51696 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2By citing to this Supplementary TSD as a 

reference, EPA is not re-opening its final rule 

approving the Washington area post-1999–2005 

ROP plan (70 FR 25688; May 13, 2005). 

Those parties interested in 

participating in this process by 

submitting comments, data information 

or recommendations may find the 

Supplementary Technical Support 

Document (TSD) which EPA prepared 

in support of the final rule approving 

the Washington area post 1999–2005 

ROP plan (70 FR 25688; May 13, 2005) 

to be a useful reference with regard to 

these issues. This TSD presents some 

helpful examples of baselines and 

methodologies used to calculate the 

VOC emissions reductions achieved 

from the implementation of AIM coating 

rules.2 This TSD is available, upon 

request, from the EPA Region 3 contact 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document, and 

is also in the EDOCKET (OAR–2005–

0148–0002) for this action. 

II. EPA’s Intent Regarding the 

Comments, Data, Information and 

Recommendations 

It is EPA’s intent to consider all 

relevant comments, data, information, 

and recommendations submitted to us 

to formulate a practicable, technically 

sound approach for calculating the VOC 

emissions achieved and creditable from 

the implementation of an AIM coatings 

rule in a given ozone nonattainment or 

maintenance area. As previously stated, 

EPA is commencing this process in 

recognition of the need to formulate a 

technically sound and consistent 

approach that States may use to account 

for the VOC emissions from the AIM 

coatings sector in compiling base year 

and projection emission inventories, 

demonstrating reasonable further 

progress, and conducting modeling 

analyses as part of their ozone SIP 

planning activities. It would also 

provide for consistency in EPA’s 

subsequent evaluations of states’

attainment, maintenance and progress 

plans that rely upon emissions 

reductions from the AIM coatings 

sector. 

Once EPA receives the comments, 

data, and information solicited herein, 

we will determine the appropriate next 

steps. The EPA believes, at this time, the 

next steps will likely include 

rulemaking and/or guidance to provide 

a practicable and technically sound 

approach for States, and other interested 

parties, to use in determining the VOC 

emissions reductions achieved by the 

implementation of AIM coating rules in 

ozone nonattainment and maintenance 

areas. Any such action will be 

conducted using notice and comment 

procedures. Once this rulemaking/ 

guidance has been provided, it will be 

available for states to use in the 

development of future state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions, if 

any, that rely upon VOC emissions 

reductions achieved by the 

implementation of AIM coating rules in 

ozone nonattainment and maintenance 

areas. This rulemaking/guidance will 

not require any state to amend 

previously approved SIP revisions, 

however, it may be used by states, at 

their discretion, to revise their current 

SIPs as they deem appropriate. 

The EPA encourages all interested 

parties to participate in this process by 

submitting relevant comments, data, 

information and recommendations for 

how best to calculate the VOC emission 

reductions achieved from the adoption 

and implementation of an AIM coating 

rule in a given nonattainment or 

maintenance area. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

is, therefore, not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 24, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–17357 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[FRL–7961–4] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (the EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to grant 

a petition submitted by Saturn 

Corporation (Saturn) to exclude or 

‘‘delist’’ wastewater treatment plant 

(WWTP) sludge generated from 

conversion coating on aluminum at 

Saturn’s integrated automotive assembly 

facility located at 100 Saturn Parkway in 

Spring Hill, Tennessee, from the 

requirements of the hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

This exclusion would be valid only 

when the sludge is disposed of in a 

Subtitle D landfill that is permitted, 

licensed, or registered by a state to 

manage industrial solid waste. The EPA 

used the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of 

the potential impact of the petitioned 

waste on human health and the 

environment. 

The EPA bases its proposed decision 

to grant the petition based on an 

evaluation of waste-specific information 

provided by Saturn. This proposed 

decision, if finalized, conditionally 

excludes the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of the RCRA hazardous 

waste regulations. 

If finalized, the EPA would conclude 

that Saturn’s petitioned waste is 

nonhazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria and that there are 

no other factors that would cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

DATES: The EPA will accept public 

comments on this proposed decision 

until October 17, 2005. The 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 this proposed 

decision by filing a request to EPA by 

September 15, 2005. The request must 

contain the information prescribed in 40 

CFR 260.20(d). 

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of 

your comments. You should send two 

copies to the Chief, North Section, 

RCRA Enforcement and Compliance 

Branch, Waste Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, 

Georgia, 30303. You should also send 

one copy to Mike Apple, Director, 

Division of Solid Waste Management, 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, 5th Floor, L&C 

Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville, 

Tennessee, 37243–1535. You should 

identify your comments at the top with 

this regulatory docket number: R4DLP–

0502–Saturn. You may submit your 

comments electronically to Kristin 

Lippert at Lippert.Kristin@epa.gov. 

You should address requests for a 

hearing to Narindar M. Kumar, Chief, 

RCRA Enforcement and Compliance 

Branch, Waste Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51697 

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general and technical information about 

this final rule, contact Kristin Lippert, 

North Enforcement and Compliance 

Section, (Mail Code 4WD–RCRA), RCRA 

Enforcement and Compliance Branch, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303 or call (404) 562–8605. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Background 

A. What is EPA’s list of hazardous wastes? 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

C. What regulations allow a waste to be 

delisted? 

D. What factors must the EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

II. Saturn’s Petition To Delist Its Waste 

A. What waste did Saturn petition EPA to 

delist? 

B. How is the petitioned waste generated? 

C. What information did Saturn submit in 

support of its petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Saturn’s Petition 

A. How did the EPA evaluate the 

information submitted? 

B. What did the EPA conclude about this 

waste? 

C. What other factors did the EPA consider 

in its evaluation? 

IV. Proposal To Delist WWTP Sludge From 

Saturn’s Automobile Assembly Facility 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

B. What are the terms for disposal of 

Saturn’ s WWTP sludge pursuant to this 

exclusion? 

C. With what conditions must Saturn 

comply for its WWTP sludge to be 

delisted? 

D. What are the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous constituents 

in the waste? 

E. What happens if Saturn is unable to 

meet the terms and conditions of this 

delisting? 

V. Public Comments 

A. How may interested parties submit 

comments? 

B. How may interested parties review the 

docket or obtain copies of the proposed 

exclusion? 

VI. Regulatory Impact 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

X. Executive Order 13045 

XI. Executive Order 13084 

XII. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancements Act 

XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism 

I. Background 

A. What Is EPA’s List of Hazardous 

Wastes? 

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 RCRA. The EPA has amended 

this list several times and published it 

in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(40 CFR) 261.31 and 261.32. The wastes 

are listed 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 (ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet 

the criteria for listing contained in 40 

CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3). 

Individual waste streams may vary, 

however, depending on raw materials, 

industrial processes, and other factors. 

Thus, a specific waste from an 

individual facility meeting the listing 

description may not be hazardous. For 

this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 

provide an exclusion procedure, called 

delisting, which allows persons to prove 

that the EPA should not regulate a 

specific waste from a particular 

generating facility as a hazardous waste. 

B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and 

What Does It Require of a Petitioner? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a facility to the EPA or an authorized 

State to exclude waste from the list of 

hazardous wastes pursuant to RCRA. 

The facility petitions the EPA because it 

does not consider the wastes hazardous 

under RCRA regulations. In a delisting 

petition, the petitioner must show that 

the waste, generated at a particular 

facility, does not meet any of the criteria 

for which EPA listed the waste as set 

forth in 40 CFR 261.11 and the 

background documents for the listed 

waste. In addition, a petitioner must 

demonstrate pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22 

that the waste does not exhibit any of 

the hazardous waste characteristics 

(ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and 

toxicity) and must present sufficient 

information for the EPA to decide 

whether factors other than those for 

which the waste was listed warrant 

retaining it as a hazardous waste (see 40 

CFR 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the 

background documents for the listed 

waste). 

Generators remain obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that their waste 

remains nonhazardous based on the 

hazardous waste characteristics even if 

the EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste. 

C. What Regulations Allow a Waste To 

Be Delisted? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f), a generator may petition 

the EPA to remove its waste from the 

lists of hazardous wastes contained in 

40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 

40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to 

petition the Administrator to modify or 

revoke any provisions of Parts 260 

through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR. 

D. What Factors Must the EPA Consider 

in Deciding Whether To Grant a 

Delisting Petition? 

Besides considering the criteria in 40 

CFR 260.22(a) and Section 3001(f) of 

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 

information in the background 

documents for the listed waste, the EPA 

must consider any factors (including 

additional constituents) other than those 

for which the EPA listed the waste if a 

reasonable basis exists that the 

additional factors could cause the waste 

to be hazardous. 

The EPA must also consider as 

hazardous waste mixtures containing 

listed hazardous wastes and wastes 

derived from treating, storing, or 

disposing of listed hazardous waste (see 

40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and 

(c)(2)(i), called the ‘‘mixture’’ and 

‘‘derived-from’’ rules, respectively). 

These wastes are also eligible for 

exclusion and remain hazardous wastes 

until excluded (see 66 FR 27266, May 

16, 2001). 

II. Saturn’s Petition To Delist Its Waste 

A. What Waste Did Saturn Petition the 

EPA To Delist? 

On December 13, 2004, Saturn 

petitioned the EPA to exclude its 

dewatered WWTP sludge generated at 

its facility in Spring Hill, Tennessee, 

from the lists of hazardous waste 

contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. 

The WWTP sludge (EPA Hazardous 

Waste No. F019) is generated by treating 

wastewater resulting from the chemical 

conversion coating of aluminum. In its 

petition, Saturn requested that the EPA 

grant an exclusion for 3,000 cubic yards 

per calendar year of dewatered WWTP 

sludge. 

B. How Is the Petitioned Waste 

Generated? 

Saturn is an integrated automobile 

production facility located in Spring 

Hill, Tennessee. Wastewater at the 

Saturn facility is generated from various 

manufacturing and assembly processes 

and includes oily wastewater from 

cooling and cutting operations 

associated with engine manufacturing, 

rinse waters and overflows from the 

51698 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

zinc phosphating and electrocoating 

processes, and wash water from paint 

spray booth operations. The process 

used to treat wastewater generated from 

the manufacturing and assembly 

operations consists of a complex system 

of primary and secondary pretreatment 

processes and controls. The process 

produces a sludge from the treatment of 

soluble metals in wastewater by 

equalization, pH adjustment, chemical 

treatment, and metals precipitation. The 

sludge is subsequently dewatered in a 

plate and frame filter press before it is 

transported off-site for disposal. 

The production process at the Saturn 

facility includes the application of an 

aluminum sound-deadening patch to 

some production vehicles. Possible 

future changes to be made in the 

manufacturing process, which will not 

significantly affect the characteristics of 

the WWTP sludge, could involve the 

use of aluminum body components (and 

modification to the phosphate bath) in 

addition to the current steel 

components. 

The conversion coating process is not 

regulated by RCRA when applied to 

steel but when aluminum components 

are incorporated into the automobile 

bodies, the WWTP sludge becomes 

regulated as RCRA hazardous waste 

F019. While the sludge may meet the 

definition of F019, the original listing of 

WWTP sludge from the conversion 

coating on aluminum was not based on 

a zinc phosphating process, and the 

addition of aluminum components on 

the automobile bodies does not 

introduce any constituents of concern 

into the sludge. However, before a waste 

can be delisted, the petitioner must 

demonstrate that there are no hazardous 

constituents in the sludge from other 

operations in the plant or other factors 

that might cause the waste to be 

hazardous. 

The 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VIII 

hazardous constituents for which EPA 

listed F019 hazardous wastes as 

hazardous include hexavalent 

chromium and cyanide (complexed). 

The chemical conversion coating 

process performed by Saturn is a 

phosphating process that does not 

utilize materials containing salts of 

chromium or cyanide. Therefore, the 

WWTP sludge generated by Saturn 

would not contain the constituents for 

which F019 was listed as generated 

from its chemical conversion coating 

process. 

C. What Information Did Saturn Submit 

in Support of Its Petition? 

In support of its petition Saturn has 

submitted laboratory analysis of its 

WWTP sludge. The laboratory analysis 

submitted includes the following: (1) 

Analysis performed on samples of its 

dewatered WWTP sludge taken and 

analyzed by EPA: (2) analysis of the 

dewatered WWTP sludge performed by 

Saturn on split samples provided to the 

facility by EPA and (3) analysis of the 

dewatered WWTP sludge performed by 

Saturn on samples taken by the facility. 

The analysis performed by Saturn on 

the split samples of the WWTP sludge 

provided to the facility by EPA was 

submitted for laboratory testing for the 

entire 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX 

constituent list (including volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), 

metals, and PCBs) and hexavalent 

chromium, TCLP metals, cyanide, and 

total solids. Based on the laboratory 

data, data validation results, and 

Saturn’s communications with the EPA, 

Saturn prepared a Sampling and 

Analysis Plan which was submitted to 

the EPA and approved. 

In accordance with the approved 

Sampling and Analysis Plan and to 

support its petition, Saturn collected 

additional WWTP sludge samples for 

laboratory testing. The samples were 

collected from six roll-off containers 

representing waste generated at Saturn 

over a seven-week period. The samples 

were analyzed as follows: (1) Samples 

for VOC analyses (total and TCLP) were 

collected from six roll-off containers. 

The first sample was analyzed for the 40 

CFR part 264 Appendix IX VOC 

constituent list (total and TCLP). VOCs 

(total and TCLP) detected in the first 

sample were tested in the samples 

collected from the second through the 

sixth roll-off containers. (2) Samples 

from the six roll-off containers were 

analyzed for total and TCLP bis(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate. (3) Samples from 

the six roll-off containers were analyzed 

for total and TCLP metals (antimony, 

arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, 

cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, 

thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc) and 

for hexavalent chromium. (4) Samples 

from the six roll-off containers were 

analyzed for corrosivity, total and TCLP 

cyanide, ignitability, sulfide, oil and 

grease, and total solids. The Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP), SW–846 Method 1311, was 

used as the extraction procedure for 

testing the volatile and semi-volatile 

constituents of concerns. Leachable 

metals were tested using the Extraction 

Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW–

846 Method 1330A. The pH of each 

sample was measured using SW–846 

Method 9045C, and a determination was 

made that the waste was not ignitable, 

corrosive, or reactive (see 40 CFR 

261.21–261.23). Oil and grease was 

analyzed using SW–846 Method 9071B, 

total sulfide was tested using SW–846 

Method 9034, and total cyanide was 

performed using Method SW–846 

Method 9012A. 

Composite and grab samples of 

dewatered WWTP sludge were collected 

in accordance with the approved 

Sampling and Analysis Plan on August 

19, 2004 and submitted for laboratory 

testing. Upon receipt of the laboratory 

testing results, the data was validated by 

a third party. The maximum values of 

constituents detected in any sample of 

the WWTP sludge or in a TCLP extract 

of the WWTP sludge are summarized in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS IN THE DEWATERED WWTP SLUDGE AND CORRESPONDING

DELISTING LIMITS

Constituent 

Maximum concentration 

observed 1

Maximum allowable delisting 

level 

(3,000 cubic yards) 

Maximum 

allowable 

groundwater 

concentration 

(μg/l) 

Total 

(mg/kg) 

TCLP 

(mg/l) Total 

(mg/kg) 

TCLP 

(mg/l) 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Acetone ................................................................................ <7.5 1.7 141,000,000 171 3,750 

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .................................................... <25 <0.0050 51,400 0.146 1.50 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51699 

TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS IN THE DEWATERED WWTP SLUDGE AND CORRESPONDING

DELISTING LIMITS—Continued 

Constituent 

Maximum concentration 

observed 1

Maximum allowable delisting 

level 

(3,000 cubic yards) 

Maximum 

allowable 

groundwater 

concentration 

(μg/l) 

Total 

(mg/kg) 

TCLP 

(mg/l) Total 

(mg/kg) 

TCLP 

(mg/l) 

Metals 

Antimony .............................................................................. 56 <0.05 J 374,000 0.494 6.0 

Arsenic ................................................................................. <50 <0.02 312,000 0.224 5.0 

Barium .................................................................................. 94 <0.35 10,400,000 100 2,000 

Beryllium .............................................................................. 3.1 <0.029 16,200 0.998 4.0 

Chromium ............................................................................. 1,310 J <0.16 10,300,000 5.0 100 

Chromium (hexavalent) ........................................................ <4.2 NT 3,320 3.71 NA 

Cobalt ................................................................................... 3.6 <0.038 84,400,000 NA 2,250 

Copper ................................................................................. 91 0.25 56,300,000 21,800 1,300 

Lead ..................................................................................... 108 <0.19 500,000 5.0 15.0 

Mercury ................................................................................ 0.47 <0.0006 1.82 0.195 2.00 

Nickel ................................................................................... 4,400 24.2 J 2,430,000 67.8 750 

Thallium ................................................................................ <20 <0.026 2,140 0.211 2.00 

Tin ........................................................................................ <100 3.18 844,000,000 NA 22,500 

Vanadium ............................................................................. 9.9 J <0.27 9,850,000 50.6 263 

Zinc ...................................................................................... 17,200 5.72 17,200,000 673 11,300 

Cyanide ................................................................................ 0.52 <0.05 1,180,000 8.63 200 

1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific 

levels found in one sample. 

< Not detected at the specified concentration. 

NA Not applicable. 

NT Not tested. 

J Estimated Concentration. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Saturn’s 

Petition 

A. How Did the EPA Evaluate the 

Information Submitted? 

In developing this proposal, the EPA 

considered the original listing criteria 

and the additional factors required by 

the Hazard 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). The EPA 

evaluated the petitioned waste against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 40 

CFR 261.11(a)(2) and (3). These factors 

include: (1) Whether the waste is 

considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity 

of the constituents; (3) the 

concentrations of the constituents in the 

waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous 

constituents to migrate and to 

bioaccumulate; (5) its persistence in the 

environment 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. 

For this delisting determination, the 

EPA assumed that the WWTP sludge 

would be disposed in a Subtitle D 

landfill. Consistent with previous 

delistings, the EPA identified plausible 

exposure routes (groundwater, surface 

water and air) for hazardous 

constituents present in the petitioned 

waste based upon improper 

management of a Subtitle D landfill. To 

evaluate the waste, the EPA used the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

program (DRAS), a Windows-based 

software tool, to estimate the potential 

release of hazardous constituents from 

the petitioned waste and to predict the 

risk associated with those releases. 

A detailed description of the DRAS 

program and revisions is available at 65 

FR 58015, 65 FR 59000, 65 FR 75879, 

and 67 FR 10341. The DRAS uses EPA’s 

Composite Model for Leachate 

Migration with Transformation Products 

(EPACMTP) to predict the potential for 

release of hazardous constituents to 

groundwater from landfilled wastes and 

subsequent potential routes of exposure 

to a receptor. For a release to 

groundwater, the EPA considered routes 

of exposure to a human receptor from 

ingestion of contaminated groundwater, 

inhalation from groundwater via 

showering and dermal contact while 

bathing. The DRAS program also 

considers the surface water pathway 

from the potential erosion of waste from 

runoff from an open landfill. It evaluates 

the potential risk to a human receptor 

from potential ingestion of fish and 

potential ingestion of drinking water. 

DRAS also considers potential releases 

of waste particles and volatile emissions 

to air from the surface of an open 

landfill. For a potential release to air, 

the EPA considered potential risks from 

inhalation of particulates and 

absorption into the lungs, ingestion of 

particulates eliminated from respiratory 

passages and subsequently swallowed, 

air deposition of particulates and 

subsequent ingestion of the soil/waste 

mixture, and inhalation of volatile 

constituents. 

In the DRAS model, the EPA used the 

maximum estimated waste volume and 

the maximum reported total and 

leachate concentration as inputs to 

estimate the potential constituent 

concentrations in the groundwater, soil, 

surface water or air. The DRAS program 

back calculated a maximum allowable 

concentration level that would not 

exceed protective levels in both the 

waste and the leachate for each 

constituent at the annual waste volume 

of 3,000 cubic yards. 

B. What Did the EPA Conclude About 

This Waste? 

After reviewing Saturn’s 

manufacturing and wastewater 

treatment processes, the EPA concluded 

that no other hazardous constituents of 

concern, other than those for which the 

testing was performed, are likely to be 

present or formed as reaction products 

or by-products in Saturn’s WWTP 

sludge. EPA also concluded on the basis 

of explanations and analytical data 

provided by Saturn pursuant to 40 CFR 

260.22, that the WWTP sludge does not 

51700 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, or reactivity (see 40 CFR 

261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, 

respectively.) 

The EPA compared the analytical 

results submitted by Saturn to the 

maximum allowable levels calculated 

by the DRAS for an annual volume of 

3,000 cubic yards. The maximum 

allowable levels for constituents 

detected in the WWTP sludge or the 

leachate from the sludge are 

summarized in Table 1, above. All 

constituents of concern were within 

levels. Table 1 also includes the 

maximum allowable levels in 

groundwater at a potential receptor 

well, as evaluated by the DRAS. These 

levels are the more conservative of 

either the Safety Drinking Water Act 

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or 

the health-based value calculated by 

DRAS based on the target cancer risk 

level of 10¥6. For arsenic, the target 

cancer risk was set at 10¥4 in 

consideration of the MCL and the 

potential for natural occurrence. The 

maximum allowable groundwater 

concentration and delisting level for 

arsenic correspond to a drinking water 

concentration less than one half the 

current MCL of 10 μg/l. 

EPA also used the DRAS program to 

estimate the aggregate cancer risk and 

hazard index of constituents detected in 

the waste. The aggregate cancer risk is 

the cumulative total of all individual 

constituent cancer risks. The hazard 

index is a similar cumulative total of 

non-cancer effects. The target aggregate 

cancer risk is 1 × 10¥5 and the target 

hazard index is one. The Saturn WWTP 

sludge met both of these criteria. 

C. What Other Factors Did the EPA 

Consider in Its Evaluation? 

During the evaluation of this petition, 

the EPA also considered the potential 

impact of the hazardous constituents 

from WWTP sludge via nongroundwater routes (i.e., air emissions 

and surface runoff). 

In regard to potential airborne 

emissions, the EPA evaluated the 

potential risk resulting from the 

unlikely scenario of airborne exposure 

to hazardous constituents released from 

the WWTP sludge in an open landfill. 

The results of this unlikely worst-case 

analysis indicated that there is no 

substantial present or potential hazard 

to human health and the environment 

from airborne emissions from the 

WWTP sludge. 

The EPA also considered the potential 

impact of releases of hazardous 

constituents from the WWTP sludge via 

surface water runoff. The EPA believes 

that containment structures at 

municipal solid waste landfills can 

effectively control surface water runoff, 

as the Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 

50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit 

pollutant discharges into surface waters. 

Furthermore, and in the unlikely event 

of surface water runoff at municipal 

solid waste landfills, the concentrations 

of any soluble hazardous constituents in 

runoff will tend to be lower than the 

levels in the TCLP leachate analyses 

reported in this proposal due to the 

aggressive acidic medium used in the 

TCLP extraction. For these reasons, the 

EPA believes that contamination of 

surface water through runoff from the 

waste disposal area is very unlikely. 

Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated the 

potential impacts on surface water if the 

dewatered WWTP sludge was released 

from a municipal solid waste landfill 

through runoff and erosion. The 

estimated levels of the hazardous 

constituents of concern in surface water 

would be well below health-based levels 

for human health, as well as below the 

EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for 

aquatic organisms (US EPA, OWRS, 

1987). 

The EPA concluded that the WWTP 

sludge is not a present or potential 

hazard to human health and the 

environment from airborne emissions 

and surface water runoff. 

IV. Proposal To Delist WWTP Sludge 

From Saturn’s Automobile Assembly 

Facility 

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

Today the EPA is proposing to 

conditionally exclude or delist 3,000 

cubic yards annually of WWTP sludge 

generated at Saturn’s Spring Hill, 

Tennessee, automotive assembly 

facility. 

B. What Are the Terms for Disposal of 

Saturn’s WWTP Sludge Pursuant to This 

Exclusion? 

Saturn must dispose of the WWTP 

sludge in a lined Subtitle D landfill 

which is permitted, licensed, or 

registered by a state to manage 

industrial waste. This exclusion applies 

only to a maximum annual volume of 

3,000 cubic yards and is effective only 

if all conditions contained in this rule 

are satisfied. 

C. With What Conditions Must Saturn 

Comply for Its WWTP Sludge To Be 

Delisted? 

The petitioner, Saturn, must comply 

with the requirements in 40 CFR part 

261, Appendix IX, Table 1 as amended 

by this proposal. The text below gives 

the rationale and details of those 

requirements. 

(1) Delisting Levels: 

Saturn must sample and analyze the 

dewatered WWTP sludge in accordance 

with Paragraph (3) and 40 CFR part 261, 

Appendix IX, Table 1 to ensure that the 

criteria for delisting continues to be met. 

The constituents for which Saturn must 

test the leachate from the dewatered 

WWTP sludge are provided in 

Paragraph (7) and in 40 CFR part 261, 

Appendix IX, Table 1. The EPA selected 

the constituents based upon the 

descriptions of the manufacturing 

process used by Saturn, previous test 

data provided for the waste, and the 

respective health-based levels used in 

delisting decision-making. 

To meet the conditions of this 

delisting, the constituent concentrations 

in the leachate from the dewatered 

WWTP sludge must not exceed the 

concentrations provided in Paragraph 

(7) and in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix 

IX, Table 1. The delisting levels 

represent the maximum allowable 

concentrations in the leachate from the 

testing of the WWTP sludge. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

Saturn will manage accumulated 

WWTP sludge in accordance with the 

applicable regulations and continue to 

dispose of the WWTP sludge as a 

hazardous waste until the first quarterly 

verification testing has been completed. 

If the results of the first quarterly test 

indicate that no constituent is present in 

the sludge at a concentration that 

exceeds the delisting level, Saturn can 

manage and dispose of the sludge as a 

nonhazardous waste. Holding the 

dewatered WWTP sludge until 

characterization is complete will ensure 

that the waste is managed properly. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: 

Saturn must complete a testing 

program to verify that the dewatered 

WWTP sludge does not exceed the 

maximum delisting levels. If the EPA 

determines that the data from the 

verification testing program exceeds the 

maximum delisting levels, this 

exclusion does not apply to the tested 

waste. The verification testing program 

operates on a quarterly basis for one 

year, followed by testing on an annual 

basis. 

The first part of the verification 

testing program consists of testing the 

dewatered WWTP sludge for the 

constituents specified in Paragraph (7) 

on a quarterly basis for a period of one 

year. The quarterly testing will be 

performed by collecting and analyzing 

one composite sample on a quarterly 

basis for one year. Each composite 

sample will consist of four (4) grab 

samples collected from an individual 

roll-off container. The first sample can 

be collected at any time after EPA has 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51701 

finalized this rule. The remaining three 

quarterly samples will be collected at 

approximately ninety (90)-day intervals 

from the collection of the first quarterly 

sample. 

The second part of the verification 

testing program is the annual testing of 

one composite sample (consisting of 

four grab samples from one roll-off 

container) of dewatered WWTP sludge 

for the constituents specified in 

Paragraph (7). The annual tests will be 

performed by collecting a composite 

sample during the same month as the 

final quarterly (first annual) sample was 

collected. 

If the constituent concentrations in 

the dewatered WWTP sludge in any 

roll-off container exceed the delisting 

levels, then Saturn must dispose of the 

waste as hazardous. Saturn must submit 

the data obtained from its quarterly and 

annual verification testing to EPA. If the 

data exceeds the delisting criteria, then 

Saturn must notify the EPA according to 

the requirements in Paragraph (6). After 

notification, EPA will make a decision 

as to whether the reported information 

requires further EPA action to protect 

human health and the environment. 

This exclusion is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register but 

disposal of the WWTP sludge as a 

nonhazardous waste cannot begin until 

the first quarterly verification testing 

has been completed and the data has 

been submitted to EPA. If the quarterly 

or annual verification testing is not 

performed, the dewatered WWTP sludge 

cannot be disposed as a delisted waste 

until Saturn obtains the written 

approval of the EPA. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: 

Paragraph (4) requires Saturn to notify 

EPA in writing if the manufacturing 

process, the wastewater treatment 

process, or the chemicals used in the 

processes significantly change, 

including but not limited to the type, 

composition, and amount of waste 

generated. If there is a significant 

change, Saturn must handle the WWTP 

sludge after the process change as 

hazardous until Saturn has 

demonstrated to the EPA that the waste 

continues to meet the delisting levels 

and that no new hazardous constituents 

listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 

261 have been introduced and Saturn 

has received written approval from the 

EPA. 

(5) Data Submittals: 

As indicated in Paragraph (3) above, 

Saturn is required to submit the data 

obtained from its quarterly and annual 

verification testing to the EPA. To 

document that Saturn is appropriately 

managing the dewatered WWTP sludge, 

Saturn must also compile, summarize, 

and maintain delisting records and 

analytical data on-site for a minimum 

period of five years. Paragraph (5) 

requires Saturn to furnish the data upon 

request for inspection by any employee 

or representative of the EPA or the State 

of Tennessee. 

If the proposed exclusion is made 

final, then it will apply only to 3,000 

cubic yards per calendar year of 

dewatered WWTP sludge generated at 

the Saturn facility after the first 

successful quarterly verification test. 

(6) Reopener: 

The purpose of Paragraph (6) is to 

require Saturn to disclose new or 

different information related to a 

condition at the facility or disposal of 

the waste if it is pertinent to the 

delisting. Saturn must also use this 

procedure if the waste sample in the 

annual testing fails to meet the levels 

found in Paragraph (1). This provision 

will allow the EPA to reevaluate the 

exclusion if a source provides new or 

additional information to the EPA. The 

EPA will evaluate the information on 

which it 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 the EPA 

to deny the petition if presented. 

This provision expressly requires 

Saturn to report differing site conditions 

or assumptions used in the petition in 

addition to failure to meet the annual 

testing conditions within ten (10) days 

of discovery. If the 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. 

(7) Notification Requirements: 

In order to adequately track wastes 

that have been delisted, the EPA is 

requiring that Saturn provide a one-time 

notification to any State regulatory 

agency through which or to which the 

delisted waste is being carried. Saturn 

must provide this notification within 

sixty (60) days of commencing this 

activity. 

D. What Are the Maximum Allowable 

Concentrations of Hazardous 

Constituents in the Waste? 

Concentrations of the following 

constituents measured in the TCLP (or 

OWEP, where appropriate) extract of the 

waste must not exceed the following 

levels (mg/l): antimony—0.494; 

arsenic—0.224; total chromium—3.71; 

lead—5.0; nickel—67.8; thallium—

0.211; and zinc—673. 

E. What Happens if Saturn Is Unable To 

Meet the Terms and Conditions of This 

Delisting? 

If Saturn violates the terms and 

conditions established in the exclusion, 

the EPA will initiate procedures to 

withdraw the exclusion. Where there is 

an immediate threat to human health 

and the environment, the EPA will 

evaluate the need for enforcement 

activities on a case-by-case basis. The 

EPA expects Saturn to conduct the 

appropriate waste analysis and comply 

with the criteria explained above in 

Paragraph (1) of the exclusion. 

V. Public Comments 

A. How May Interested Parties Submit 

Comments? 

The EPA is requesting public 

comments on this proposed decision. 

Please send three copies of your 

comments. You should send two copies 

to the Chief, North Section, RCRA 

Enforcement and Compliance Branch, 

Waste Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 4, Sam Nunn 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. You 

should also send a copy to Mr. Mike 

Apple, Director, Division of Solid Waste 

Management, Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, 5th 

Floor, L&C Tower, 401 Church Street, 

Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1535. You 

should identify your comments at the 

top with this regulatory docket number: 

R4DLP–0502-Saturn. You may submit 

your comments electronically to Kristin 

Lippert at Lippert.kristin@epa.gov. 

You should submit requests for a 

hearing to Narindar M. Kumar, Chief, 

RCRA Enforcement and Compliance 

Branch, Waste Division, U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303. 

B. How May Interested Parties Review 

the Docket or Obtain Copies of the 

Proposed Exclusion? 

You may review the RCRA regulatory 

docket for this proposed rule at the U. 

S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303. It is available for 

viewing in the EPA Freedom of 

Information Act Review Room from 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. You may 

call (404) 562–8605 for appointments. 

The public may copy material from any 

regulatory docket at no cost for the first 

one hundred (100) pages, and at fifteen 

(15) cents per page for additional copies. 

51702 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

VI. Regulatory Impact 

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 exclusion may 

not be effective in states that have 

received EPA’s authorization to make 

their own delisting decisions. 

Under Section 3009 of RCRA, EPA 

allows states to impose their own nonRCRA regulatory requirements that are 

more stringent than EPA’s. These more 

stringent requirements may include a 

provision that prohibits a federally 

issued exclusion from taking effect in 

the state. The EPA urges petitioners to 

contact the state regulatory authority to 

establish the status of their wastes under 

the state law. 

The EPA has also authorized some 

states 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 Saturn 

manages the WWTP sludge in any state 

with delisting authorization, Saturn 

must obtain delisting authorization from 

the state before it can manage the 

WWTP sludge as nonhazardous in that 

state. 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

EPA must conduct an ‘‘assessment of 

the potential costs and benefits’ for all 

‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions. The 

proposal to grant an exclusion is not 

significant, since its effect, if 

promulgated, would be to reduce the 

overall costs and economic impact of 

the EPA’s hazardous waste management 

regulations. This reduction would be 

achieved by excluding waste generated 

at a specific facility from the EPA’s lists 

of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a 

facility to manage its waste as 

nonhazardous. 

Because there is no additional impact 

from this proposed rule, this proposal 

would not be a significant regulation, 

and no cost/benefit assessment is 

required. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has also exempted this 

rule from the requirement for OMB 

review under Section (6) of Executive 

Order 12866. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. Sections 601–612, whenever an 

agency is required to publish a general 

notice of rulemaking for any proposed 

or final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis which 

describes the impact of the rule on small 

entities (that is, small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required, however, if the 

Administrator or delegated 

representative certifies that the rule will 

not have any impact on 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 the EPA’s 

hazardous waste regulations and would 

be limited to one facility. Accordingly, 

the EPA hereby certifies that this 

proposed regulation, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This regulation, therefore, does 

not require a regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Information collection and record 

keeping requirements associated with 

this proposed rule have been approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

and have been assigned OMB Control 

Number 2050–0053. 

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, which was signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 

generally must prepare a written 

statement for rules with Federal 

mandates that may result in estimated 

costs to State, local, and tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. 

When such a statement is required for 

the EPA rules, under section 205 of the 

UMRA the EPA must identify and 

consider alternatives, including the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The EPA must 

select that alternative, unless the 

Administrator explains in the final rule 

why it was not selected or it is 

inconsistent with law. 

Before the EPA establishes regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, the EPA 

must develop under section 203 of the 

UMRA a small government agency plan. 

The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 

giving them meaningful and timely 

input in the development of the EPA’s 

regulatory proposals with significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandates, 

and informing, educating, and advising 

them on compliance with the regulatory 

requirements. 

The UMRA generally defines a 

Federal mandate for regulatory purposes 

as one that imposes an enforceable duty 

upon state, local, or tribal governments 

or the private sector. 

The EPA finds that this delisting 

decision is deregulatory in nature and 

does not impose any enforceable duty 

on any State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. In 

addition, the proposed delisting 

decision does not establish any 

regulatory requirements for small 

governments and so does not require a 

small government agency plan under 

UMRA section 203. 

X. Executive Order 13045 

The Executive Order 13045 is entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This order applies to any rule that the 

EPA determines (1) is economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) the environmental 

health or safety risk addressed by the 

rule has a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets 

both criteria, the EPA 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 EPA. This proposed 

rule is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because this is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866. 

XI. Executive Order 13084 

Under Executive Order 13084, the 

EPA may not issue a regulation that is 

not required by statute, that 

significantly affects 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. 

If the mandate is unfunded, the EPA 

must 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 the 

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 the EPA to develop an effective 

process permitting elected and other 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51703 

representatives of Indian tribal 

governments to have ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input’’ in the development of 

regulatory policies on matters that 

significantly or uniquely affect their 

communities of Indian tribal 

governments. This action does not 

involve or impose any requirements that 

affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 

requirements of section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 

this rule. 

XII. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act, the EPA is directed 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 (for example, materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, business practices, etc.) 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standard bodies. Where 

available and potentially applicable 

voluntary consensus standards are not 

used by the EPA, the Act requires that 

the EPA provide Congress, through the 

OMB, an explanation of the reasons for 

not using such standards. 

This rule does not establish any new 

technical standards and thus, the EPA 

has no need to consider the use of 

voluntary consensus standards in 

developing this final rule. 

XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999) requires the 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’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order 

13132, the EPA may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or the EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. The EPA also may not issue 

a regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the EPA consults with State 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have a 

substantial direct effect on 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, because it 

affects only one facility. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

6921(f). 

Dated: August 15, 2005. 

Alan Farmer, 

Acting Director, Waste Management Division, 

Region 4. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

1. The authority citation for Part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, and 6938. 

2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 

261, the following waste is added in 

alphabetical order by facility to read as 

follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

Saturn Corporation .... Spring Hill, TN ........... Dewatered wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) generated at a maximum rate of 3,000 cubic yards per calendar year. The sludge must be disposed in a lined, Subtitle D landfill with leachate collection that is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted WWTP sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. 

The exclusion becomes effective on [insert publication date of the final rule]. 

For the exclusion to be valid, Saturn must implement a verification testing program that meets 

the following conditions: 

(1) Delisting Levels: The constituent concentrations in an extract of the waste must not exceed 

the following maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l: antimony—0.494; arsenic—0.224; 

total chromium—3.71; lead—5.0; nickel—68; thallium—0.211; and zinc—673. Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed using 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, 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 representative samples 

of Saturn’s sludge meet the delisting levels in this condition. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

(A) Saturn must accumulate the hazardous waste dewatered WWTP sludge in accordance with 

the applicable regulations of 40 CFR 262.34 and continue to dispose of the dewatered 

WWTP sludge as hazardous waste. 

51704 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(B) After the first quarterly verification sampling event described in Condition (3) has been completed and the laboratory data demonstrates that no constituent is present in the sample at a 

level which exceeds the delisting levels set in Condition (1), Saturn can manage and dispose 

of the dewatered WWTP sludge as nonhazardous according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(C) If constituent levels in any sample taken by Saturn exceed any of the delisting levels set in 

Condition (1), Saturn must do the following: 

(i) notify EPA in accordance with Condition (6) and 

(ii) manage and dispose the dewatered WWTP sludge as hazardous waste generated under 

Subtitle C of RCRA. 

(3) Quarterly Testing Requirements: Upon this exclusion becoming final, Saturn may perform 

quarterly analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the dewatered WWTP sludge as follows: 

(i) Collect one representative composite sample (consisting of four grab samples) of the hazardous waste dewatered WWTP sludge at any time after EPA grants the final delisting. In addition, collect the second, third, and fourth quarterly samples at approximately ninety (90)-day 

intervals after EPA grants the final exclusion. 

(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in Condition (1). Any roll-offs from which the 

composite sample is taken exceeding the delisting levels listed in Condition (1) must be disposed as hazardous waste in a Subtitle C landfill. (iii) Within forty-five (45) days after taking 

its first quarterly sample, Saturn will report its first quarterly analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the sample of the dewatered WWTP sludge do not exceed 

the levels set forth in Condition (1) of this exclusion, Saturn can manage and dispose the 

nonhazardous dewatered WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(4) Annual Verification Testing: (i) If Saturn completes the quarterly testing specified in Condition (3) above, and no sample contains a constituent with a level which exceeds the limits set 

forth in Condition (1), Saturn may begin annual verification testing on an annual basis. Saturn 

must collect and analyze one sample of the WWTP sludge on an annual basis. as follows: 

Saturn must test one representative composite sample of the dewatered WWTP sludge for all 

constituents listed in Condition (1) at least once per calendar year. 

(ii) The sample collected for annual verification testing shall be a representative composite 

sample consisting of four grab samples that will be collected in accordance with the appropriate methods described in Condition (1). 

(iii) The sample for the annual testing for the second and subsequent annual testing events 

shall be collected within the same calendar month as the first annual verification sample. 

(5) Changes in Operating Conditions: Saturn must notify EPA in writing when significant 

changes in the manufacturing or wastewater treatment processes are implemented. EPA will 

determine whether these changes will result in additional constituents of concern. If so, EPA 

will notify Saturn in writing that Saturn’s sludge must be managed as hazardous waste F019 

until Saturn has demonstrated that the wastes meet the delisting levels set forth in Condition 

(1) and any levels established by EPA for the additional constituents of concern, and Saturn 

has received written approval from EPA. If EPA determines that the changes do not result in 

additional constituents of concern, EPA will notify Saturn, in writing, that Saturn must verify 

that Saturn’s sludge continues to meet Condition (1) delisting levels. 

(6) Data Submittals: Saturn must submit the data obtained through verification testing at Saturn 

or as required by other conditions of this rule to: information described below. If Saturn fails 

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

for the specified time, the EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to re-open 

the exclusion as described in Condition (6). Saturn must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through Condition (3) to the Chief, North Section, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Waste Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 

4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, within 

the time specified. The quarterly verification data, annual verification data, and certification of 

proper disposal must be submitted to EPA annually upon the anniversary of the effective 

date of this exclusion. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification 

statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). 

(B) Compile, Summarize, and Maintain Records: Saturn must compile, summarize, and maintain at Saturn records of operating conditions and analytical data records of analytical data 

from Condition (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years. Saturn 

must furnish these records and data when either the EPA or the State of Tennessee request 

them for inspection. 

(C) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to 

the truth and accuracy of the data submitted: ‘‘I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this demonstration and all 

attached documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for getting the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and 

complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for sending false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.’’

(6) Reopener. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51705 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(A) If, at any time after disposal of the delisted waste, Saturn possesses or is otherwise made 

aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) 

relevant to the delisted WWTP sludge at Saturn indicating that any constituent is at a level in 

the leachate higher than the specified delisting level or TCLP regulatory level, then Saturn 

must report the data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator within ten (10) days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) Based upon the information described in Paragraph (A) and any other information received 

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

whether the reported information requires EPA 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 EPA action, the Regional Administrator will notify Saturn in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notification shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Saturn with 

an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. 

Saturn shall have ten (10) days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to 

present the information. 

(D) Following the receipt of information from Saturn, or if Saturn presents no further information 

after 10 days, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing 

the EPA 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: Before transporting the delisted waste, Saturn must provide a 

one-time written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or through which it will 

transport the delisted WWTP sludge for disposal. The notification will be updated if Saturn 

transports the delisted WWTP sludge to a different disposal facility. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–17364 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 97 

[WT Docket No. 05–235; FCC 05–143] 

Amateur Service Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend the amateur radio service rules 

to eliminate the requirement that 

individuals pass a telegraphy 

examination in order to qualify for any 

amateur radio operator license. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 31, 2005 and reply comments 

are due November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 05–235; 

FCC 05–143, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William T. Cross, 

William.Cross@fcc.gov, Public Safety 

and Critical Infrastructure Division, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

(202) 418–0680, TTY (202) 418–7233. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and Order 

(NPRM), WT Docket No. 05–235, FCC 

05–143, adopted July 15, 2005, and 

released July 19, 2005. The full text of 

this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–

A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text may be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, Suite CY–

B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an e-mail to FCC504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Consumer and Government 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

1. The Commission initiated this 

proceeding to amend the part 97 

Amateur Radio Service rules in 

response to eighteen petitions for 

rulemaking. The petitioners request that 

we amend the Commission’s amateur 

radio service rules to implement revised 

international Radio Regulations that 

were adopted at the 2003 World 

Radiocommunication Conference 

(WRC–03). The Commission found that 

some of the petitions have presented 

sufficient evidence to warrant proposing 

rule changes, and in the interest of 

administrative efficiency, it 

consolidated these proposals in this 

NPRM. Specifically, the Commission 

proposed to amend its amateur service 

rules to eliminate the requirement that 

individuals pass a telegraphy 

examination in order to qualify for any 

amateur radio operator license.