71002 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[SW–FRL–8001–7] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste Amendment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency, (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; amendment. 

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’

or ‘‘we’’) is amending an existing 

exclusion to reflect changes in 

ownership and name for the Vulcan 

Materials Company (Vulcan), Port 

Edwards, Wisconsin. Today’s 

amendment documents these changes. 

DATES: This amendment is effective on 

November 25, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Ramaly by phone at (312) 353–

9317, by mail at 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 

Mail Code DW–8J, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, or by e-mail at 

<ramaly.todd@epa.gov>. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this 

document EPA is amending appendix 

IX to part 261 to reflect a change in the 

status of a particular exclusion. The 

petition process under 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 260.20 

and 260.22 allows facilities to 

demonstrate that a specific waste from 

a particular generating facility should 

not be regulated as a hazardous waste. 

Based on waste-specific information 

provided by the petitioner, EPA granted 

an exclusion for treated K071, brine 

purification muds, to Vulcan Materials 

Company, Port Edwards, Wisconsin (51 

FR 41486, November 17, 1986). 

On July 12, 2005, the Agency was 

notified by Vulcan that ownership of the 

facility in Port Edwards, Wisconsin had 

been transferred to ERCO Worldwide 

(USA) Inc. (ERCO). On July 18, 2005, 

ERCO certified it will meet all terms and 

conditions set forth in the delisting and 

will not change the characteristics of the 

waste or the K071 treatment process at 

the Port Edwards facility without prior 

Agency approval. Today’s notice 

documents this change by updating 

appendix IX to incorporate this change 

in name. 

These changes to appendix IX of part 

261 are effective November 25, 2005. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended section 

3010 of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (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. As described above, the 

facility has certified that it is prepared 

to comply. Therefore, a six-month delay 

in the effective date is not necessary in 

this case. This provides the basis for 

making this amendment effective 

immediately upon publication under 

the Administrative Procedures Act 

pursuant to 5 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 5531(d). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

6921(f). 

Dated: November 15, 2005. 

Margaret M. Guerriero, 

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics 

Division. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. Table 2 of Appendix IX of part 261 

is amended by removing the ‘‘Vulcan 

Materials Company’’ entry and adding a 

new entry ‘‘ERCO Worldwide (USA) 

Inc. (formerly Vulcan Materials 

Company)’’ in alphabetical order by 

facility to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 2.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

ERCO Worldwide (USA) Inc. 

(formerly Vulcan Materials 

Company).

Port Edwards, Wisconsin.Brine purification muds (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K071) generated from the mercury cell process in chlorine production, where separately purified brine is not used 

after November 17, 1986. To assure that mercury levels in this waste are maintained at acceptable levels, the following conditions apply to this exclusion: Each 

batch of treated brine clarifier muds and saturator insolubles must be tested (by the 

extraction procedure) prior to disposal and the leachate concentration of mercury 

must be less than or equal to 0.0129 ppm. If the waste does not meet this requirement, then it must be re-treated or disposed of as hazardous. This exclusion does 

not apply to wastes for which either of these conditions is not satisfied. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23230 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[SW–FRL–8001–8] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’

or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is taking 

direct final action in granting a petition 

to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 3,000 

cubic yards of wastewater treatment 

sludges generated annually from the 

chemical conversion coating of 

aluminum generated by the General 

Motors Corporation (GM) Janesville 

Truck Assembly Plant (JTAP) in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71003 

Janesville, Wisconsin from the list of 

hazardous wastes. 

Today’s action conditionally excludes 

the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill 

which is permitted, licensed, or 

registered by a State to manage 

industrial solid waste. The rule also 

imposes testing conditions for waste 

generated in the future to ensure that 

this waste continues to qualify for 

delisting. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

24, 2006 without further notice unless 

we receive adverse comment by 

December 27, 2005. If we receive 

adverse comments, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that this 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of 

your comments to Todd Ramaly, Waste 

Management Branch (DW–8J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 

60604. We will stamp comments 

postmarked after December 27, 2005 as 

‘‘late.’’ These ‘‘late’’ comments may not 

be considered in formulating a final 

decision. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Ramaly at (312) 353–9317. The 

RCRA regulatory docket for this final 

rule, number R5–GMJA–05, is located at 

the EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 

Chicago, IL 60604, and is available for 

viewing from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. The public may copy material 

from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per 

page. Contact Todd Ramaly for 

appointments at the address or phone 

number above, or by email at 

ramaly.todd@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

B. What regulations allow a waste to be 

delisted? 

II. GM’s Petition to Delist Waste from 

Janesville Truck Assembly Plant 

A. What waste did JTAP petition to delist? 

B. What information must the generator 

supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

B. Comments received and responses from 

EPA 

V. Final Rule Granting This Petition 

A. What decision is EPA finalizing? 

B. When is the delisting effective? 

C. What are the terms of this exclusion? 

D. How does this action affect the states? 

VI. Regulatory Impact 

I. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to exclude waste from the 

list of hazardous wastes under RCRA 

regulations. In a delisting petition, the 

petitioner must show that waste 

generated at a particular facility does 

not meet any of the criteria for which 

EPA listed the waste as set forth in Title 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 

261.11 and the background document 

for the waste. In addition, a petitioner 

must demonstrate that the waste does 

not exhibit any of the hazardous waste 

characteristics (that is, ignitability, 

reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and 

must present sufficient information for 

us 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 United 

States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f) and the 

background documents for a listed 

waste.) 

Generators remain obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that their waste 

remains nonhazardous based on the 

hazardous waste characteristics even if 

EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the wastes and to 

ensure that future generated wastes 

meet the conditions set. 

B. What regulations allow a waste to be 

delisted? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may petition 

the EPA to remove their wastes from 

hazardous waste control by excluding 

them 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 provision of parts 

260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 

CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a 

generator the opportunity to petition the 

Administrator to exclude a waste from 

the lists of hazardous wastes on a 

‘‘generator specific’’ basis. 

II. GM’s Petition To Delist Waste From 

Janesville Truck Assembly Plant 

A. What waste did JTAP petition to 

delist? 

GM petitioned to exclude from the list 

of hazardous wastes contained in 40 

CFR 261.31 wastewater treatment 

sludges resulting from zinc phosphating 

(a chemical conversion coating process) 

on truck bodies which have aluminum 

components. 

B. What information must the generator 

supply? 

A generator must provide sufficient 

information to allow the EPA to 

determine that the waste does not meet 

any of the criteria for which it was listed 

as a hazardous waste, and that there are 

no other factors, including additional 

constituents, that could cause the waste 

to be hazardous. To support its petition, 

GM submitted descriptions and 

schematic diagrams of its manufacturing 

processes, historical accounts of waste 

generation, and the results of chemical 

analysis of the petitioned waste. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA considered the original listing 

criteria and evaluated additional factors 

required by the Hazardous and Solid 

Wastes Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) 

These factors included: (1) Whether the 

waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the 

toxicity of the constituents; (3) the 

concentration of the constituents in the 

waste; (4) the tendency of the 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. 

Consistent with previous delistings, 

EPA identified plausible exposure 

routes (ground water, surface water, air) 

for hazardous constituents present in 

the petitioned waste based on improper 

management of a Subtitle D landfill. To 

evaluate the waste, we used the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

program (DRAS), a Windows based 

software tool, to estimate the potential 

release of hazardous constituents from 

the waste and to predict the risk 

associated with those releases. 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

The EPA received public comments 

on the proposed rule from the Alliance 

of Automobile Manufacturers and GM. 

Both were generally supportive of the 

delisting decision with some additional 

specific comments. 

B. Comments received and responses 

from EPA 

(1) Comment: EPA should revise the 

F019 listing via federal rule change to 

specify that wastewater treatment 

sludge from chemical conversion 

coating processes on aluminum where 

hexavalent chromium and cyanide are 

not used should not be F019. 

71004 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA Response: The Agency is now 

considering revising the F019 listing. 

EPA is examining the data collected as 

a result of this project, as well as past 

projects, as a basis for a possible 

revision to the F019 listing. 

(2) Comment: Total constituent 

concentrations should not be used by 

EPA to set delisting levels for this waste 

because total concentrations do not 

indicate the waste’s potential to leach 

and have no scientific correlation with 

environmental impacts. 

EPA Response: EPA evaluates the 

potential environmental impact of 

plausible mismanagement of the waste 

in a solid waste landfill. EPA evaluates 

the potential off-site migration of waste 

particles and volatile organic 

compounds via air and surface water 

pathways as a result of inadequate cover 

and runoff control. EPA believes that 

inadequate daily cover and rainwater 

runoff control are plausible 

mismanagement scenarios for a solid 

waste landfill. Furthermore, since the 

source of this potential off-site 

migration is newly deposited waste at 

the surface of the landfill, total 

concentrations are appropriate inputs 

for fate and transport modeling. 

(3) Comment: It is unclear why a 

requirement for total chromium has 

been included as it has not been a 

constituent requiring analysis for 

previously granted petitions for this 

waste. 

EPA Response: Total chromium has 

been included as a constituent requiring 

analysis for previously granted petitions 

for this waste (See 69 FR 60557, October 

12, 2004). Nevertheless, EPA 

reevaluated total chromium as a result 

of the comment and examined the 

results of the DRAS model version used 

in support of the proposal. 

Conservatively assuming that one 

seventh of the chromium is present as 

hexavalent chromium, a known human 

carcinogen by inhalation, the limiting 

pathway determining the allowable 

level is inhalation of waste particles 

emitted from the landfill surface. Two 

changes were made to the calculation as 

a result of the reevaluation. An estimate 

for particle emissions resulting from 

vehicles driving over the exposed waste 

contained assumptions that were 

discovered to be unreasonably 

conservative for this waste. The number 

of vehicles driven over the waste was 

conservatively based on a historical 

exclusion with a much higher annual 

waste volume. EPA used a survey of 

industrial subtitle D facilities and the 

annual volume of waste requested by 

GM to derive more appropriate 

assumptions. It was also discovered that 

the DRAS program was reducing the 

uptake of particles inhaled by the 

receptor to account for an absorption 

efficiency, when, according to Agency 

toxicologists, this factor is no longer 

needed when using the most recent 

reference values presented in EPA’s 

Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS). A new allowable level for total 

chromium of 5,300 milligrams per 

kilogram (mg/kg) was derived using the 

updated methods, an increase from the 

proposed value of 3,200 mg/kg. The 

calculation of changes is documented in 

the Docket Report Reevaluating the 

Proposed Delisting Level for Chromium. 

(4) Comment: Quarterly verification 

sampling is not justified. The sampling 

frequency should be reduced to 

annually. 

EPA Response: Verification data 

submitted in conjunction with past 

delistings of this type of waste have 

shown significant variation on a 

quarterly basis over longer periods of 

time. Annual sampling would not detect 

such variations. Once enough 

verification data are collected to support 

a statistical analysis, a change in the 

frequency of verification sampling and/ 

or sampling parameters may be 

considered. 

V. Final Rule Granting This Petition 

A. What decision is EPA finalizing? 

Today the EPA is finalizing an 

exclusion for up to 3,000 cubic yards of 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

annually at the GM JTAP facility in 

Janesville, Wisconsin. 

GM petitioned EPA to exclude, or 

delist, the wastewater treatment sludge 

because GM believed that the petitioned 

waste does not meet the criteria for 

which it was listed and that there are no 

additional constituents or factors which 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

Review of this petition included 

consideration of the original listing 

criteria, as well as the additional factors 

required by HSWA. See § 222 of HSWA, 

42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f), 

and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). 

On April 25, 2005 EPA proposed to 

exclude or delist the wastewater 

treatment sludge generated at GM’s 

Janesville facility from the list of 

hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and 

accepted public comment on the 

proposed rule (see 70 FR 21165). EPA 

considered all comments received, and 

for reasons stated in both the proposal 

and this document, we believe that the 

wastewater treatment sludge from GM’s 

Janesville facility should be excluded 

from hazardous waste control. 

However, because the response to 

comments resulted in a change in the 

methodology used to evaluate the 

petitioned waste and a change in an 

allowable level under verification 

sampling, EPA is delaying the 

effectiveness of the rule to allow for the 

potential submission of adverse 

comments, even though the changes are 

considered noncontroversial and 

adverse comment is not anticipated. 

EPA believes the changes are not 

controversial because the change to the 

particulate inhalation exposure 

assessment is really a correction given 

the way data is developed in IRIS and 

the assumptions made to the particle 

emission scenario are more appropriate 

for this waste. 

B. When is the delisting effective? 

This rule is effective on January 24, 

2006 without further notice unless we 

receive adverse comment by December 

27, 2005. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. If adverse comments are 

received, they will be addressed as part 

of a future rulemaking. 

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. This rule reduces rather 

than increases the existing requirements 

and, therefore, can be made effective on 

January 24, 2006 (unless we receive 

adverse comment) under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant 

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

C. What are the terms of this exclusion? 

JTAP must dispose of the waste in a 

Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, 

licensed, or registered by a state to 

manage industrial solid waste. JTAP 

must obtain and analyze on a quarterly 

basis a representative sample of the 

waste in accordance with the waste 

analysis plan. JTAP must verify that the 

concentrations of the constituents of 

concern do not exceed the allowable 

levels set forth in this exclusion. 

The list of constituents for verification 

is a subset of those initially tested for 

and is based on the occurrence of 

constituents at GM–JTAP and at the 

majority of auto-assembly facilities that 

already have exclusions granted for 

F019 (since GM–JTAP certified its 

process was consistent with the others). 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71005 

D. How does this action affect the 

states? 

Today’s exclusion is being issued 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program. Therefore, only states subject 

to Federal RCRA delisting provisions 

would be affected. This exclusion is not 

effective in states which have received 

authorization to make their own 

delisting decisions. Also, the exclusion 

may not be effective in states having a 

dual system that includes Federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements. EPA allows states to 

impose their own regulatory 

requirements that are more stringent 

than EPA’s, under section 3009 of 

RCRA. These more stringent 

requirements may include a provision 

that prohibits a federally issued 

exclusion from taking effect in the state. 

Because a dual system (that is, both 

Federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) 

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s 

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the 

state regulatory authority to establish 

the status of their wastes under the state 

law. If a participating facility transports 

the petitioned waste to or manages the 

waste in any state with delisting 

authorization, it must obtain a delisting 

from that state before it can manage the 

waste as nonhazardous in the state. 

VI. Regulatory Impact 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not 

of general applicability and therefore is 

not a regulatory action subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA, or communities 

of 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 note) do not 

apply. As required by section 3 of 

Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 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.). 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355 May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

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, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

6921(f). 

Dated: November 16, 2005. 

Margaret M. Guerriero, 

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics 

Division. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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. Table 1 of appendix IX of part 261 

is amended by adding a new facility in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22. 

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

General Motors Corporation, Janesville 

Truck Assembly 

Plant.

Janesville, Wisconsin .. Wastewater treatment sludge, F019, that is generated at the General Motors Corporation 

(GM) Janesville Truck Assembly Plant (JTAP) at a maximum annual rate of 3,000 cubic 

yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, 

which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater 

treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as 

of January 24, 2006. 

1. Delisting Levels: (A) The concentrations in a TCLP extract of the waste measured in any 

sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): antimony—0.49; arsenic—0.22; cadmium—0.36; chromium—3.7; lead—5; nickel—68; selenium—1; thallium—0.21; tin—540; 

zinc—670; p-cresol—8.5; and formaldehyde—43. (B) The total concentrations measured in 

any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): chromium—5,300; mercury—7; 

and formaldehyde—540. 

2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified 

delisting levels, GM must collect and analyze one representative sample of JTAP’s sludge 

on a quarterly basis. 

71006 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

3. Changes in Operating Conditions: GM must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing 

process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the 

chemicals used in the treatment process at JTAP significantly change. GM must handle 

wastes generated at JTAP after the process change as hazardous until it has demonstrated that the waste continues to meet the delisting levels and that no new hazardous 

constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced and GM has received 

written approval from EPA. 

4. Data Submittals: GM must submit the data obtained through verification testing at JTAP or 

as required by other conditions of this rule to EPA Region 5, Waste Management Branch 

(DW–8J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. The quarterly verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted annually upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. GM must compile, summarize, and maintain at JTAP records of 

operating conditions and analytical data for a minimum of five years. GM must make these 

records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the 

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

5. Reopener Language—(a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, GM possesses or 

is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste at JTAP indicating that any constituent is at a level in the leachate higher than the specified delisting level, or is in the 

groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable groundwater concentration in paragraph (e), then GM must report such data in writing to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(b) Based on the information described in paragraph (a) and any other information received 

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

whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. 

(c) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify GM in writing of the actions the Regional 

Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The 

notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing GM with 

an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. GM shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information. 

(d) If after 30 days GM presents no further information, the Regional Administrator will issue 

a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect 

human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise. 

(e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater Concentrations (mg/L):; antimony—0.006; arsenic—

0.005; cadmium—0.005; chromium—0.1; lead—0.015; nickel—0.750; selenium—0.050; 

tin—23; zinc—11; p-Cresol—0.190; and formaldehyde—0.950. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23229 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 403 

[CMS–1428–F3] 

RIN–0938–AM80 

Medicare Program; Changes to the 

Hospital Inpatient Prospective 

Payment System and Fiscal Year 2005 

Rates: Fire Safety Requirements for 

Religious Non-Medical Health Care 

Institutions: Correction To Reinstate 

Requirements for Written Fire Control 

Plans and Maintenance of 

Documentation 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: In the August 11, 2004 issue 

of the Federal Register (69 FR 48916), 

we published the Hospital Inpatient 

Prospective Payment System final rule. 

This correcting amendment reinstates 

paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) in 42 CFR 

403.744 (Condition of participation: Life 

safety from fire), which were 

accidentally deleted by that rule. Those 

paragraphs relate to requirements for 

fire control plans and maintenance of 

documentation in religious non-medical 

health care institutions. The effective 

date was October 1, 2004. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This correcting 

amendment is effective November 25, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janice Graham, (410) 786–8020; Danielle