51638 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Commodity Parts per million 

Sheep, kidney ....... 0.2 

Sheep, liver ........... 0.1 

Sheep, meat ......... 0.04 

Sheep, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver 0.04 

Sorghum, grain, 

forage ................ 1.0 

Sorghum, grain, 

stover ................ 4.0 

Sorghum, grain, 

grain .................. 0.3 

Soybean, forage ... 5.0 

Soybean, hay ........ 8.0 

Soybean, seed ...... 0.2 

*****

Tomato, paste ....... 0.3 

Vegetable, brassica, head and 

stem, subgroup 

5A ...................... 0.6 

Vegetable, foliage 

of legume, except soybean, 

subgroup 7A ...... 15.0 

Vegetable, fruiting 

group 8, (except 

tabasco pepper) 0.1 

Vegetable, leaf 

petioles, subgroup 4B ........... 0.1 

Vegetable, legume, 

edible podded, 

subgroup 6A ...... 0.5 

Vegetable, legume, 

pea and bean, 

dried shelled, 

(except soybean) 

subgroup 6C ..... 0.1 

Vegetable, root, 

(except sugar 

beet) subgroup 

1B ...................... 0.3 

Vegetables, tuberous and corm, 

subgroup 1C ..... 0.2 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Tolerances with regional 

registration as defined in § 180.1(n) are 

established for the combined residues 

(free and bound) of the herbicide Smetolachlor [S-2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6- 

methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1- 

methylethyl)acetamide], its Renantiomer, and its metabolites, 

determined as the derivatives, 2-[2- 

ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-1- 

propanol and 4-(2-ethyl-6- 

methylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-5-methyl-3- 

morpholinone, each expressed as the 

parent compound, in or on the 

following raw agricultural commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Pepper, tabasco ... 0.5 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

Tolerances are established for the 

indirect or inadvertent combined 

residues (free and bound) of the 

herbicide S-metolachlor [S-2-chloro-N- 

(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy1-methylethyl)acetamide], its Renantiomer, and its metabolites, 

determined as the derivatives, 2-[2- 

ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-1- 

propanol and 4-(2-ethyl-6- 

methylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-5-methyl-3- 

morpholinone, each expressed as the 

parent compound, in or on the 

following raw agricultural commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Barley, grain ......... 0.1 

Barley, hay ............ 1.0 

Barley, straw ......... 0.5 

Buckwheat, grain .. 0.1 

Nongrass, animal 

feed (forage, 

fodder, straw, 

hay) group 18 .... 1.0 

Oat, forage ............ 0.5 

Oat, grain .............. 0.1 

Oat, hay ................ 1.0 

Oat, straw ............. 0.5 

Rice, grain ............ 0.1 

Rice, straw ............ 0.5 

Rye, forage ........... 0.5 

Rye, grain ............. 0.1 

Rye, straw ............. 0.5 

Wheat, forage ....... 0.5 

Wheat, grain ......... 0.1 

Wheat, hay ........... 1.0 

Wheat, straw ......... 0.5 

[FR Doc. 05–17367 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[FRL–7961–3] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Amendment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA, also the Agency or we in 

this preamble) today is granting a 

petition to modify an exclusion (or 

delisting) from the lists of hazardous 

waste previously granted to BMW 

Manufacturing Co., LLC (BMW) in 

Greer, South Carolina. This action 

responds to a petition for amendment 

submitted by BMW to eliminate the 

total concentration limits in its 

wastewater treatment sludge covered by 

its current conditional exclusion. 

EPA received public comments on the 

November 26, 2004, Proposed Rule (69 

FR 68851) and took into account all 

public comments before granting this 

final rule. The Agency re-evaluated the 

specific information initially provided 

by the petitioner in its original request 

and delistings granted to other 

automobile manufactures for their F019 

waste. This final decision eliminates the 

total concentration limits for barium, 

cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and 

cyanide from its conditionally excluded 

wastewater treatment sludge from the 

requirements of the hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

The waste will still be subject to local, 

State, and Federal regulations for 

nonhazardous solid wastes. 

DATES: Effective August 31, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory 

docket for this final rule is located at the 

EPA Library, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and 

is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. 

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. The public 

may copy material from any regulatory 

docket at no cost for the first 100 pages, 

and at a cost of $0.15 per page for 

additional copies. For copying at the 

South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control, please see 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general and technical information 

concerning this final rule, please contact 

Kris Lippert, RCRA Enforcement and 

Compliance Branch (Mail Code 4WD–

RCRA), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta 

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8605, 

or call, toll free (800) 241–1754, and 

leave a message, with your name and 

phone number, for Ms. Lippert to return 

your call. Questions may also be emailed to Ms. Lippert at 

lippert.kristin@epa.gov. You may also 

contact Cindy Carter, Appalachia III 

District, South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control 

(SCDHEC), 975C North Church Street, 

Spartanburg, South Carolina. If you 

wish to copy documents at SCDHEC, 

please contact Ms. Carter for copying 

procedures and costs. 

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 Petition for 

Amendment? 

C. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion? 

D. When Is the Final Amendment 

Effective? 

E. How Does This Action Affect States? 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51639 

II. Background 

A. What Is a Delisting Petition? 

B. What Regulations Allow Hazardous 

Waste Generators to Delist Waste? 

C. What Information Must the Generator 

Supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What Waste Is the Subject of This 

amendment? 

B. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition? 

IV. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Amendment 

A. Who Submitted Comments on the 

Proposed Rule? 

B. Comments and Responses From EPA 

V. Administrative Assessments 

I. Overview Information 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing? 

After evaluating BMW’s petition and 

public comments received in response 

to the November 26, 2004, Proposed 

Rule (69 FR 68851), we are amending 

the current BMW’s delisting to 

eliminate the total concentration limits 

for barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, 

nickel, and cyanide from its 

conditionally excluded wastewater 

treatment sludge from the requirements 

of the hazardous waste regulations 

under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). The waste will 

still be subject to local, State, and 

Federal regulations for nonhazardous 

solid wastes. 

B. Why Is EPA Approving This Petition 

for Amendment? 

EPA believes that the information 

provided by BMW provides a reasonable 

basis to eliminate all total concentration 

limits. We, therefore, grant BMW an 

amendment to its current delisting for 

an elimination of all total concentration 

limits on its delisted wastewater 

treatment sludge. EPA believes that this 

amendment to eliminate all 

concentration limits will not harm 

human health and the environment 

when disposed in a nonhazardous waste 

landfill, if the required delisting levels 

are met. EPA grants the elimination of 

all total concentration limits, based on 

descriptions of waste management and 

waste history, evaluation of the results 

of waste sample analysis, on the 

requirement that BMW’s petitioned 

waste must meet the required delisting 

level of all the constituents of concern 

concentration limits as state in the May 

2, 2001, Final Rule before disposal, and 

that no substantial public comments 

were received during the public 

comment period. The petitioned waste 

will not be subject to regulation under 

40 CFR parts 262 through 268 and the 

permitting standards of 40 CFR part 270. 

Although management of the waste 

covered by this petition is relieved from 

Subtitle C jurisdiction, the waste will 

remain a solid waste under RCRA. As 

such, the waste must be handled in 

accordance with all applicable Federal, 

State, and local solid waste management 

regulations. Pursuant to RCRA section 

3007, EPA may also sample and analyze 

the waste to determine if delisting 

conditions are met. EPA believes that 

BMW’s petitioned waste will not harm 

human health and the environment 

when disposed in a nonhazardous waste 

landfill if the delisting levels are met as 

granted in the May 2, 2001, Final Rule 

and amended in this exclusion. 

C. What Are the Terms of This 

Exclusion? 

The following summarizes the 

maximum allowable constituent 

concentrations (delisting levels) for 

BMW’s waste. We calculated these 

delisting levels for each constituent that 

is part of BMW’s current delisting based 

on the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) EPA Composite Model 

for Leachate Migration with 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP) 

model, which grants BMW an exclusion 

from the lists of hazardous wastes in 

subpart D of 40 CFR part 261 for its 

petitioned waste when disposed in a 

Subtitle D landfill. BMW must meet all 

of the following delisting conditions in 

order for this exclusion to be valid: 

delisting levels in mg/l in the TCLP 

extract of the waste of 100.0 for Barium, 

1.0 for Cadmium, 5.0 for Chromium, 

33.6 for Cyanide, 5.0 for Lead, and 70.3 

for Nickel. 

This amended exclusion applies to 

the waste described in the petition only 

if the requirements described above as 

well as 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 

wastewater treatment sludge is 2850 

cubic yards. 

D. When Is the Final Amendment 

Effective? 

This rule is effective August 31, 2005. 

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). 

E. 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 directly 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, or that prohibits a Federally 

issued exclusion from taking effect in 

the State until the State approves the 

exclusion through a separate State 

administrative action. Because a dual 

system (that is, both Federal and State 

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s 

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the 

applicable State regulatory authorities 

or agencies to establish the status of 

their waste under that State’s program. 

We have 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 

necessarily apply within those 

authorized States. If BMW transports the 

petitioned waste to, or manages the 

waste in, any State with delisting 

authorization, BMW must obtain 

delisting approval from that State before 

it can manage the waste as 

nonhazardous in that State. 

In order for this amendment to be 

effective in an authorized State, that 

State must adopt this amendment 

through its State administrative process. 

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 

believes should not be considered 

hazardous. 

B. What Regulations Allow Hazardous 

Waste Generators To Delist Waste? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a 

generator may petition EPA to remove 

its waste from hazardous waste control 

by excluding it from the lists of 

hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 

261.31, 261.32 and 261.33. Specifically, 

40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to 

51640 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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. A generator can 

petition EPA for an amendment to an 

existing exclusion under these same 

provisions of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

C. What Information Must the Generator 

Supply? 

A petitioner 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 Is the Subject of This 

Amendment? 

BMW in Greer, South Carolina, 

manufactures automobiles for domestic 

consumption and for shipment to 

foreign markets. The assembly plant 

operations include body welding, 

conversion coating, painting, final 

assembly, and shipment. The 

manufacturing process that causes F019 

to be generated is conversion coating, 

when applied to automobile bodies that 

contain aluminum. Conversion coating 

takes place in the plant’s paint shop and 

treats the metal surface of each 

automobile body before painting to 

provide resistance to corrosion and to 

prepare the metal surface for optimum 

paint adhesion. Wastewater from all 

plant operations is treated at BMW’s 

wastewater pretreatment plant which is 

located in an area of the paint shop. The 

wastewater is treated to meet the 

requirements of BMW’s wastewater 

pretreatment permit before discharging 

the water to the publicly owned 

treatment works (POTW). Treatment 

results in the formation of insoluble 

metal hydroxides and phosphates. 

Wastewater treatment sludge is 

generated when these metal hydroxides 

and phosphates are dewatered in a filter 

press. The sludge that exits from the 

filter press is classified as F019 when 

the automobile bodies contain 

aluminum, and the exit from the filter 

press will be the point of generation of 

F019. BMW was granted its current 

Federal delisting exclusion for this F019 

wastewater treatment sludge at a 

maximum annual volume of 2,850 cubic 

yards on May 2, 2001 (66 FR 21877). 

A full description of this waste and 

the Agency’s evaluation of the original 

BMW’s petition are contained in the 

‘‘Proposed Rule and Request for 

Comments’’ published in the Federal 

Register on February 12, 2001 (66 FR 

9781). After evaluating public comment 

on the proposed rule, we published a 

final decision in the Federal Register on 

May 2, 2001 (66 FR 21877), to exclude 

BMW’s wastewater treatment sludge 

derived from the treatment of EPA 

Hazardous Waste No. F019 from the list 

of hazardous wastes found in 40 CFR 

261.31. The hazardous constituents of 

concern for which F019 was listed are 

hexavalent chromium and cyanide 

(complexed). BMW petitioned the EPA 

to exclude its F019 waste because BMW 

does not use either of these constituents 

in the manufacturing process. Therefore, 

BMW did not believe that the waste 

meets the criteria of the listing. EPA’s 

final decision to grant the delisting 

exclusion on May 2, 2001, was 

conditioned on the following delisting 

levels: (1) Delisting levels in mg/l in the 

TCLP extract of the waste of 100.0 for 

Barium, 1.0 for Cadmium, 5.0 for 

Chromium, 33.6 for Cyanide, 5.0 for 

Lead, and 70.3 for Nickel; (2) the total 

concentration of cyanide (total, not 

amenable) in the waste, not the waste 

leachate, must not exceed 200 mg/kg; (3) 

the total concentrations, in mg/kg, of 

metals in the waste, not the waste 

leachate, must not exceed 2,000 for 

Barium, 500 for Cadmium, 1,000 for 

Chromium, 2,000 for Lead, and 20,000 

for Nickel. If the waste exceeded any of 

the delisting limits, then the waste has 

to be managed as hazardous waste. 

C. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition? 

In support of its original petition, 

BMW submitted: (1) Descriptions of its 

manufacturing and wastewater 

treatment processes, the generation 

point of the petitioned waste, and the 

manufacturing steps that will contribute 

to its generation; (2) Material Safety 

Data Sheets (MSDSs) for materials used 

to manufacture automobiles and to treat 

wastewater; (3) the minimum and 

maximum annual amounts of 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

from 1996 through 1999, and an 

estimate of the maximum annual 

amount expected to be generated in the 

future; (4) results of analysis for metals, 

cyanide, sulfide, fluoride, and volatile 

organic compounds in the currently 

generated waste at the BMW plants in 

Greer, South Carolina, and Dingolfing, 

Germany; (5) results of the analysis of 

leachate obtained by means of the 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure ((TCLP), SW–846 Method 

1311), from these wastes; (6) results of 

the determinations for the hazardous 

characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, and reactivity, in these 

wastes; (7) results of determinations of 

dry weight percent, bulk density, and 

free liquids in these wastes; and (8) 

results of the MEP analysis of the 

currently generated waste at the plant in 

Greer, South Carolina. 

EPA reviewed the allowable total 

concentrations in the waste, as 

calculated by DRAS for the waste, to 

determine if eliminating the total 

concentration limits for the constituents 

of concern would be still protective to 

human health and the environment. The 

allowable total concentrations, 

according to the DRAS, were all at least 

1,000 times greater than the actual 

maximum total concentrations found in 

the waste. Based on the DRAS results, 

EPA grants BMW’s petition for 

amendment to eliminate all total 

concentration limits. 

IV. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Amendment 

A. Who Submitted Comments on the 

Proposed Rule? 

EPA received public comments on the 

proposed noticed published on 

November 26, 2004, from Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers; The 

Aluminum Association; BMW 

Manufacturing Co., LLC; Donald 

Humphrey; and EPA. All commenters 

were supportive of the proposal except 

Donald Humphrey. 

B. Comments and Responses From EPA 

Comment: On October 30, 2002, (67 

FR 66251), EPA’s Office of Solid Waste 

proposed the Methods Innovation Rule 

(MIR) to remove from the regulations 

unnecessary requirements to use only 

SW–846 Methods other than those 

considered to be Method Defined 

Parameters (MDP). The Agency is no 

longer generally requiring the use of 

only SW–846 Methods for regulatory 

applications other than those involving 

MDPs. The general purpose of this rule 

is to allow more flexibility when 

conducting RCRA-related sampling and 

analysis activities. 

Response: EPA has revised Table 1: 

(2) Verification Testing Requirements: 

in Appendix IX of this Final Rule with 

appropriate language. 

Comment: The Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, the 

Aluminum Association, and BMW 

believe the F019 listing itself should be 

revised to exclude wastewater treatment 

sludges from automotive industry 

conversion coating on aluminum when 

hexavalent chromium and cyanides are 

not used in the process. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51641 

Response: Today’s final rule is sitespecific and waste-specific; it applies 

only to BMW’s plant in Greer, South 

Carolina, and only to the petitioned 

waste. EPA understands the 

commenters’ concern, but it is outside 

the scope of this delisting. 

Comment: Donald Humphrey 

disagreed with granting this final rule, 

because he feels that BMW must abide 

by the rules of RCRA. 

Response: On January 16, 1981, as 

part of its final and interim final 

regulations implementing section 3001 

of RCRA, EPA published an amended 

list of hazardous wastes from nonspecific and specific sources. This list 

has been amended several times, and is 

published in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. 

These wastes are listed as hazardous 

because they exhibit one or more of the 

characteristics of hazardous wastes 

identified in Subpart C of part 261 (i.e., 

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and 

toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing 

contained in section 261.11(a)(2) or 

(a)(3). Individual waste streams may 

vary, however, depending on raw 

materials, industrial processes, and 

other factors. Thus, while a waste that 

is described in these regulations 

generally is hazardous, a specific waste 

from an individual facility meeting the 

listing description may not be. For this 

reason, sections 260.20 and 260.22 

provide an exclusion procedure, 

allowing BMW to demonstrate that its 

F019 waste from its specific facility 

should not be regulated as a hazardous 

waste. BMW has complied with the 

requirements of sections 260.20 and 

260.22, and therefore, is having its 

petition to amend an exclusion (or 

delisting) from the lists of hazardous 

waste granted. 

V. Administrative Assessments 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a rule of general applicability and 

therefore is not a ‘‘regulatory action’’

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget. Because this 

action is a rule of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 203, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because the 

rule will affect only one facility, it will 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as specified in section 203 

of UMRA, or communities of Indian 

tribal governments, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 2000). For the same reason, 

this rule 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 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule 

also is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

This rule does not involve technical 

standards; thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not 

apply. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq. as added by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, generally provides that before a 

rule may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. Section 804 exempts from 

section 801 the following types of rules 

(1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) 

rules relating to agency management or 

personnel; and (3) rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice that 

do not substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties (5 

U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not required to 

submit a rule report regarding today’s 

action under section 801 because this is 

a rule of particular applicability. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 15, 2005. 

Alan Farmer, 

Acting Director, Waste Management Division. 

■ 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, 6924(y) and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX, Part 261 

revise the entry for BMW Manufacturing 

Co., LLC 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 

* * * * * * * 

BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC Greer, South Carolina ... Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) that BMW Manufacturing Corporation (BMW) generates by treating wastewater from automobile 

assembly plant located on Highway 101 South in Greer, South Carolina. This is a 

conditional exclusion for up to 2,850 cubic yards of waste (hereinafter referred to 

as ‘‘BMW Sludge’’) that will be generated each year and disposed in a Subtitle D 

landfill after August 31, 2005. With prior approval by the EPA, following a public 

comment period, BMW may also beneficially reuse the sludge. BMW must demonstrate that the following conditions are met for the exclusion to be valid. 

(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for these metals and cyanide must 

not exceed the following levels (ppm): Barium-100; Cadmium-1; Chromium-5; Cyanide-33.6, Lead-5; and Nickel-70.3. These metal and cyanide concentrations 

must be measured in the waste leachate obtained by the method specified in 40 

CFR 261.24, except that for cyanide, deionized water must be the leaching medium. Cyanide concentrations in waste or leachate must be measured by the 

method specified in 40 CFR 268.40, Note 7. 

51642 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(2) Annual Verification Testing Requirements: 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 the 

BMW Sludge meet the delisting levels in Condition (1). (A) Annual Verification 

Testing: BMW must implement an annual testing program to demonstrate that 

constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP extract do not exceed the 

delisting levels established in Condition (1). 

(3) Waste Holding and Handling: BMW must hold sludge containers utilized for 

verification sampling until composite sample results are obtained. If the levels of 

constituents measured in the composite samples of BMW Sludge do not exceed 

the levels set forth in Condition (1), then the BMW Sludge is non-hazardous and 

must be managed in accordance with all applicable solid waste regulations. If constituent levels in a composite sample exceed any of the delisting levels set forth in 

Condition (1), the batch of BMW Sludge generated during the time period corresponding to this sample must be managed and disposed of in accordance with 

Subtitle C of RCRA. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: BMW 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 BMW in writing that the BMW Sludge 

must be managed as hazardous waste F019 until BMW 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 BMW has received written approval from EPA. If EPA determines that the changes do not result in additional constituents of concern, EPA will notify BMW, in writing, that 

BMW must verify that the BMW Sludge continues to meet Condition (1) delisting 

levels. 

(5) Data Retention: Records of analytical data from Condition (2) must be compiled, 

summarized, and maintained by BMW for a minimum of three years, and must be 

furnished upon request by EPA or the State of South Carolina, and made available for inspection. Failure to maintain the required records for the specified time 

will be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the extent directed by EPA. All data must be accompanied by a signed 

copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). 

(6) Reopener Language: (A) If, at any time after disposal of the delisted waste, 

BMW possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including 

but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) or any other data 

relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified in the 

delisting verification testing is at a level higher than the delisting level allowed by 

EPA in granting the petition, BMW must report the data, in writing, to EPA and 

South Carolina within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that 

data. (B) If the testing of the waste, as required by Condition (2)(A), does not 

meet the delisting requirements of Condition (1), BMW must report the data, in 

writing, to EPA and South Carolina within 10 days of first possessing or being 

made aware of that data. (C) Based on the information described in paragraphs 

(6)(A) or (6)(B) and any other information received from any source, EPA will 

make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires 

that EPA take 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. (D) If EPA determines 

that the reported information does require Agency action, EPA will notify the facility in writing of the action believed necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a 

statement providing BMW with an opportunity to present information as to why the 

proposed action is not necessary. BMW shall have 10 days from the date of 

EPA’s notice to present such information. (E) Following the receipt of information 

from BMW, as described in paragraph (6)(D), or if no such information is received 

within 10 days, EPA will issue a final written determination describing the Agency 

actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment, given the 

information received in accordance with paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B). Any required 

action described in EPA’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless EPA provides otherwise. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51643 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(7) Notification Requirements: BMW must provide a one-time written notification to 

any State Regulatory Agency in a State to which or through which the delisted 

waste described above will be transported, at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide such a notification will result in a 

violation of the delisting conditions and a possible revocation of the decision to 

delist. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–17359 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CC Docket No. 98–67 and CG Docket No. 

03–123; FCC 05–139] 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals With Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission grants petitions for 

reconsideration of the 2004 TRS Report 

& Order. Through this action, the 

Commission reverses its conclusion that 

translation from American Sign 

Language (ASL) into Spanish is not a 

telecommunications relay service (TRS) 

eligible for compensation from the 

Interstate TRS Fund. This decision will 

allow Spanish-speaking people who are 

deaf to communicate with others who 

speak only Spanish and will allow them 

to integrate more fully into society. 

DATES: Effective September 30, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Chandler, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability 

Rights Office at (202) 418–1475 (voice), 

(202) 418–0597 (TTY), or e-mail at 

Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration, FCC 05–139, adopted 

July 14, 2005, and released July 19, 

2005, in CC Docket 98–67 and CG 

Docket 03–123. This Order on 

Reconsideration does not contain new 

or modified information collections 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, it does not 

contain any new or modified 

‘‘information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 

(c)(4). The full text of the Order on 

Reconsideration and copies of any 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter will be available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The Order on 

Reconsideration and copies of 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact BCPI at their 

Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com or 

call 1–800–378–3160. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). The Order on 

Reconsideration can also be 

downloaded in Word or Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro. 

Synopsis 

Title IV of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires 

the Commission to ensure that TRS is 

available to the extent possible in the 

most effective manner to persons with 

hearing or speech disabilities in the 

United States. TRS enables a person 

with a hearing or speech disability to 

have access to the telephone system to 

communicate with hearing individuals. 

The statute requires that TRS offers 

persons with hearing and speech 

disabilities telephone transmission 

services that are functionally equivalent 

to voice telephone services. When TRS 

was first implemented in 1993, persons 

desiring to use TRS to call a hearing 

person through the telephone system 

generally used a TTY (text-telephone) 

device connected to the public switched 

telephone network (the PSTN). In what 

is now referred to as a traditional TRS 

call (e.g., TTY text-based), the person 

with a hearing or speech disability dials 

(i.e., types) a telephone number for a 

TRS facility using a TTY, and then types 

the number of the party he or she 

desires to call. The CA, in turn, places 

an outbound voice call to the called 

party. The CA serves as the link in the 

conversation, converting all TTY 

messages from the caller into voice 

messages, and all voice messages from 

the called party into typed messages for 

the TTY user. The process is performed 

in reverse when a voice telephone user 

initiates a traditional TRS call to a TTY 

user. 

The most striking development in the 

short history of TRS has been the 

enormous growth in the use of VRS. As 

most frequently used, VRS allows a deaf 

person whose primary language is ASL 

to communicate in ASL with the CA 

through a video link. The CA, in turn, 

places an outbound telephone call to a 

hearing person. During the call, the CA 

communicates in ASL with the deaf 

person and by voice with the hearing 

person. As a result, the conversation 

between the two end users, deaf and 

hearing, flows in near real time and in 

a faster and more articulate manner than 

with a TTY or text-based TRS call. As 

a result, VRS calls reflect a degree of 

functional equivalency that is not 

attainable with text-based TRS. 

Section 225 of the Communications 

Act, creates a cost recovery framework 

whereby providers of TRS are 

compensated for their costs of providing 

TRS. This framework is based on a 

jurisdictional separation of costs. As a 

general matter, providers of intrastate 

TRS are compensated by the states, and 

providers of interstate TRS are 

compensated from the Interstate TRS 

Fund (Fund). The Interstate TRS Fund 

is funded by contributions from all 

carriers providing interstate 

telecommunications services, and is 

administered by the TRS fund 

administrator, currently the National 

Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.