Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2337

floating roof/cover tanks. It also then

observed that one way to address visible

gaps could be through the use of

internal sleeves and pole caps, provided

there were also external seals which

minimized gaps and emission pathways

between the liquid surface and the

atmosphere:

[T]he intent of the regulations is to ensure

that the liquid surface is closed off from the

atmosphere by a gasketed float or other

device. This requirement may be met for

slotted guide poles through the use of

internal and external seals which minimize

gaps and pathways between the liquid

surface and the atmosphere.’’

ADI Control No. 9400014 (November 16,

1993). The third determination

reaffirmed both prior determinations,

explaining that:

[s]lotted guidepoles are one type of many

possible openings in a floating roof. EPA

need not have specifically cited slotted

guidepoles for them to be subject to the no

visible gap requirement. The November 16

[1993] letter [to Chevron] is a clarification

that slotted guide poles were intended to be

regulated by NSPS Ka and Kb and have

always been subject to the no visible gap

requirement.

Letter from John Rasnic, Director, EPA

Stationary Source Compliance Division,

to J.B. Krider, Chevron (June 6, 1994).

Based on these determinations, EPA

Region IX brought enforcement actions

against 5 California refineries that had

tanks with slotted guidepoles and later

issued a letter to the Western States

Petroleum Association in which it

provided a detailed analysis of the

issue, determining that slotted

guidepoles are subject to the no visible

gap requirement. Letter from Esteban L.

Oyenque, Assistant Regional Counsel,

EPA Region IX, to Western States

Petroleum Association (June 30, 1995).

These enforcement matters were settled

by the facilities installing controls (e.g.,

floats and wipers) at 20 NSPS Subpart

Ka/Kb tanks and 27 non-NSPS tanks.

This Federal Register document

ensures that all members of the

regulated community are aware of past

EPA determinations that uncontrolled

slotted guidepoles do not comply with

the ‘‘no visible gap’’ requirement in

NSPS Subparts Ka and Kb, positions we

expressly reaffirm today. EPA believes

there are a substantial number of

facilities with slotted guidepoles that

are not in compliance with this

requirement. To address these sources

of potentially significant VOC emissions

in the most expeditious way possible,

EPA is also today proposing to establish

a program for reducing these emissions

in a highly cost-effective and

environmentally beneficial manner.

Neither this document nor that program

modify or otherwise affect the currently

applicable requirements identified and

described above.

Executive Order 13132, entitled

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations and regulatory policies that

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’

This document 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. It reaffirms and

publicizes prior EPA determinations

concerning the applicability of certain

federal requirements to the regulated

community. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this document.

The Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Office of Air and

Radiation, and the Office of

Compliance, Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance, jointly issue

this document reaffirming regulatory

interpretation.

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply

because this action is not a rule, for

purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

Dated: December 23, 1999.

Thomas C. Curran,

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation.

Dated: December 23, 1999.

Bruce R. Weddle,

Acting Director, Office of Compliance, Office

of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 00–621 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6523–3]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (we or EPA) is granting a

petition submitted by BWX

Technologies, Inc. (formerly Babcock &

Wilcox), to exclude from hazardous

waste control (or delist) a certain solid

waste. This action responds to the

petition originally submitted by BWX

Technologies, Inc. to delist a wastewater

treatment sludge in the form of a filter

cake on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis

from the lists of hazardous waste.

After careful analysis, we have

concluded that the petitioned waste is

not hazardous waste when disposed of

in a Subtitle D landfill which is

permitted, licensed, or registered by a

State to manage municipal or industrial

solid waste, a permitted Subtitle C

landfill or a Subtitle C landfill which is

operating under interim status. This

exclusion applies to filter cake

generated at BWX Technologies, Inc.’s

Lynchburg, Virginia facility.

Accordingly, this final rule 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 which is

permitted, licensed, or registered by a

State to manage municipal or industrial

solid waste, a permitted Subtitle C

landfill or a Subtitle C landfill which is

operating under interim status, but

imposes testing conditions to ensure

that the future-generated wastes remain

qualified for delisting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory

docket for this final rule is located at the

offices of U.S. EPA Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103–

2029, and is available for viewing from

8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call

David M. Friedman at (215) 814–3395

for appointments. The public may copy

material from the regulatory docket at

$0.15 per page. The docket for this final

rule is also located at the offices of the

Campbell County Administrator’s

Office, P.O. Box 100, Main Street—

Haberer Building 2nd floor, Rustburg,

2338 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

VA, 24588, and is available for viewing

from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding holidays. Call

Kathy Elliot at (804) 332–9619 for

appointments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning this document,

contact David M. Friedman at the

address above or at (215) 814–3395.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The information in this section is

organized as follows:

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

B. Why Is EPA Approving This Delisting?

C. What Are The Limits of This Exclusion?

D. How Will BWX Technologies Manage

the Waste if It Is Delisted?

E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion

Effective?

F. How Does This Action Affect States?

II. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To

Delist a Waste?

C. What Information Must the Generator

Supply?

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What Waste Did BWX Technologies

Petition EPA To Delist?

B. How Much Waste Did BWX

Technologies Propose To Delist?

C. How Did BWX Technologies Sample

and Analyze the Waste Data in This

Petition?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the

Proposed Rule?

B. What Were the Comments?

C. What is EPA’s Response to the

Comment?

V. Administrative Assessments

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. The Congressional Review Act

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

We are finalizing:

(1) The decision to grant BWX

Technologies, Inc.’s (hereinafter, BWX

Technologies’) petition to have its filter

cake excluded, or delisted, from the

definition of a hazardous waste; and

(2) The use of the EPA Composite

Model for Landfills as the fate and

transport model to evaluate the

potential impact of the petitioned waste

on human health and the environment.

We used this model to predict the

concentration of hazardous constituents

released from the petitioned waste once

it is disposed.

After evaluating the petition, EPA

proposed on August 4, 1999, to exclude

BWX Technologies’ waste from the lists

of hazardous wastes found at 40 CFR

261.31 (see 64 FR 42317).

B. Why Is EPA Approving This

Delisting?

BWX Technologies petitioned to

exclude its filter cake because it does

not believe that the petitioned waste

meets the criteria for which it was

listed.

BWX Technologies also believes that

the waste does not contain any other

constituents that would render it

hazardous. Review of this petition

included consideration of the original

listing criteria, as well as factors

(including additional constituents) other

than those for which the waste was

listed, as required by the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984. See section 222 of HSWA, 42

U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(a)(1)

and (2).

For reasons stated in both the

proposal and this document, we believe

that BWX Technologies’ filter cake

should be excluded from hazardous

waste control. Therefore, we are

granting a final exclusion to BWX

Technologies, located in Lynchburg,

Virginia for its filter cake.

C. What Are the Limits of This

Exclusion?

This exclusion applies to the waste

described in the petition only if the

requirements described in Table 1 of

appendix IX to part 261 of Title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

satisfied. The maximum annual volume

of the filter cake is 500 cubic yards.

D. How Will BWX Technologies Manage

the Waste if It Is Delisted?

The filter cake is currently disposed

of in an off-site hazardous waste

landfill. When delisted, the waste can

be disposed of in an off-site Subtitle D

industrial landfill, or it may continue to

be disposed of in an off-site hazardous

waste landfill.

E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion

Effective?

This rule is effective January 14, 2000.

HSWA 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,

rather than increases, the existing

requirements for persons generating

hazardous wastes. For these same

reasons, this rule can become effective

immediately (that is, upon publication

in the Federal Register) under the

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant

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

F. How Does This Action Affect States?

Because EPA is issuing today’s

exclusion under the Federal RCRA

delisting program, only States subject to

Federal RCRA delisting provisions

would be affected. This would exclude

two categories of States: States having a

dual system that includes Federal RCRA

requirements and their own

requirements, and States who have

received EPA’s authorization to make

their own delisting decisions. We

describe these two situations below.

We allow states to impose their own

non-RCRA regulatory requirements that

are more stringent than EPA’s, under

section 3009 of RCRA. These more

stringent requirements may include a

provision that prohibits a Federally

issued exclusion from taking effect in

the State. Because a dual system (that is,

both Federal (RCRA) and State (nonRCRA) programs) may regulate a

petitioner’s waste, we urge petitioners to

contact the applicable State regulatory

authority to establish the status of their

wastes under the State law.

We have also authorized some States

(for example, Delaware, Louisiana,

Illinois) to administer a delisting

program in place of the Federal

program; that is, to make State delisting

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion

does not apply in those authorized

States. If BWX Technologies transports

the petitioned waste to or manages the

waste in any State with delisting

authorization, BWX Technologies must

obtain delisting approval from that State

before it can manage the waste as

nonhazardous in that State.

II. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

A delisting petition is a formal request

from a generator to EPA or another

agency with jurisdiction to exclude from

the lists of hazardous waste regulated by

RCRA, a waste that the generator does

not consider hazardous.

B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To

Delist a Waste?

Under 40 CFR 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 40

CFR 261.31, 261.32 and 261.33.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2339

Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any

person to petition the Administrator to

modify or revoke any provision of parts

260 through 266, 268 and 273 of Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

40 CFR 260.22 provides generators the

opportunity to petition the

Administrator to exclude a waste on a

‘‘generator-specific’’ basis from the

hazardous waste lists.

C. What Information Must the Generator

Supply?

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, the Administrator must

determine that the waste is not

hazardous for any other reason.

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What Waste Did BWX Technologies

Petition EPA To Delist?

BWX Technologies petitioned EPA to

exclude from hazardous waste control

the filter cake solids generated by its

wastewater treatment facility. This filter

cake results from the treatment of

wastewaters in the pickle acid treatment

system and it is a listed hazardous

waste, EPA Hazardous Waste F006. The

listed constituents of concern for this

EPA Hazardous Waste F006 are

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel

and complexed cyanide (see 40 CFR

part 261, appendix VII).

B. How Much Waste Did BWX

Technologies Propose To Delist?

Specifically, in a March 11, 1999

update to its original petition, BWX

Technologies requested that EPA grant a

standard exclusion for filter cake solids

generated at a rate of 300 cubic yards

per calender year.

C. How Did BWX Technologies Sample

and Analyze the Waste Data in This

Petition?

In support of its petition, BWX

Technologies submitted detailed

descriptions of its manufacturing and

wastewater treatment processes, a

schematic diagram of the wastewater

treatment process, and analytical testing

results for representative samples of the

petitioned wastes, including: (1) The

hazardous characteristics of ignitability

and corrosivity; (2) total oil and grease;

(3) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP, SW–846 Method

1311) analysis for volatile and semivolatile organic compounds and

Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals plus

antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper,

nickel, thallium, tin, vanadium and

zinc; (4) total constituent analysis for

volatile and semi-volatile organic

compounds and TC metals plus

antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper,

nickel, thallium, tin, vanadium and

zinc; (5) total cyanide, total sulfide, total

fluoride and total formaldehyde; and (6)

TCLP analysis for fluoride. BWX

Technologies developed a list of

constituents of concern by comparing a

list of all raw materials used in the plant

that could possibly appear in the

petitioned waste with those found in 40

CFR parts 261, appendix VIII and 264,

appendix IX. Based on a knowledge of

its metal working processes and other

processes at the facility and of the

treatment operation, BWX Technologies

determined that certain classes of

chemical constituents would not be

anticipated to be present in the filter

cake. These chemicals include semivolatile organic constituents (except

those constituents listed in 40 CFR

261.24), pesticides, herbicides, dioxins

and furans.

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the

Proposed Rule?

We received public comments on the

August 4, 1999 proposed exclusion from

only one interested party. This was the

petitioner, BWX Technologies.

B. What Were the Comments?

BWX Technologies requested an

increase in the maximum waste volume

that is covered by this exclusion for the

filter cake solids from 300 cubic yards

per calendar year in the proposed

exclusion to 500 cubic yards per

calendar year. This request is being

made in anticipation of an increase in

production levels at the Lynchburg, VA

facility.

C. What is EPA’s Response to the

Comment?

This requested change in the volume

of filter cake solids will not change the

results of EPA’s evaluation of the

petition for the following reasons.

We evaluated the potential impacts

from disposal of the filter cake solids on

the ground water, surface water and air

exposure pathways. The model that we

used for evaluating the potential ground

water contamination does so by

calculating a dilution/attenuation factor

(DAF) which can vary from 100 for

smaller annual volumes of waste (i.e.,

less than 1000 cubic yards per year) to

10 for larger annual volumes of waste

(i.e., 400,000 cubic yards per year or

more). Because the requested change to

500 cubic yards per year is still below

the 1000 cubic yard per year threshold,

the DAF used in evaluating the potential

impact on ground water will not change;

that is, the DAF will remain 100 (which

was the DAF used in our evaluation for

the proposed rule).

In addition, there is no change in the

evaluation that we did of the potential

impacts from disposal of the filter cake

solids on the surface water and air

exposure pathways since our evaluation

for the proposed rule was done using a

waste volume of 500 cubic yards. The

results of all these evaluations are

contained in the RCRA public docket for

today’s rule.

Therefore, we approve the request to

increase the volume of filter cake solids

covered by this exclusion from 300

cubic yards to 500 cubic yards per

calendar year.

V. Administrative Assessments

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must determine whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore,

subject to OMB review and the other

provisions of the Executive Order. A

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ is one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities; (2) create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially alter the

budgetary impact of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 it

has been determined that this rule is not

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of

1996) 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 which describes the effect of

the rule on small entities (i.e., small

businesses, small organizations, and

small governmental jurisdictions).

2340 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

However, no regulatory flexibility

analysis is required if the head of an

agency or delegated representative

certifies the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

SBREFA amended the Regulatory

Flexibility Act to require Federal

Agencies to provide a statement of the

factual basis for certifying that a rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This rule, if promulgated, will

not have an adverse economic impact

on small entities since its effect would

be to reduce the overall costs of EPA’s

hazardous waste rules. Accordingly, I

hereby certify that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This rule, therefore, does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and

recordkeeping requirements associated

with this rule have been approved by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(Public Law 96–511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2050–0053.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. The proposed delisting

decision is deregulatory, and imposes

no enforceable duty on any State, local

or tribal governments or the private

sector. Thus, today’s rule is not subject

to the requirements of sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has

determined that this proposed rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments and, therefore, no

small government agency plan is

required under section 203 of the

UMRA.

E. The Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as amended by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, (CRA) 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. Rules of particular applicability

are exempt, however, from the CRA. See

5 U.S.C. 804(3). Inasmuch as this action

affects only one facility, it is a rule of

particular applicability which is exempt

from the requirements of the CRA and

the EPA is not required to submit a rule

report regarding today’s action under

section 801.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 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.

G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting with these

governments, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget a description

of the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected State,

local and tribal governments, the nature

of their concerns, any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a

mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose

any enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not apply.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPA to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2341

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking does not establish

any new technical standards and thus,

the Agency has no need to consider the

use of voluntary consensus standards in

developing this proposed rule.

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting with these governments,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget, in a separately identified

section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected tribal governments, a summary

of the nature of their concerns, and a

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. There is no

impact to tribal governments as the

result of today’s proposed delisting

decision. Accordingly, the requirements

of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this proposed rule.

Lists 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: December 13, 1999.

Thomas C. Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended

as follows:

PART 261—[AMENDED]

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, part 261

add the following waste stream in

alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22.

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description.

*******

BWX Technologies ............. Lynchburg, VA .................... Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations (EPA Hazardous Waste

No. F006) generated at a maximum annual rate of 500 cubic yards per year, after

January 14, 2000, and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. BWX Technologies

must meet the following conditions for the exclusion to be valid:

(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for the following constituents measure using the SW–846 method 1311 (the TCLP) must not exceed the following

levels (mg/l). (a) Inorganic constituents—Antimony-0.6; Arsenic-5.0; Barium-100;

Beryllium-0.4; Cadmium-0.5; Chromium-5.0; Cobalt-210; Copper-130; Lead-1.5;

Mercury-0.2; Nickel-70; Silver-5.0; Thallium-0.2; Tin-2100; Zinc-1000; Fluoride400. (b) Organic constituents—Acetone-400; Methylene Chloride-0.5.

(2) Verification testing schedule: BWX Technologies must analyze a representative

sample of the filter cake from the pickle acid treatment system on an annual, calendar year basis using methods with appropriate detection levels and quality control procedures. If the level of any constituent measured in the sample of filter

cake exceeds the levels set forth in Paragraph 1, then the waste is hazardous

and must be managed in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA. Data from the annual verification testing must be submitted to EPA within 60 days of the sampling

event.

(3) Changes in Operating Conditions: If BWX Technologies significantly changes the

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

used in the manufacturing or treatment process, BWX Technologies may not manage the filter cake generated from the new process under this exclusion until it

has met the following conditions: (a) BWX Technologies must demonstrate that

the waste meets the delisting levels set forth in Paragraph 1; (b) it must demonstrate that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261

have been introduced into the manufacturing or treatment process: and (c) it must

obtain prior written approval from EPA to manage the waste under this exclusion.

(4) Data Submittals: The data obtained under Paragraphs 2 and 3 must be submitted to The Waste and Chemicals Management Division, U.S. EPA Region III,

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Records of operating conditions and

analytical data must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on site for a minimum of five years and must be furnished upon request by EPA or the Commonwealth of Virginia, and made available for inspection. Failure to submit the required data within the specified time period or to maintain the required records on

site for the specified time period will be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the extent determined necessary by EPA.

All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement set

forth in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12) to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted.

2342 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

Facility Address Waste description.

(5) Reopener:

(a) If BWX Technologies discovers that a condition at the facility or an assumption

related to the disposal of the excluded waste that was modeled or predicted in the

petition does not occur as modeled or predicted, then BWX Technologies must report any information relevant to that condition, in writing, to the Regional Administrator or his delegate within 10 days of discovering that condition.

(b) Upon receiving information described in paragraph (a) of this section, regardless

of its source, the Regional Administrator or his delegate will determine whether

the reported condition requires further action. Further action may include repealing

the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to

protect human health and the environment.

(6) Notification Requirements: BWX Technologies must provide a one-time written

notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or through which the delisted

waste described above will be transported for disposal at least 60 days prior to

the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide such a notification will be

deemed to be a violation of this exclusion and may result in a revocation of the

decision.

[FR Doc. 00–959 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 268

[FRA Docket No. FRA–98–4545; Notice No.

3]

RIN 2130–AB29

Magnetic Levitation Transportation

Technology Deployment Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: FRA published an Interim

final rule with request for comments on

October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54600),

implementing the Magnetic Levitation

Technology Deployment Program. An

amendment to the interim final rule was

published on February 12, 1999 (64 FR

7133) extending the deadline for the

submission of application packages

from December 31, 1998, to February 15,

1999, and making other adjustments to

various dates which flow from that

extension of time.

As amended, the interim final rule

establishes dates for the Timing of Major

Milestones and requires FRA to select

one project for final design, engineering,

and construction funding at the

completion of Phase III. This

rulemaking revises the dates established

for the Timing of Major Milestones to

reflect unanticipated delays in the

completion of Phase I of the program,

changes the description of Phase II to

eliminate the requirement for each grant

recipient to initiate activities aimed at

preparing a site-specific draft

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

expands Phase III to allow downselecting to more than one project for

additional study, and shifts FRA’s

selection of one project for final design,

engineering, and construction funding

to Phase IV. It also specifies that certain

expenses incurred prior to the execution

of a cooperative agreement to assist in

the financing of pre-construction

activities, but after enactment of the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA 21) (June 9, 1998), are

eligible for reimbursement of the

Federal share of the cost.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective January 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arnold Kupferman, FRA, 1120 Vermont

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20590

(telephone 202–493–6365; E-mail

address:

(Arnold.Kupferman@fra.dot.gov), or

Gareth Rosenau, Attorney, Office of

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont

Ave., NW, Mailstop 10, Washington, DC

20590 (telephone 202–493–6054; E-mail

address: Gareth.Rosenau@fra.dot.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (TEA 21)

TEA 21 (Pub. L. No. 105–178) adds a

new section 322 to title 23 of the United

States Code. Section 322 provides a total

of $55 million for Fiscal Years 1999

through 2001 for transportation systems

employing magnetic levitation

(‘‘Maglev’’). Section 322 requires FRA to

establish project selection criteria, to

solicit applications for funding, to select

one or more projects to receive financial

assistance for preconstruction planning

activities, and, after completion of such

activities, to select one of the projects to

receive financial assistance for final

design, engineering, and construction

activities. Section 322 authorizes—but

does not appropriate—additional

Federal funds of $950 million for final

design and construction of the most

promising project. Section 322 provides

that the portion of the project not

covered by the funds provided under

section 322 may be covered by any nonFederal funding sources—including

private (debt and/or equity), State, local,

regional, and other public or public/

private entities—as well as by Federallyprovided Surface Transportation

Program, and Congestion Mitigation and

Air Quality Improvement Program

funds, and from other forms of financial

assistance under TEA 21, such as loans

and loan guarantees.

B. The Interim Final Rule

On October 13, 1998, FRA published

in the Federal Register an interim final

rule that established, on an interim

basis, the regulations governing

financial assistance under the Maglev

Deployment Program, including the

project selection criteria. The document

solicited public comments and

applications for Maglev preconstruction

planning grants. As noted above, the

rule was amended once to extend the

deadline for submission of application

packages from interested States or their

designated authorities. The interim final

rule provides: a definition of terms used

in the Interim Final Rule; a description

and schedule for the various phases of

the Maglev Deployment Program;

identification of available funding

sources for the Program; requirements

for the Federal and State shares and

restrictions on the uses of Federal

maglev funds; identification of eligible

participants; project eligibility