[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31756-31769]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-4]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261 and 302

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0984, FRL-8575-4]
RIN 2050-AG15

Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Amendment to Hazardous Waste Code F019

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the list
of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources (called F-wastes) by
modifying the scope of the EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019 (Wastewater
treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum
except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when such
phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process). The Agency is
amending the F019 listing to exempt wastewater treatment sludges from
zinc phosphating, when such phosphating is used in the motor vehicle
manufacturing process, provided that the wastes are not placed outside
on the land prior to shipment to a landfill for disposal, and the
wastes are placed in landfill units that are subject to or meet the
specified landfill design criteria. This final action on the F019
listing does not affect any other wastewater treatment sludges either
from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum, or from other
industrial sources. Additionally, this rule amends the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) list
of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities so that the F019
listing description is consistent with the amendment to F019 under
regulations for hazardous wastes from non-specific sources.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0984. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is
(202) 566-0270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, review our
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste. For information on
specific aspects of the rule, contact James Michael of the Office of
Solid Waste (5304P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (E-mail address and
telephone number<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 308-8610).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

Who Is Potentially Affected by This Final Rule?

    This final rule could directly affect businesses that generate
certain wastes from the manufacturing of motor vehicles in the (1)
automobile manufacturing industry and (2) light truck/utility vehicle
manufacturing industry (NAICS codes 336111 and 336112, respectively).
Other motor vehicle manufacturing industries (e.g., heavy duty truck or
motor home manufacturing) are not affected by this rule. The wastes
affected by this final rule are wastewater treatment sludges generated
from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum using a zinc
phosphating process and are currently listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F019 (see 40 CFR 261.31). These wastes will not be subject to the F019
listing, provided the wastes are not placed outside on the land prior
to the shipment to a landfill for disposal and are either: disposed in
a Subtitle D municipal or industrial landfill unit that is equipped
with a single clay liner and is permitted, licensed or otherwise
authorized by the state; or disposed in a landfill unit subject to, or
otherwise meeting, the landfill requirements in Sec.  258.40, Sec.
264.301, or Sec.  265.301. Impacts on potentially affected entities are
summarized in Section VI of this Preamble. The ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis'' (RIA) for this action presents an analysis of potentially
affected entities and is available in the docket

established in support of this final rule. Entities potentially
affected by this action are at least 7 current F019 generators within
these two industries, consisting of four auto and three light truck/
utility vehicle plants, and up to 42 other facilities in these two
industries that may begin applying aluminum parts and could potentially
generate regulated F019 waste without this final rule (based on 2005
Biennial Report data).\1\ This action might also affect the 19 auto and
light truck plants with prior F019 de-listings issued between 1997 and
2007, because this action could supplant their delisting status and
conditions, depending upon the extent of state government voluntary
adoption of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA, in partnership with the States, biennially collects
information regarding the generation, management, and final
disposition of hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA. See the 2005
Biennial Report on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you
should examine 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 carefully, along with the final
regulatory language amending Chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). This language is found at the end of this Federal
Register notice. If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Preamble Outline

I. Legal Authority
II. List of Acronyms
III. Summary of This Action
IV. Summary of the Proposed Action
    A. Summary of Risk Assessment Approach Used
    B. Proposed Landfill Liner Design Options
    C. Proposed Options for Recordkeeping and Storage
V. Rationale for This Final Rule and Response to Comments
    A. Landfill Liner Conditions
    B. The Need for Storage Requirements
    C. Recordkeeping Requirements
    D. Scope and Applicability of the Exemption
    E. Applicability to Recycled Waste
    F. Interrelationship Between the Exemption and Delistings
    G. Waste Analysis
    H. Other Issues
VI. State Authorization
VII. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) Designation and List of Hazardous Substances
and Reportable Quantities
VIII. Relationship to Other Rules--Clean Water Act
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Legal Authority

    The hazardous waste regulations are promulgated under the authority
of Sections 2002 and 3001(b) and (f), 3004(d)-(m) and 3007(a) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, most importantly by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921(b),
6924(d)-(m) and 6927(a). These statutes combined are commonly referred
to as the ``Resource Conservation and Recovery Act'' (RCRA) and will be
referred to as such for the remainder of this Notice.
    Because EPA is amending the national listing of F019, EPA believes
the appropriate statutory authority is that found in section 3001(b),
rather that the authority in section 3001(f). RCRA section 3001(f)
pertains solely to the exclusion of a waste generated at a particular
facility in response to a petition. Accordingly, neither the procedures
nor the standards established in that provision, or in EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 260.22 are applicable to this rulemaking.
    Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is
the authority under which the CERCLA aspects of this rule are
promulgated.

II. List of Acronyms

                                Acronyms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Acronym                             Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBI..................................  Confidential Business
                                        Information.
CERCLA...............................  Comprehensive Environmental
                                        Response, Compensation, and
                                        Liability Act.
CFR..................................  Code of Federal Regulations.
DRAS.................................  Delisting Risk Assessment
                                        Software.
EPA..................................  Environmental Protection Agency.
ICR..................................  Information Collection Request.
IWEM.................................  Industrial Waste Management
                                        Evaluation Model.
MSWLF................................  Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
NAICS................................  North American Industrial
                                        Classification System.
NTTAA................................  National Technology and Transfer
                                        Act.
OMB..................................  Office of Management and Budget.
OSWER................................  Office of Solid Waste and
                                        Emergency Response.
PRA..................................  Paperwork Reduction Act.
RCRA.................................  Resource Conservation and
                                        Recovery Act.
RFA..................................  Regulatory Flexibility Act.
RQ...................................  Reportable Quantity.
UMRA.................................  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of This Action

    In this notice, EPA is promulgating regulations that amend the list
of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources under 40 CFR 261.31 by
modifying the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019. The revised
listing will now read:

    F019--Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum
can washing when such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating
process. Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing of
motor vehicles using a zinc phosphating process will not be subject
to this listing at the point of generation if the wastes are not
placed outside on the land prior to shipment to a landfill for
disposal and are either: disposed in a Subtitle D municipal or
industrial landfill unit that is equipped with a single clay liner
and is permitted, licensed or otherwise authorized by the state; or
disposed in a landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, the
landfill requirements in Sec.  258.40, Sec.  264.301 or Sec.
265.301. For the purposes of this listing, motor vehicle
manufacturing is defined in Sec.  261.31(b)(4)(i) of this section
and paragraph Sec.  261.31(b)(4)(ii) of this section describes the
recordkeeping requirements for motor vehicle manufacturing
facilities.

    The Agency is amending the F019 listing to exempt the wastewater
treatment sludge generated from zinc phosphating, when zinc phosphating
is used in the automobile assembly process, provided the waste are not
placed outside on the land prior to shipment to a landfill for disposal
and the waste is disposed in a landfill unit subject, or otherwise
meeting, certain liner requirements. Wastes that meet these conditions
will be exempted from the listing from their point of generation, and
will not be subject to any RCRA Subtitle C management requirements for
generation, storage, transport, treatment, or disposal (including the
land disposal restrictions). The Agency is also requiring that the
generator maintain records on site to show that the waste meets the
conditions of the listing.
    For the purposes of the F019 listing, motor vehicle manufacturing
is defined to include the manufacture of automobiles and light trucks/
utility vehicles (including light duty vans, pick-up trucks, minivans,
and sport utility vehicles). The motor vehicle manufacturing industry
incorporates aluminum into vehicle parts and bodies for the purpose of
making them lighter-weight and thus more capable of increasing gas
mileage. However, when aluminum is incorporated into the body of an
automobile, the conversion coating step in the manufacturing process
resulted in the generation of an RCRA-listed hazardous waste (F019) in
the form of a wastewater treatment sludge from the conversion coating
process. Wastewaters from the conversion coating of steel in the same
industry do not generate a listed hazardous waste. By removing the
regulatory controls under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the use of aluminum
in motor vehicles. The Agency believes that the incorporation of
aluminum will be advantageous to the environment since lighter-weight
vehicles are capable of achieving increased fuel economy and associated
decreased exhaust air emissions. These modifications to the F019
listing will not affect any other wastewater treatment sludges either
from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum, or from other
industrial sources.
    The Agency is also promulgating conforming changes to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) list of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities under
40 CFR 302.4 so that the F019 listing description is consistent with
the changes to the F019 listing.

IV. Summary of the Proposed Action

    On January 18, 2007 (72 FR 2219), the Agency proposed to amend the
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources (called F-wastes)
under 40 CFR 261.31 by modifying the scope of the EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F019 (Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can
washing when such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating
process). Specifically, the Agency proposed to amend the F019 listing
to exempt wastewater treatment sludge generated from zinc phosphating,
when zinc phosphating is used in the automobile assembly process and
provided the waste is disposed in a landfill unit subject to certain
liner design criteria. A summary of the proposed listing amendment is
presented below. More detailed discussions are provided in the preamble
to the proposed rule and in the background documents included in the
docket for this rule.

A. Summary of Risk Assessment Approach Used

    The Agency's risk assessment evaluated risks to human health and
the environment from a landfill disposal scenario. (See the ``Technical
Support Document: Assessment of Potential Risks from Managing F019
Waste from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry'' in the docket for
this rulemaking for a detailed description of the analysis that the
Agency performed, hereinafter referred to as the Technical Support
Document.) EPA initially evaluated the potential risks posed by the
volumes of F019 waste from the automobile manufacturers that might be
disposed of in an unlined nonhazardous waste landfill, and then
evaluated potential risks from disposal in landfills that use different
liner technologies. The risk evaluation used several environmental
fate, transport, and exposure/risk models: the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS), version 2.0, the Industrial Waste
Management Evaluation Model (IWEM),\2\ and EPA's Composite Model for
Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). See the
Technical Support Document for a detailed description of the use of
these models and their peer review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ IWEM is the groundwater modeling component of the Guide for
Industrial Waste Management, used for recommending appropriate liner
system designs for the management of RCRA Subtitle D industrial
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's Regional Offices, and certain states, use the DRAS model to
determine whether to grant requests for delistings under 40 CFR 260.22.
The RCRA regulations provide a form of relief for listed wastes through
a site-specific process known as ``delisting.'' Under this process, any
person may petition EPA to remove its waste from regulation under the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in Part 261. EPA has granted
delistings to a number of motor vehicle manufacturing facilities that
generate F019 wastes.
    EPA used the DRAS model to calculate the levels of constituents in
a waste that would not exceed the 10-5 risk level for
carcinogens (i.e., less than or equal to an increased probability of
developing cancer that is one in one hundred thousand).\3\ For non-
carcinogens, EPA used a ``hazard quotient'' (HQ) less than or equal to
1.0; the hazard quotient is the ratio of an individual's chronic daily
exposure to a standard, such as the chronic reference dose.\4\ Using
the DRAS model, EPA evaluated risks from potential exposures

to waste constituents resulting from releases to groundwater, air (both
waste particles and volatile emissions), and surface water. See the
Technical Support Document for a complete description of the scenario
that was modeled using DRAS, the human health and ecological exposure
pathways, and the data sources the Agency used as model inputs. For the
purposes of this national rulemaking, EPA chose to adopt a conservative
modeling approach in order to assure continued protection of human
health and the environment. While this process was used to determine if
these wastes would pose a risk if disposed of in unlined landfills, the
Agency notes that facilities can petition for a separate site-specific
delisting of their F019 wastestreams based on their chemical
composition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These risk levels are consistent with those discussed in
EPA's hazardous waste listing determination policy (see the
discussion in a proposed listing for wastes from the dye and pigment
industries, December 22, 1994; 59 FR 66072).
    \4\ The reference dose is ``an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure for
a chronic duration (up to a lifetime) to the human population
(including sensitive subpopulations) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.'' See
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To identify waste constituents, EPA reviewed information from 13
motor vehicle manufacturing facilities' delisting petitions. This
included information on the specific chemicals used in the conversion
coating process, and the analytical data received from the 13
facilities' delisting petitions. The Agency evaluated the chemicals
that were detected in the F019 sludge from the analyses conducted by
the petitioners for approximately 240 chemical constituents. EPA's
evaluation assumed that the waste volume equaled the volume resulting
from 20 to 30 years of disposal into a landfill (90,000 cubic yards).
    Based on the assessment of the groundwater pathway using DRAS, the
Agency determined that two constituents (arsenic and nickel) had
maximum detected values that, in certain scenarios, exceeded the
10-5 risk level or an HQ of 1. The DRAS modeling for unlined
landfills yielded an estimated HQ of 3 for nickel, and an estimated
individual excess lifetime cancer risk for arsenic of three in one
hundred thousand. Thus, using conservative modeling and exposure
assumptions, the Agency found that the projected levels for these two
constituents could exceed these risk levels by up to a factor of three.
    The potential risks found by the DRAS modeling were from the
groundwater exposure pathway, therefore, units with liner systems
should dramatically lessen releases to groundwater. DRAS does not have
an option to model the impact of liners on landfill releases. To
examine the potential impact of liners, the Agency compared the levels
calculated by the Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM),
for clay-lined and composite-lined landfills. \5\ The initial IWEM
evaluation clearly showed that the use of a composite-lined landfill
would result in risk levels for the two key constituents of concern,
below 10-5 for arsenic and an HQ of less than 1 for nickel.
EPA also referred to the modeling performed for lined landfills in the
recent listing rule for dye and pigment production wastes to show that
composite-lined landfills provided significant protection compared to
an unlined unit (February 24, 2005, 70 FR 9138).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A composite liner as defined in Sec.  258.40 consists of a
combination of a synthetic liner and an underlying compacted soil/
clay liner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IWEM results for a clay-lined unit also indicated that a single
clay liner offers added protection compared to an unlined unit. For
nickel, the risk level achieved by a single clay liner was
approximately 3-fold less than the risk level for an unlined unit. For
arsenic, the risk level achieved by a single clay liner was
approximately 7-fold less than the level for an unlined unit. Given
that the DRAS results for these two constituents exceeded these levels
by only a factor of 3, EPA concluded that disposal in a landfill with a
single clay liner would also be sufficiently protective.

B. Proposed Landfill Liner Design Options

    Based on the modeling results, EPA proposed two landfill design
options under which F019 sludge from motor vehicle manufacturers would
not be hazardous. Under option one, EPA proposed that the landfill unit
must meet the liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLFs) in 40 CFR 258.40 or other liner designs containing a composite
liner.\6\ Under option two, the Agency proposed to also allow disposal
in state-permitted municipal and industrial solid waste landfills,
provided the landfill unit includes at least a single clay liner (this
option would also allow disposal in the types of landfill units allowed
under option one, i.e., units equipped with composite liners). The
Agency sought comment on whether option two would provide any
significant regulatory relief over option one. MSWLFs are required to
have composite liners (or performance based equivalents), except for
``existing'' units (i.e., generally units that existed prior to 1993).
Thus, EPA believes that most MSWLF units are likely to have composite
liners (or equivalents). The Agency solicited comment on whether option
two would be straightforward to implement or whether it will raise
implementation or compliance issues for the waste generator, such as
the availability of state standards for liners in older landfills, and
on any issues that might be raised for recordkeeping and documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Disposal in hazardous waste landfills would also be allowed,
because the regulations in Sec. Sec.  264.301 and 265.301 include
composite liners. Federal regulations for municipal solid waste
landfills require that new units (and lateral expansions of existing
units) meet design criteria for composite liners and leachate
collection systems (or other approved performance standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Options on Recordkeeping and Storage

    In the proposal, EPA noted that disposal in a landfill subject to
or meeting the landfill design requirements was a condition of the
exemption, so that if a generator does not fulfill this condition, the
sludges would be F019 listed wastes and subject to the applicable
Subtitle C requirements. The Agency encouraged generators to properly
store the wastes that are claimed to be nonhazardous wastes to ensure
that improper releases do not occur. Generators wishing to qualify for
the exemption from the F019 listing would be required to maintain
records to show that their wastes are placed in a landfill unit that
meets the specified liner requirements. The Agency proposed a flexible
performance standard that would allow the generator to demonstrate that
shipments of waste were received by an appropriate landfill unit
through various means. The proposal stated that a generator could use
contracts with landfills and shipping documents to demonstrate that the
landfill owner/operator used units that met the liner design
requirements: The generator could also use bills of lading, manifests,
or invoices documenting delivery. The proposed regulatory text (Sec.
261.31(b)(4)(iii)) specified the necessary records.
    The Agency requested comment on whether the proposed recordkeeping
requirements should be made conditions of the exemption, rather than
established as separate recordkeeping requirements. In addition, the
Agency sought comment on whether additional requirements or conditions
would be necessary to ensure that the waste is not improperly disposed
or released prior to disposal. The Agency also asked for comment on
possible regulatory language that might be used to specify that the
waste be stored so as to minimize releases to the environment. The
Agency sought any information as to the current and likely sludge
management practices at motor vehicle manufacturers. The Agency noted
that, if such information indicated generators are already handling the
waste to

minimize releases, the Agency would consider this when deciding whether
storage conditions are necessary.

V. Rationale for This Final Rule and Response to Comments

    While all of the commenters generally supported the exemption, they
differed over the types of management and landfill conditions that are
necessary for the exempt waste. Some commenters also suggested that the
Agency expand the scope of the exemption in various ways. After
reviewing the comments, the Agency has decided to promulgate the final
rule with limited revisions to the proposed regulation. This section
will describe the revisions to the rule, which encompass the Agency's
decision on a number of options presented in the proposal. This section
also provides responses to the key comments received on the proposal.
More details of the Agency's responses are contained in the document
entitled ``Response to Comments Document: Amendment to Hazardous Waste
Listing Code F019 (Final Rule)'', which is in the docket for this
rulemaking.

A. Landfill Liner Conditions

    The proposed exemption was conditioned on the disposal of the waste
in a landfill meeting certain liner design requirements. The proposal
presented two options for the landfill liner design. Under option one,
the landfill unit would have a liner system that meets, or is subject
to, the design requirements for an MSWLF (Sec.  258.40) or a Subtitle C
waste landfill (Sec. Sec.  264.301 and 265.301). Option two would also
allow the generator the option of disposing the waste in a state
permitted/authorized Subtitle D landfill (municipal or industrial) that
is equipped with a single clay liner. The Agency sought comment on
whether the second option would provide significant additional
regulatory relief, and whether it would provide any special compliance
or implementation issues.
    Most commenters stated that the exemption should allow disposal of
the exempt waste in any clay-lined landfill, and not be restricted to
disposal in landfills that would typically have composite liners. Some
commenters specifically supported the second option, arguing that this
would provide more flexibility for possible disposal sites, which might
be important for generators in remote locations. Commenters noted that
this would not raise any special implementation, compliance, or
recordkeeping problems, because generators would rely on state
permitting authorities to identify adequate landfills. Other commenters
stated that the regulatory language of the exemption should not
conflict with, but rather acknowledge, existing state regulations,
e.g., it should allow disposal in a landfill unit ``meeting state
regulatory liner requirements.'' Another commenter stated that disposal
should be limited to ``permitted Subtitle C or D landfills.''
    The Agency has decided to adopt the second landfill liner option in
the final rule. That is, the regulations will specify that the waste is
exempt, provided the wastes are either disposed in a permitted Subtitle
D (municipal or industrial) landfill unit that is equipped with at
least a single clay liner, or in a unit that is subject to, or
otherwise meets, the liner requirements for MSWLFs (Sec.  258.40) or
hazardous waste landfills (Sec.  264.301 or Sec.  265.301). The
modeling performed for the proposed rule demonstrated that disposal of
the waste in a landfill equipped with either a composite liner or a
clay liner would be protective. The Agency believes that a clay liner
is sufficiently protective and provides added regulatory flexibility
for generators. As described in the proposed rule, the protective
factor provided by a clay-lined unit compared to an unlined unit was
sufficient to reduce risks from an unlined unit to below
10-5 risk level or an HQ of 1.
    The Agency also notes that the modeling performed for clay-lined
landfills in the recent listing for dye and pigment production wastes
(February 24, 2005, 70 FR 9138) showed that the clay-lined units
provided a similar level of risk reduction for metals released from a
landfill (i.e., the clay-lined unit reduced risks for metals by a
factor of 3.2 to 3.8 compared to an unlined unit).\7\ These results
provide further support that the margin of protection offered by a
single clay liner is sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The modeling results for clay-lined units, while not
specifically cited in the proposal, were included in the risk
document for the Dyes and Pigments waste listing that was placed
into the docket to support the conclusion that liners reduce risks
for the exempt waste to below 10-5 for carcinogens or an
HQ of less than or equal to 1 for non-carcinogens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule will require the generator to document that the
wastewater treatment sludge went to a permitted landfill that was
equipped with at least a single clay liner. As discussed in the
proposed rule, the generators may obtain information on the landfill
units in question from the state permitting authorities (or the
receiving landfill, if the facility has adequate documents, such as a
permit to operate). It is the responsibility of the generator to
document the adequacy of the receiving landfill's design and to keep
records that demonstrate that the landfill condition for disposal was
met.

B. The Need for Storage Requirements

    In the proposed rule, the Agency requested comment on the option of
adding storage conditions to the exemption. The Agency also sought
further information on the sludge management practices of the motor
vehicle manufacturers generating F019 waste. The proposal presented
some possible regulatory language that would require proper storage of
sludges before disposal. Most commenters stated that storage conditions
were unnecessary for the exempt sludge prior to shipment off site for
disposal. Commenters stated that it was ``standard industry-wide
practice'' for dewatering equipment and containers to be inside
buildings, and for containers to be routinely covered when moved
outside for shipment off site to prevent precipitation from entering
the containers. These commenters also stated that requirements to
constantly cover and uncover containers could cause, rather than
prevent, spills. Two commenters, however, supported the concept of some
storage conditions. One simply stated they concurred with the proposed
regulatory language for storage. The other commenter suggested that the
exempt waste should be regulated as hazardous until disposed in a
landfill to ensure safe handling.
    The Agency does not believe there is a need for detailed storage
conditions or regulation of the waste as hazardous prior to disposal.
The Agency has decided that detailed storage requirements or conditions
are not necessary, given the known management practices for the waste.
As noted in the proposed rule, during visits to vehicle manufacturing
sites, the Agency found that dewatering equipment and containers were
kept inside buildings, reducing any potential for releases. This is
consistent with the comments provided by automobile manufacturers on
the proposed rule. The Agency also expects, as commenters stated, that
containers are kept covered when moved outside for transport off site
to prevent the entrance of precipitation. The Agency has no information
to suggest that such sludges have been stored improperly or that
releases have occurred from on-site management of either F019 waste, or
the formerly F019 wastes that were delisted. None of the 19 delistings
that have been granted for this waste have imposed any special storage
requirements for the delisted waste. Furthermore, as comments submitted
by state authorities

noted, the exempt waste remains subject to regulation as an industrial
solid waste.
    Based on the analysis described in section IV.A of this notice, the
Agency believes that the waste in question carries risk below the
10-5 risk level or an HQ of 1 when properly disposed. The
Agency evaluated potential releases of the sludge to air, surface
water, and groundwater that may arise from the disposal of the waste in
a landfill for 20 to 30 years, and found no significant risk, provided
disposal occurs in units equipped with certain liner designs. This
waste does not present any apparent acute risk (e.g., fire/explosion
hazard, or highly toxic chemicals), and the relatively high water
content of the sludge would also reduce the likelihood of any air
dispersal of the sludge on site.
    However, the Agency recognizes that commenters have some concerns
over management practices for the waste prior to disposal. In lieu of
detailed storage conditions, the Agency has decided to include
regulatory language specifying that the waste must not be placed
outside on the land prior to disposal. Given that the exemption is
conditioned upon the ultimate disposal in an appropriate landfill, EPA
believes that a requirement that the generator not place the waste on
the land prior to disposal is implicit in that condition, and therefore
the inclusion of this specific direction is reasonable. Such a
prohibition addresses any potential risks from management of the waste
on the land prior to shipment offsite. In the proposal, the storage
conditions the Agency offered as an option included more specific
requirements for how the waste must be stored prior to disposal.
However, as noted above, generators appear to be managing the waste
appropriately at this time, so a simpler direction prohibiting on land
placement prior to disposal is sufficient.
    The Agency believes that placement outside on the land in an
uncontrolled manner creates a potential for release of toxic
constituents from the waste. Also, the Agency's risk analysis indicated
that the F019 waste at issue may present risks above the
10-5 risk level (or an HQ of one) if disposed in an unlined
land-based unit. The prohibition on land placement prior to disposal
ensures that the waste is properly handled to avoid placement in an
uncontrolled land area (which is analogous to an unlined landfill).
Therefore, the Agency is adding language to the conditions of the
exemption in Sec.  261.31(a) that specifies that the generator cannot
place the waste outside on the land prior to shipment for disposal at a
landfill. The Agency is also deleting the language in Sec.
261.31(b)(ii) from the proposed regulation, because the language is not
needed; the conditions for the exemption are fully specified in the
listing description in Sec.  261.31(a). EPA has made minor changes to
the regulation to make the exemption language consistent with the
removal of the proposed language in Sec.  261.31(b)(ii) and the
renumbering of the recordkeeping requirements, originally proposed as
Sec.  261.31(b)(iii), as Sec.  261.31(b)(ii) in the final rule.
    Generators that do not meet the conditions (i.e., no outside
placement on the land and disposal of the waste in a landfill unit that
meets certain liner design criteria) would be subject to enforcement
action. In such cases, the wastewater treatment sludges may be
considered to be F019 listed hazardous waste from the point of their
generation, and EPA could choose to bring an enforcement action under
RCRA section 3008(a) for violations of hazardous waste regulatory
requirements occurring from the time the wastewater treatment sludges
are generated. Furthermore, if any releases of the waste occurred that
threaten human health or the environment, the releases could
potentially be addressed through enforcement orders, such as orders
under RCRA sections 3013 and 7003. States could choose to take an
enforcement action for violations of state hazardous waste requirements
under state authorities.
    Based on the information available, the Agency believes that the
condition of no land placement allows the motor vehicle manufacturers
to dispose of this waste as nonhazardous, while continuing their
current waste management practices. Storage in roll-off boxes and
similar containers, as well as storage inside buildings, would clearly
fulfill the condition of no outside land placement. Therefore, the
Agency believes that the condition will not impose any additional
burden on the generators.

C. Recordkeeping Requirements

    As noted in the proposal, generators claiming the exemption must be
able to demonstrate that the conditions of the exemption are being met
and bear the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance (analogous to
other exemptions, see 40 CFR 261.2(f)). Therefore, it is important that
generators retain sufficient records to document the disposal site for
the exempt waste. The proposed rule included regulatory text (Sec.
261.31(b)(4)(iii)) that specified the records necessary for a generator
claiming the exemption. EPA requested comment on whether the proposed
recordkeeping requirements should also be made conditions of the
exemption, rather than established as a separate regulatory provision.
If the recordkeeping provisions were made conditions of the exemption,
then failure to comply may result in enforcement actions for violating
RCRA standards for storing hazardous waste.
    Most commenters stated that the recordkeeping requirement should be
a separate regulatory requirement, and not a condition of the exemption
itself. They noted that the full Subtitle C requirements should only
apply when the waste is not sent to an appropriate landfill, and not
when the generator may have failed to comply with ancillary
recordkeeping requirements. One of these commenters assumed that, in
addition to the need to document the waste volume generated and
disposed off site, the information would also include the identity of
the landfill where the sludge was disposed. Another commenter
encouraged the Agency to make the recordkeeping requirements a
condition of the exemption to reinforce the concept that the exemption
is conditioned on proper management.
    The Agency believes that a recordkeeping requirement, rather than a
condition, will be sufficient motivation to ensure that the waste is
properly disposed. The Agency believes that full Subtitle C
requirements should not apply if the generator complied with the
disposal conditions, i.e., the waste was sent to an appropriate
landfill, but the generator simply lacked adequate records. This avoids
cases where the lack of recordkeeping leads to the waste being
hazardous, regardless of the actual disposal site. Failure to comply
with recordkeeping requirements could result in enforcement action by
EPA under section 3008 of RCRA (or by an authorized state under similar
state authorities), which authorizes the imposition of substantial
civil penalties. Also, as noted by one commenter, the generator should
be able to demonstrate that their waste was properly disposed of just
as they would for any other solid waste.
    However, the Agency recognizes the need for adequate records for
enforcement authorities to confirm that the exempt waste was properly
disposed. The proposed recordkeeping requirements in Sec.
261.31(b)(4)(iii) would require generators to maintain documentation
sufficient to prove that the waste meets the disposal condition,
including the volume of waste generated and disposed off site. The
Agency agrees with the one commenter's assumption that this information
would include the identity of the landfill(s) where the

sludge was disposed. The Agency has decided to more specifically
describe the type of information needed in order to clarify the
requirement. The recordkeeping requirement in the final rule will
include: The volume of waste generated and disposed of off site;
documentation showing when the waste volumes were generated and sent
off site; the name and location of the receiving facility; and
documentation confirming receipt of the waste by the receiving
facility. The Agency believes that these requirements will ensure that
there is sufficient information available to document the quantity of
waste generated and identify the landfill that received the waste,
without the need to establish the recordkeeping requirements as
conditions to the exemption. The Agency expects that generators will
typically retain records for shipments of solid waste to off-site
landfills that will contain the information included in the
recordkeeping requirement.

D. Scope and Applicability of the Exemption

    The proposed rule exempts waste from one industrial sector
(automobile manufacturers) that uses a specific aluminum conversion
process (zinc phosphating). Several commenters urged EPA to expand the
exemption to include other generators in other industries. Commenters
argued that other sectors related to automobile manufacturing
(categories under NAICS code 336 such as travel trailer manufacturers
and parts manufacturers) and other industrial sectors (aerospace
industry) use the same conversion coating processes. One commenter also
suggested that the amendment to the listing be expanded to include auto
manufacturing processes beyond the zinc phosphating process. This
commenter suggested that the exemption be expanded to include processes
``where neither hexavalent chromium nor cyanide is used in the chemical
conversion coating process.'' The commenter believes that this language
would better reflect EPA's intent in the original F019 listing.
    The Agency is not expanding the scope of the exemption in the final
rule to include other manufacturing categories. As described in the
proposal, the Agency has a wealth of data from the automobile
manufacturing/assembly facilities derived from the delisting petitions
for 13 motor vehicle manufacturing facilities. These data include
material safety data sheets and the analytical data compiled from the
analyses of the F019 sludge samples from these facilities. The sludge
samples were analyzed for approximately 240 chemicals, which yielded a
large data base for the proposed rule (e.g., for a key constituent
nickel, 106 samples were analyzed for nickel content and 193 were
analyzed for leachable nickel). In comparison, the commenters did not
provide any documentation to support their contention that the
phosphating process used by the other generators cited is the same as
that found at motor vehicle manufacturing facilities. Furthermore,
commenters did not provide any analytical data to show that the
associated wastestreams are the same or ``virtually identical.''
Therefore, the Agency has no basis to consider expanding the exemption.
    Finally, the Agency clearly noted in the preamble to the proposed
rule that it was not reopening any other aspect of the F019 listing:
``EPA is not reopening any aspect of the F019 listing other than those
specifically identified in this proposal, and will not respond to any
comments that address issues beyond the specific proposals outlined in
this notice.'' See 72 FR 2223. Therefore, the Agency did not entertain
any more general revisions to the F019 listing to exclude waste from
processes where neither hexavalent chromium nor cyanide is used. In
addition, the Agency has no data to indicate that hexavalent chromium
and cyanide are the only constituents of concern in various conversion
coating processes. In fact, although the F019 waste from the automotive
manufacturers did not contain significant levels of hexavalent chromium
or cyanide, the Agency found that the levels of nickel and arsenic are
of some concern.

E. Applicability to Recycled Waste

    In the proposed rule, the Agency stated that it was not aware of
any recycling or reclamation of F019 sludges, and believed that current
market conditions do not support such recycling for the purpose of
recovering the metal content of the waste. The Agency requested comment
on whether its understanding was accurate, and whether recycling of
F019 waste is economically feasible. The comments the Agency received
on this question confirmed that F019 wastes from automotive
manufacturing are not currently recycled for metal recovery. However,
commenters noted that, if the waste was not a listed hazardous waste,
potential avenues of recycling, reclamation or other beneficial use of
the sludge could develop in the marketplace, such as use as an
admixture for concrete. Commenters urged the Agency to modify the
exemption to include wastes that are recycled in some fashion.
    The Agency has no documented information to indicate a market
exists for recovering the metals in F019 waste from motor vehicle
manufacturers. Some commenters appear to believe that the amended
listing would allow beneficial uses of the sludge to develop. However,
the Agency notes that the exemption requires the sludge to be disposed
in a landfill that meets the specified liner conditions, and the
requirement that the generator not place the waste on the land prior to
disposal. Therefore, using the sludge as an admixture for concrete
would not meet this condition, and the use of F019 sludge in this way
may subject the materials to regulation as ``use constituting
disposal'' (see 40 CFR 266.20).
    The exemption being promulgated by the Agency in this final rule
does not eliminate the possibility of legitimate reuse of the sludge,
whether or not the sludge carries the F019 listing code. However, the
Agency did not attempt to evaluate the legitimacy of potential
recycling uses of the F019 sludge, and the final rule does not address
such uses. The Agency is evaluating revisions to the definition of
solid waste that may relate to the legitimate reclamation of various
wastes. See the proposed rules published March 26, 2007 (72 FR 14172)
and October 28, 2005 (68 FR 61588). However, these proposed actions are
currently limited to reclamation activities and would not apply to
recycling of materials that are used to produce products that are
applied to or placed on the land.

F. Interrelationship Between the Exemption and Delistings

    In the proposal, the Agency discussed the interrelationship between
the proposed exemption and F019 listings (which is complicated by the
overlay of state authorizations). The Agency indicated that if the
revisions to the F019 listing are adopted by authorized state programs,
then the existing delistings would not be needed to exclude the waste
from the listing, provided the waste is not placed on the land prior to
shipment to a landfill, and the landfill unit meets the specified liner
requirements. That is, the subject sludge would never become an F019
waste if the exemption conditions are met, so a delisting is not
needed. The Agency suggested that a facility with a delisting ``may
wish to seek to have its delisting withdrawn'' to avoid confusion over
implementation of the exemption. One commenter requested that the
Agency confirm that facilities

with delistings are not required to withdraw them, and that these
delistings would remain in effect until they are withdrawn under the
applicable administrative procedures. The commenter was concerned that
there may be circumstances under which facilities may wish to continue
to manage their wastes pursuant to their delistings.
    As the Agency stated in the proposal, a facility has the option of
continuing to manage its waste as nonhazardous if it complies with the
applicable delisting conditions, rather than the conditions set out in
the exemption. The Agency agrees with the commenter that a facility
with a delisting (which is codified in Appendix IX to part 261) is not
required to withdraw it. This delisting would remain in effect unless
it is withdrawn through the applicable administrative procedures (e.g.,
Sec.  260.20 would apply for a Federal delisting). However, the
generators in this situation are encouraged to explore the need for
existing delistings with state authorities, given the broad coverage of
the exemption, and the applicability of state regulations. See the
discussion below in Section VI. State Authorization for additional
information on the authorization process.

G. Waste Analysis

    One commenter noted that EPA did not conduct leaching tests of the
F019 wastes at multiple pH values, as suggested in the guidance manual
for delisting petitions. The commenter stated that EPA did not explain
why multiple pH testing was not conducted for the proposed F019 listing
modification, when such multiple pH testing was required for the
approval of delisting petitions for wastes that have been stabilized
with chemical reagents. The commenter pointed out that the exempted
F019 waste may be disposed of in a variety of different landfills with
varying pH environments.
    In response, the Agency notes that the exemption for these F019
wastes is not being promulgated as a delisting; rather it is an
amendment to the listing, thus the delisting guidance is not directly
germane. Furthermore, the document cited by the commenter is only
guidance suggested for delisting petitions. In fact, testing at
multiple pHs was not deemed necessary for the numerous delistings
issued for specific F019 wastes generated by vehicle manufacturers. In
any case, the amendment to the F019 listing is based on a wealth of
data generated for 13 delistings (see the proposed rule at 72 FR 2226
for the 13 facilities). These data included extensive leaching data
obtained using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),
which the Agency evaluated using the maximum detected levels in our
risk analysis. For example, the data set included 163 TCLP results for
nickel, from which the maximum value was used.
    The Agency has used the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) extensively to evaluate the leaching mobility for waste
constituents. The TCLP is the method specified for evaluating wastes
for the hazardous waste Toxicity Characteristic (Sec.  261.24). In
addition, the Agency has used the TCLP extensively in evaluating wastes
for listing as a hazardous waste.\8\ The TCLP test procedure is
documented in EPA's compendium of analytical and sampling methods that
have been evaluated and approved for use in complying with the RCRA
regulations.\9\ The Agency has used other extraction methods in some
listing determinations. For example, the Agency has used another
extraction method, the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
(SPLP, SW-846 method 1312) in cases where disposal in MSWLFs was
unlikely and disposal in on-site industrial landfills was the most
probable scenario (see the Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing listing,
September 14, 2000; 65 FR 55684). However, in the case of the F019
amendment, there is no indication that the segment of the vehicle
manufacturing industry at issue will dispose of the exempt waste in on-
site landfills. To the contrary, industry commenters stated that it was
extremely unlikely that they would construct landfills on site for
disposal of this waste.\10\ In addition, the SPLP is a relatively
dilute acid solution and is generally considered less aggressive than
the TCLP for metal extraction (e.g., see the data for lead debris, 63
FR 70189, December 18, 1998), although this depends on the form of the
chemicals in the waste and the waste matrix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, see the determinations for Petroleum Refining
wastes at 63 FR 42110, August 6, 1998, and Chlorinated Aliphatics
Production wastes at 65 FR 67068, November 8, 2000.
    \9\ See EPA publication SW-846, entitled Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.
    \10\ Disposal in an off-site industrial landfill, while
possible, appears less likely than disposal in a municipal solid
waste landfill if only because of the relatively low number of off-
site industrial landfills compared to the large number of municipal
landfills. As of 2005, EPA estimates that about 1,654 municipal
landfills were operating (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/
facts.htm) vs. perhaps 10 to 20 off-site commercial industrial
landfills (see Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of the CESQG
Rulemaking, USEPA, June1996 available at http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/cost/ria.pdf). Furthermore, the Agency expects
that off-site modern commercial industrial landfills are likely to
have liner systems with composite liners in any case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use of leaching tests other than the TCLP have been considered by
the Agency for special wastes, such as stabilized waste that may have
relatively high pH and wastes containing high levels of specific
chemicals (e.g., mercuric sulfide, see the listing for Chlorinated
Aliphatics Production wastes cited above). In the case of the F019
waste at issue, numerous samples of the waste were evaluated by testing
their pH; the data show that the median pH of the samples tested was
7.78, or close to neutrality (see summary data in the docket). Due to
the lack of any special characteristics of the F019 waste, the Agency
does not believe the waste requires any special leaching testing.
Therefore, while the TCLP test may be more representative of a MSWLF
environment, EPA believes that the testing for the F019 exemption is
sufficient, considering the nature of the waste (wastewater treatment
sludge), the large number and variety of waste samples that were
analyzed in support of the delisting petitions, and the plausible
disposal in a MSWLF.
    However, the Agency recognizes the possible limitations of the TCLP
test data. Extending the exemption to industrial landfills (i.e.,
landfills that do not accept municipal waste) adds some additional
uncertainty to the analysis, due to the potential for somewhat
different leaching environments. Moreover, the regulatory programs in
place for nonhazardous industrial waste vary from state to state.\11\
Therefore, the authorized states that adopt this exemption have the
option to consider the need for any further limitations on the specific
landfill conditions they may deem appropriate, depending on their
existing regulatory program for industrial solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the report by Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), ``Non-Municipal,
Subtitle D Waste Survey,'' March 1996, and the EPA report, ``State
Requirements for Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities,'' October 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Other Issues

    One commenter suggested that the Agency revise the regulatory
language to clarify that waste meeting the exemption conditions is
still subject to regulation as a hazardous waste if the waste exhibits
any of the hazardous waste characteristics specified in Subpart C of 40
CFR part 261 (Sec. Sec.  261.20 through 261.24). Commenters also
encouraged the Agency to clarify that the exempt waste is not subject
to

regulation as a hazardous waste at the point of generation.
    The Agency agrees with both of the commenters' suggestions and the
Agency is modifying the listing description in the final rule to
reflect these changes. The preamble to the proposed rule made it clear
that the exempt waste would still be subject to the hazardous waste
characteristics (see 72 FR 2229). In addition, the Agency's intent was
to have the exemption apply from the point of generation, as evidenced
by the preamble to the proposed rule that states: ``Wastes that meet
this condition would be exempted from the listing from their point of
generation, and would not be subject to any RCRA Subtitle C management
requirements for generation, storage, transport, treatment, or disposal
(including the land disposal restrictions)'' (see 72 FR 2221).
Therefore, the final rule will specify that the wastes ``will not be
subject to this listing at the point of generation,'' if the wastes are
managed according to the conditions of the exemption.

VI. State Authorization

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified state to
administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the state in
lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the
state. Following authorization, the state requirements authorized by
EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and become
Federally-enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized states also have independent
authority to bring enforcement actions under state law.
    A state may receive authorization by following the approval process
described in 40 CFR part 271. Part 271 of 40 CFR also describes the
overall standards and requirements for authorization. After a state
receives initial authorization, new Federal regulatory requirements
promulgated under the authority in the RCRA statute do not apply in
that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for
equivalent state requirements. The state must adopt such requirements
to maintain authorization. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g), (42
U.S.C. 6926(g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed
pursuant to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) take
effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in
unauthorized states. Although authorized states still are required to
update their hazardous waste programs to remain equivalent to the
Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in
authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing
those requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so. Authorized
states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates
Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than
existing Federal requirements.
    RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more
stringent than those in the Federal program. See also 40 CFR 271.1(i).
Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt Federal
regulations, either HSWA or non-HSWA, that are considered less
stringent.
    This rule is promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA authority. The
changes in this rule are less stringent than the current Federal
requirements. Therefore, states will not be required to adopt and seek
authorization for these changes. EPA will implement the changes to the
exemptions only in those states which are not authorized for the RCRA
program. Nevertheless, EPA believes that this rule has considerable
merit, and the Agency thus strongly encourages states to amend their
programs and become Federally-authorized to implement these rules.

VII. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Designation and List of Hazardous Substances and
Reportable Quantities

    The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) defines the term ``hazardous substance''
to include RCRA listed and characteristic hazardous wastes. When EPA
adds a hazardous waste under RCRA, the Agency also will add the waste
to its list of CERCLA hazardous substances. EPA also establishes a
reportable quantity, or RQ, for each CERCLA hazardous substance. EPA
provides a list of the CERCLA hazardous substances along with their RQs
in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4. If a person in charge of a vessel or
facility that releases a CERCLA hazardous substance in an amount that
equals or exceeds its RQ, then that person must report that release to
the National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to CERCLA section 103. That
person also may have to notify state and local authorities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See section 304(a) of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and 40 CFR 355.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since this rule is amending the scope of the EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F019 under 40 CFR 261.31 listing to exclude wastewater treatment
sludges from zinc phosphating, when such phosphating is used in the
motor vehicle manufacturing process, and if the wastes are disposed in
a landfill meeting certain liner design criteria, the Table 302.4 at 40
CFR 302.4 is also amended to adopt the same definition and scope.

VIII. Relationship to Other Rules--Clean Water Act

    This action's final regulatory changes will not: (1) Increase the
amount of discharged wastewater pollutants at the industry or facility
levels; or (2) interfere with the ability of industrial generators and
recyclers of electroplating residuals to comply with the Clean Water
Act requirements (e.g., Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines, 40 CFR
Part 433).

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of
this regulatory action. The Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, although the annual
effect of this rule is expected to be less than $100 million, the
Agency has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action
because this rule contains novel policy issues. As such, this action
was submitted to OMB for

review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations
are documented in the docket to this rule.
    The following is a summary of EPA's ``Regulatory Impact Analysis''
(RIA), which is also available from the docket for this action. The
scope of this F019 rule is limited to the (1) automobile manufacturing
industry (NAICS 336111) and (2) the light truck/utility vehicle
manufacturing industry (NAICS 336112). The Agency defined this scope in
relation to 19 recent (since 1997) delisting final determinations for
these two motor vehicle manufacturing industries in EPA Regions 4, 5, 6
and 7.\13\ Under the current F019 listing description, motor vehicle
manufacturers become F019 sludge generators if they use aluminum parts
on vehicle bodies which undergo the chemical conversion (zinc
phosphating) process. Motor vehicle manufacturers began in the early
1970's, to substitute lighter weight aluminum parts for heavier steel
parts to achieve national vehicle fleet fuel efficiency and vehicle
pollutant emission reduction objectives. As promulgated, the
elimination of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory requirements
for waste transport, waste treatment/disposal, and waste reporting/
recordkeeping in this rule, is expected to provide $0.5 to $1.3 million
per year in regulatory cost savings to 7 facilities in these two
industries which generate about 2,500 tons per year of F019 sludge, but
are not yet delisted. Although this final action considered alternative
RCRA Subtitle D non-hazardous waste landfill liner specifications
(i.e., liner design criteria) as possible conditions for exemption of
F019 sludge from RCRA Subtitle C regulation, the RIA does not
distinguish landfill liner types in this cost savings estimate.
Secondary impacts of the proposed rule may also include potential
future RCRA regulatory cost avoidance for up to 42 other facilities in
these two industries that are not currently generating F019 sludge, but
which may begin applying aluminum parts in vehicle assembly.
Furthermore, by reducing regulatory costs, EPA anticipates that this
rule may also induce other motor vehicle manufacturing facilities in
the United States to begin using aluminum in manufacturing of vehicles
sooner than they might otherwise do, thereby possibly accelerating
future achievement of fuel efficiency objectives. The RIA presents a
simplistic scenario of this possibility for the purposes of
illustrating potential future vehicle fuel savings and the associated
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Federal Register (FR) citations for the 19 F019
delisting determinations are: GM in Lake Orion, Michigan (62 FR
55344, October 24, 1997); GM in Lansing, Michigan (65 FR 31096, May
16, 2000); BMWMC in Greer, South Carolina (66 FR 21877, May 2,
2001); Nissan in Smyrna, Tennessee (67 FR 42187, June 21, 2002); GM
in Pontiac, Michigan, GM in Hamtramck, Michigan, GM in Flint,
Michigan, GM Grand River in Lansing, Michigan, Ford in Wixom,
Michigan, Ford in Wayne, Michigan (68 FR 44652, July 30, 2003);
DaimlerChrylser Jefferson North in Detroit, Michigan (69 FR 8828,
February 26, 2004); GM in Lordstown, Ohio (69 FR 60557, October 12,
2004); Ford in Dearborn, Michigan (70 FR 21153, April 25, 2005); GM
in Janesville, Wisconsin (70 FR 71002, November 25, 2005); and GM
Saturn in Spring Hill, Tennessee (70 FR 76168, December 23, 2005);
GM Ft. Wayne Assembly in Ft. Wayne, Indiana (29 Indiana Register
3350, July 1, 2006); GM Arlington Truck Assembly Plant in Arlington,
Texas (72 FR 43, January 3, 2007); AutoAlliance International Inc
(Ford/Mazda joint venture) in Flat Rock, Michigan (72 FR 17027,
April 6, 2007); and Ford Motor Company Kansas City Assembly Plant in
Claycomo, Missouri (72 FR 31185, June 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1189.21 and a copy may
be obtained by going to http://www.regulations.gov and entering docket
ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0984.
    EPA under 40 CFR 261.31(b)(4)(iii), adds a recordkeeping
requirement for generators. The rule will require generators wanting to
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this rule to maintain on
site for a minimum of three years documentation demonstrating that each
shipment of waste was received by a landfill unit that is subject to or
meets the landfill design criteria set out in the listing description.
An enforcement action by the Agency can extend the record retention
period (Sec.  268.7(a)(8)) beyond the three years.
    EPA estimates that the total annual respondent burden for the new
paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately 35 hours per year
and the annual respondent cost for the new paperwork requirements in
the rule is approximately $2,600. However, in addition to the new
paperwork requirements in the rule, the Agency also estimated the
burden and cost that generators could expect as a result of complying
with the existing RCRA hazardous waste information collection
requirements for the exempted materials (e.g., preparation of hazardous
waste manifests, biennial reporting). Taking both the new rule and
existing RCRA requirements into account, EPA expects the rule will
result in a net reduction in national annual paperwork burden to the 7
initially affected NAICS 336111 and 336112 facilities of approximately
440 hours and $32,400. As summarized in the Economics Background
Document and in the prior sub-section of this notice, EPA expects this
net cost savings to be further supplemented by annual cost savings to
these same facilities from reduced waste management costs, by the
expected shift of sludge management from RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
waste management, to RCRA Subtitle D nonhazardous waste management. The
net cost to EPA of administering the rule is expected to be negligible,
since facilities are not required under this rule to submit any
information to the Agency for review and approval. Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust existing systems to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities potentially subject to this action, ``small entity'' is
defined as: (1) The for-profit small business size standards set by the
Small Business Administration (SBA), in reference to the two six-digit
NAICS code industries affected by this action: (1) NAICS 336111
automobile manufacturing SBA standard of less than 1,000 employees, and
(2) NAICS 336112 light truck and utility vehicle manufacturing SBA
standard of less than 1,000 employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts on small entities, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory
flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives
``which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or
otherwise has a positive economic effect on small entities subject to
the rule.
    According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau ``Economics
Census'' data for these two NAICS codes--for data year 2002 published
in December 2004 and May 2005, respectively--there were 176 NAICS
336111 establishments operated in 2002 by 161 companies, of which 154
establishments (88%) had less than 1,000 employees (http://
www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231i336111t.pdf), and there were 97 NAICS
336112 establishments operated in 2002 by 69 companies, of which 62
establishments (64%) had less than 1,000 employees (http://
www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231i336112t.pdf). These census statistics
reveal that both industries consist of large fractions of small
establishments according to the SBA definitions, but the census data do
not reveal the fraction of companies which are small (which is the more
relevant measure). However, it may be inferred that there are large
fractions of small companies in both industries, because of the high
degree of parity between establishment counts and companies counts of
0.96 for NAICS 336111 (i.e., 154:to:161), and of 0.71 for NAICS 336112
(i.e., 69:to:97). This action does not directly affect small
governmental jurisdictions (i.e., a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000), or small organizations (i.e., any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field).
    Because this action is designed to lower the cost of waste
management for these industries, this rule will not result in an
adverse economic impact effect on affected entities. For more
information regarding the economic impact of this rule, please refer to
the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' available from the EPA Docket. EPA
therefore concludes that this rule will relieve regulatory burden for
all size entities, including small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
must prepare a written analysis, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in
expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
regulatory rules, and informing, educating, and advising small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. This is because this rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments. EPA also
has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition,
as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs
exceeding $100 million. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule directly affects
primarily generators of hazardous waste sludges in the NAICS 3361 motor
vehicle manufacturing industry group. There are no state and local
government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this
rulemaking. State and local government implementation expenditures are
expected to be less than $500,000 in any one year. Thus, the
requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
final rule.

    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule
from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments, nor does it impose substantial direct compliance
costs on them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that 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 Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk
to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This final rule
reduces regulatory burden as explained in our ``Economics Background
Document,'' and may possibly induce fuel efficiency and energy savings
in the national motor vehicle fleet. It thus should not adversely
affect energy supply, distribution or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities, unless to
do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use
of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population'' (February
11, 1994), is designed to address the environmental and human health
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color,
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's
policies, programs, and activities. Our goal is to ensure that all
citizens live in clean and sustainable communities. In response to
Executive Order 12898, and to concerns voiced by many groups outside
the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER
Directive No. 9200.3-17).
    The Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from the
management of the zinc phosphating sludge generated by the motor
vehicle manufacturing industry, provided that the waste is disposed in
a landfill that is subject to or meets the landfill design criteria set
out in this rule. Therefore, EPA believes that any populations in
proximity to the landfills used by these facilities should not be
adversely affected by common waste management practices for the
wastewater treatment sludge.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. A ``major rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective July 7, 2008.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Recycling, Waste
treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 302

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Extremely hazardous
substances, Hazardous chemicals, Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous substances, Hazardous wastes,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: May 29, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
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.
0
2. Section 261.31 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (a) by revising the entry for F019.
0
b. By adding paragraph (b)(4).

Sec.  261.31  Hazardous wastes from non-specific sources.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Industry and EPA hazardous
           waste No.                 Hazardous waste        Hazard code
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
F019..........................  Wastewater treatment      (T)
                                 sludges from the
                                 chemical conversion
                                 coating of aluminum
                                 except from zirconium
                                 phosphating in aluminum
                                 can washing when such
                                 phosphating is an
                                 exclusive conversion
                                 coating process.
                                 Wastewater treatment
                                 sludges from the
                                 manufacturing of motor
                                 vehicles using a zinc
                                 phosphating process
                                 will not be subject to
                                 this listing at the
                                 point of generation if
                                 the wastes are not
                                 placed outside on the
                                 land prior to shipment
                                 to a landfill for
                                 disposal and are
                                 either: disposed in a
                                 Subtitle D municipal or
                                 industrial landfill
                                 unit that is equipped
                                 with a single clay
                                 liner and is permitted,
                                 licensed or otherwise
                                 authorized by the
                                 state; or disposed in a
                                 landfill unit subject
                                 to, or otherwise
                                 meeting, the landfill
                                 requirements in Sec.
                                 258.40, Sec.   264.301
                                 or Sec.   265.301. For
                                 the purposes of this
                                 listing, motor vehicle
                                 manufacturing is
                                 defined in paragraph
                                 (b)(4)(i) of this
                                 section and (b)(4)(ii)
                                 of this section
                                 describes the
                                 recordkeeping
                                 requirements for motor
                                 vehicle manufacturing
                                 facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) For the purposes of the F019 listing, the following apply to
wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing of motor vehicles
using a zinc phosphating process.
    (i) Motor vehicle manufacturing is defined to include the
manufacture of automobiles and light trucks/utility vehicles (including
light duty vans, pick-up trucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles).
Facilities must be engaged in manufacturing complete vehicles (body and
chassis or unibody) or chassis only.
    (ii) Generators must maintain in their on-site records
documentation and information sufficient to prove that the wastewater
treatment sludges to be exempted from the F019 listing meet the
conditions of the listing. These records must include: the volume of
waste generated and disposed of off site; documentation showing when
the waste volumes were generated and sent off site; the name and
address of the receiving facility; and documentation confirming receipt
of the waste by the receiving facility. Generators must maintain these
documents on site for no less than three years. The retention period
for the documentation is automatically extended during the course of
any enforcement action or as requested by the Regional Administrator or
the state regulatory authority.

PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION

0
3. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and
1361.

0
4. In Sec.  302.4, Table 302.4 is amended by revising the entry for
F019 in the table to read as follows:

Sec.  302.4  Designation of hazardous substances.

                      Table 302.4.--List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities
                         [Note: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Statutory                       Final RQ
               Hazardous substance                     CASRN       code[dagger]   RCRA waste No.    pounds (Kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
F019............................................  ..............               4            F019       10 (4.54)
    Wastewater treatment sludges from the
     chemical conversion coating of aluminum
     except from zirconium phosphating in
     aluminum can washing when such phosphating
     is an exclusive conversion coating process.
     Wastewater treatment sludges from the
     manufacturing of motor vehicles using a
     zinc phosphating process will not be
     subject to this listing at the point of
     generation if the wastes are not placed
     outside on the land prior to shipment to a
     landfill for disposal and are either:
     disposed in a Subtitle D municipal or
     industrial landfill unit that is equipped
     with a single clay liner and is permitted,
     licensed or otherwise authorized by the
     state; or disposed in a landfill unit
     subject to, or otherwise meeting, the
     landfill requirements in Sec.   258.40,
     Sec.   264.301 or Sec.   265.301. For the
     purposes of this listing, motor vehicle
     manufacturing is defined in Sec.
     261.31(b)(4)(i) and Sec.   261.31(b)(4)(ii)
     describes the recordkeeping requirements
     for motor vehicle manufacturing facilities.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Indicates the statutory source defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4, as described in the note preceding Table
  302.4.

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-12483 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 65151]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25623]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-10-000]

Anbaric Development Partners, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.;
Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on November 18, 2019, Anbaric Development
Partners, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against the PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM or Respondent) pursuant to sections 206
and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and Rule 206 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, alleging that (i) the
transmission interconnection procedures under the PJMs' Tariff are
unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory and preferential; and
(ii) requesting that the Commission (a) require PJM to give
Transmission Platform Projects the opportunity to obtain Material
Interconnection Rights under the PJM Tariff; (b) direct PJM to modify
the PJM Tariff to permit open access Transmission Platform Projects as
defined as Remote Generation Resource Interconnection Platform projects
to materially interconnect to the PJM Transmission System as set forth
herein; and (c) set a refund effective date to be the date of this
Complaint such that the Commission's Order will apply to all projects
with Queue Positions as of the date of the filing of this Complaint,
all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
by email and U.S. mail on the contacts listed for Respondent on the
Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 9, 2019.

    Dated: November 20, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25623 Filed 11-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P