Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the John Deere sludge 

are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). To verify that the waste does not exceed 

the specified delisting concentrations, for one year after the final exclusion is granted, John Deere must 

perform quarterly analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the WWTP sludge as follows: (A) Quarterly Testing: (i) Collect two representative composite samples of the WWTS Filter Cake at quarterly intervals after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples must be taken within 30 days 

after EPA grants the final approval. The second set of samples must be taken at least 30 days after the 

first set. (ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any waste regarding which a 

composite sample is taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the sludge must 

be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements from 

the time that John Deere becomes aware of any exceedance. (iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking 

each quarterly sample, John Deere will report its analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents 

measured in the samples of the sludge do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for two consecutive quarters, and EPA concurs with those findings, John Deere can manage and 

dispose the non-hazardous sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. (B) Annual Testing: (i) If John Deere completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample 

contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), John Deere may 

begin annual testing as follows: John Deere must test two representative composite samples of the 

WWTS Filter Cake (following the same protocols as specified for quarterly sampling, above) for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. (ii) The samples for the annual testing 

taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events shall be taken within the same calendar 

month as the first annual sample taken. (iii) John Deere shall submit an annual testing report to EPA 

with its annual test results, within thirty (30) days after taking each annual sample. The annual testing 

report also shall include the total amount of waste in tons disposed during the calendar year. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

4. Changes in Operating Conditions: If John Deere significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment 

process described in the petition, or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, it 

must notify the EPA in writing and may no longer handle the WWTS Filter Cake generated from the new 

process as non-hazardous unless and until the WWTS Filter Cake is shown to meet the delisting levels 

set in paragraph (1), John Deere demonstrates that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix 

VIII of part 261 have been introduced, and John Deere has received written approval from EPA to manage the wastes from the new process under this exclusion. While the EPA may provide written approval 

of certain changes, if there are changes that the EPA determines are highly significant, the EPA may instead require John Deere to file a new delisting petition. 

5. Data Submittals and Recordkeeping: John Deere must submit the information described below. If John 

Deere fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site 

for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as 

described in paragraph (6). John Deere must: (A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the 

Chief, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, US EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa 

KS 66219, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or some comparable electronic media; (B) Compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years and 

make available for inspection records of operating conditions, including monthly and annual volumes of 

WWTS Filter Cake generated, analytical data, including quality control information and, copies of the notification(s) required in paragraph (7); (C) Submit with all data a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). 

6. Reopener: (A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, John Deere possesses or is otherwise 

made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) or any other relevant data to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration, then John Deere must report 

such data, in writing, to the Chief, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, US EPA Region 7, 11201 

Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219 within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that 

data. (B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from 

any source, the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 7, will make a preliminary determination as to 

whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health or the environment. 

Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that 

the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify John Deere in 

writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the 

environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing 

John Deere with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. John Deere shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional 

Administrator’s notice to present the information. (D) If after 30 days John Deere presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final 

written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the 

environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become 

effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise. 

7. Notification Requirements: John Deere must do the following before transporting the delisted waste: (A) 

Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which or through which it will 

transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities. (B) 

Update the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted waste into a different disposal facility. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation 

of the decision. 

*******

[FR Doc. 2014–19771 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs 

41 CFR Part 60–1 

RIN 1250–AA03 

Government Contractors: Requirement 

To Report Summary Data on Employee 

Compensation; Correction 

AGENCY: Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs, published a document in the 

Federal Register on August 8, 2014, 

seeking comments on its notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding 

reporting summary data on employee 

compensation. This document corrects 

errors in that document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Debra Carr, (202) 693–0103 (voice) or 

(202) 693–1337 (TTY). 

Correction 

In proposed rule FR Doc 2014–18557, 

beginning on page 46562, in the issue of 

August 8, 2014, make the following 

corrections: 

This NPRM is OMB control number 

1250–AA03. 

Under the heading, ‘‘Public 

Comment,’’ in column 1 on page 46604, 

the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for 

finding the information collection 

request (ICR) on RegInfo.gov ‘‘. . . 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=[INSERTICR

REFERENCENUMBER],’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘. . . http://www.reginfo.gov/

public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=

201407-1250-001.’’ While the original 

link routed the reader to OMB’s Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) conclusion page, the revised link 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS