

[Federal Register: June 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 108)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 31185-31190]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jn07-8]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R07-RCRA-2006-0923; FRL-8322-6]

 
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting a petition submitted by the Ford Motor Company 
Kansas City Assembly Plant (Ford) to exclude (or delist) a wastewater 
treatment plant (WWTP) sludge generated by Ford in Claycomo, Missouri, 
from the lists of hazardous wastes. This final rule responds to the 
petition submitted by Ford to delist F019 WWTP sludge generated from 
the facility's waste water treatment plant.
    After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment 
Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not 
hazardous waste. This exclusion applies to 2,000 cubic yards per year 
of the F019 WWTP sludge. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the 
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when it is 
disposed in a Subtitle D Landfill.

DATES: The final rule is effective on June 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R07-RCRA-2006-0923. All documents in the docket are listed on 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available,

[[Page 31186]]

e.g., confidential business information or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or 

by appointment by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below. Appointments can be made during the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this 
rulemaking, contact Kenneth Herstowski at (913) 551-7631, or 
herstowski.ken@epa.gov, RCRA Corrective Action and Permits Branch, Air, 

RCRA and Toxics Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 
66101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized 
as follows:

I. Overview Information
    A. What action is EPA finalizing?
    B. Why is EPA approving this action?
    C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
    D. How will Ford manage the waste if it is delisted?
    E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
    F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
    A. What is a delisting petition?
    B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
    C. What information must the generator supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
    A. What waste did Ford petition EPA to delist?
    B. How much waste did Ford propose to delist?
    C. How did Ford sample and analyze the waste data in this 
petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
    A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
    B. What were the comments and what are EPA's responses to them?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA finalizing?

    After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed on December 20, 2006, 
to exclude the waste water treatment plant sludge from the lists of 
hazardous waste under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261.31 and 
261.32 (see 71 FR 76255). EPA is finalizing the decision to grant 
Ford's delisting petition to have its waste water treatment sludge 
managed and disposed as non-hazardous waste provided certain 
verification and monitoring conditions are met.

B. Why is EPA approving this action?

    Ford's petition requests a delisting from the F019 waste listing 
under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Ford does not believe that the 
petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. Ford also 
believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to 
be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of 
the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by 
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. See section 3001(f) 
of RCRA, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 
(d)(1)-(4) (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless 
otherwise indicated). In making the final delisting determination, EPA 
evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors 
cited in Sec.  261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA 
agrees with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect 
to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on this 
review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for 
which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny 
the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or 
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that 
such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA 
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the 
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to 
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from 
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned 
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA 
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria 
and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's final decision to delist 
waste from Ford's facility is based on the information submitted in 
support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes and 
analytical data from the Claycomo, Missouri, facility.

C. What are the limits of this exclusion?

    This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only 
if the requirements described in Sec.  261, Appendix IX, Table 1 and 
the conditions contained herein are satisfied.

D. How will Ford manage the waste if it is delisted?

    The WWTP sludge from Ford will be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D 
landfill.

E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?

    This rule is effective June 6, 2007. The Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), 
allows rules to become effective less than six months after the rule is 
published when the regulated community does not need the six-month 
period to come into compliance. That is the case here because this rule 
reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for persons 
generating hazardous waste. This reduction in existing requirements 
also provides a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon 
publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 553(d).

F. How does this final rule affect states?

    Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA 
delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting 
provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have 
received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
    EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory 
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of 
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include a 
provision that prohibits a Federally-issued exclusion from taking 
effect in the state. If so, Ford must obtain authorization from that 
state before it can transport or manage the waste as nonhazardous in 
the state. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and 
State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, EPA urges 
petitioners to contact each State regulatory authority to establish the 
status of their wastes under the State law while it is transported or 
managed as nonhazardous in the state.
    EPA has also authorized some states (for example, Georgia, 
Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma) to administer a RCRA 
delisting program in place of the Federal program; that is, to make 
state delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in 
authorized states unless that state makes the rule part of its 
authorized program. If Ford transports the petitioned waste to or 
manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, Ford must 
obtain

[[Page 31187]]

delisting authorization from that state before it can transport or 
manage the waste as nonhazardous in the state.

II. Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

    A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA, or 
another agency with jurisdiction, to exclude or delist from the RCRA 
list of hazardous waste, certain wastes the generator believes should 
not be considered hazardous under RCRA.

B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?

    Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to 
remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them 
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 
261.32. Specifically, Sec.  260.20 allows any person to petition the 
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR Parts 260 
through 265 and 268. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity 
to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste from a particular 
generating facility from the hazardous waste lists.

C. What information must the generator supply?

    Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA 
to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the 
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In 
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a 
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional 
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could 
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste and that such factors do not 
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What waste did Ford petition EPA to delist?

    On May 31, 2006, Ford petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of 
hazardous wastes contained in Sec.  261.31, WWTP sludge (F019) 
generated from its facility located in Claycomo, Missouri. The waste 
falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to Sec.  
261.31.

B. How much waste did Ford propose to delist?

    Specifically, in its petition, Ford requested that EPA grant a 
standard exclusion for 2,000 cubic yards per year of the WWTP sludge.

C. How did Ford sample and analyze the waste data in this petition?

    To support its petition, Ford submitted:
    (1) Historical information on waste generation and management 
practices;
    (2) Analytical results from six samples for total concentrations of 
constituents of concern; and
    (3) Analytical results from six samples for Toxicity Characteristic 
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract values.

IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?

    Comments were submitted by Ford Motor Company requesting 
clarification of certain testing requirements, the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers supporting the proposed delisting and the 
Missouri Department of Natural Resources to correct information in the 
proposed rule.

B. What were the comments and what are EPA's responses to them?

1. Revision of the F019 Listing as it Pertains to Auto Manufacturers
    Comment: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in its comments 
urged EPA to comprehensively resolve the longstanding issue of the F019 
listing as it pertains to auto manufacturers by issuing an interpretive 
rule, which would exclude for the F019 classification all wastewater 
treatment sludges from facilities that use zinc phosphate aluminum 
processes rather than hexavalent chromium and cyanide processes that 
led to the original listing of F019 sludge.
    Response: EPA has proposed changes to the F019 listing that are 
responsive to the commenter (see 72 FR 2219, January 18, 2007). Given 
EPA's proposed rulemaking on this issue, EPA will not provide further 
response here.
2. Analysis of Excluded Wastes
    Comment: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in its comments 
requests EPA remove the requirements for analysis of total 
concentrations of constituents as part of the verification testing of 
Ford's delisted sludge. The commenter believes that total 
concentrations of a constituent have no scientific correlation with 
environmental impacts.
    Response: EPA evaluates the potential environmental impact of 
plausible mismanagement of the waste in a solid waste landfill. EPA 
evaluates the potential off-site migration of waste particles and 
volatile organic compounds via air and surface water pathways as a 
result of inadequate cover and runoff control. EPA believes that 
inadequate daily cover and rainwater runoff control are plausible 
mismanagement scenarios for a solid waste landfill. Furthermore, since 
the source of this potential off-site migration is newly deposited 
waste at the surface of the landfill, total concentrations are 
appropriate inputs for fate and transport modeling.
3. Delisting Levels
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
    Comment: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources comments that 
as proposed Ford's sludge could exhibit a characteristic of hazardous 
waste and still be excluded. Specifically, the commenter points out 
that Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) results greater 
than those which would make a solid waste hazardous under 40 CFR 261.24 
are allowed in the proposal.
    Response: EPA reviewed the proposed TCLP delisting levels in 
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and 
260.22, Table 1.--Wastes Excluded from Non-Specific Sources. The 
constituents found in 40 CFR 261.24 for which TCLP delisting levels 
were proposed included: barium--100 mg/l, chromium--5 mg/l, and 
mercury--0.155 mg/l. All of those levels are at or below the levels at 
which a solid waste would exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste 
and therefore be a hazardous waste. There may be confusion regarding 
the application of these delisting levels as when the waste meets the 
exclusion. EPA has clarified in the final language that the TCLP 
concentrations may not equal or exceed the levels given in the table.
    The commenter may also be suggesting that the exclusion should 
include delisting levels for all TCLP parameters. EPA evaluated all the 
constituents in Ford's waste and developed delisting levels based upon 
that information. Inclusion of additional TCLP parameters is not 
justified at this time. Ford must notify EPA of any significant changes 
in the manufacturing process, the chemicals used, the treatment process 
or the chemicals used in the treatment process. If any of those changes 
occur, Ford must manage the sludge as a hazardous waste until it can be 
demonstrated that it still meets the delisting levels in the exclusion, 
that no new hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 
part 261 have been introduced

[[Page 31188]]

and has received approval from EPA for the changes.
Land Disposal Restrictions and Delisting Levels
    Comment: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources comments that 
the delisting levels proposed do not correspond to the Land Disposal 
Restriction treatment standards found in 40 CFR part 268.
    Response: Ford is requesting delisting of its F019 waste at the 
point of its generation. EPA's proposed exclusion was also at the point 
of generation. Since the waste will be excluded at the point of its 
generation (subject to periodic verification testing), the land 
disposal restrictions will not apply. This is in contrast to a 
hypothetical case where a hazardous waste is treated subsequent to its 
generation and the residuals from the treatment of the hazardous waste 
would be subject to the land disposal restrictions. If a person were to 
seek delisting of the residuals in the aforementioned hypothetical 
case, the land disposal restriction treatment standards for which the 
original waste were subject to would continue to apply and would be 
considered in determining the appropriate delisting levels.
4. Verification Sample Analysis
    Comment: Ford requests clarification if the TCLP cyanides parameter 
listed in the proposed exclusion for quarterly verification sampling is 
a total cyanide test on the TCLP leachate. The possible options would 
be amenable or available cyanide.
    Response: EPA affirmed the distinction between free cyanide and 
complex metal cyanides in its 1992 final rule, Drinking Water; National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulations--Synthetic Organic Chemicals and 
Inorganic Chemicals (57 FR 31776, July 17, 1992). EPA specifically 
stated that the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 0.2 mg/L 
cyanide applies to free cyanides, not complex metal cyanides. EPA 
further stated that a total cyanide analytical technique is allowed to 
screen samples. If the total cyanide results are greater than the MCL, 
then the analysis for free cyanide would be required to determine 
whether there is an exceedance of the MCL. EPA specifies the use of the 
cyanide amenable to chlorination test for determining free cyanide. 
Therefore, the cyanide amenable to chlorination test is the appropriate 
test for verification sampling and analysis to demonstrate continued 
compliance with the exclusion. Ford may use a total cyanide test for 
the TCLP leachate as a screening test. However, if the results of a 
total cyanide test on the TCLP leachate exceed the delisting levels and 
the cyanide amenable to chlorination test is not conducted, then EPA 
will rely on the total cyanide test results to determine Ford's 
compliance with the exclusion.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) this rule is not of general applicability 
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a 
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular 
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to 
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because 
this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in 
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular 
facility, 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, ``Federalism'' (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a 
particular facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, 
as specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to 
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this 
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this 
belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers health 
and safety risks to infants and children, to calculate the maximum 
allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical 
standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do 
not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 
EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report 
which includes a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to 
the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from 
section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; 
and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do 
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency 
parties 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report 
regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of 
particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

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

    Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f). Authority 
for this action has been delegated to the Regional Administrator (61 
FR 32798, June 25, 1996).

    Dated: May 29, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.


0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 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, and 6938.


[[Page 31189]]



0
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 the following wastestream is 
added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and 
260.22

                               Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facility                           Address                             Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Ford Motor Company, Kansas City  Claycomo, Missouri.................  Wastewater treatment sludge, F019, that is
 Assembly Plant.                                                       generated at the Ford Motor Company
                                                                       (Ford) Kansas City Assembly Plant (KCAP)
                                                                       at a maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic
                                                                       yards per year. The sludge must be
                                                                       disposed of in a lined landfill with
                                                                       leachate collection, which is licensed,
                                                                       permitted, or otherwise authorized to
                                                                       accept the delisted wastewater treatment
                                                                       sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part
                                                                       258. The exclusion becomes effective as
                                                                       of June 6, 2007.
                                                                      1. Delisting Levels: (a) The
                                                                       concentrations in a TCLP extract of the
                                                                       waste measured in any sample may not
                                                                       equal or exceed the following levels (mg/
                                                                       L): barium--100; chromium--5; mercury--
                                                                       0.155; nickel--90; thallium--0.282; zinc--
                                                                       898; cyanides--11.5; ethyl benzene--42.6;
                                                                       toluene--60.8; total xylenes--18.9; bis(2-
                                                                       ethylhexyl) phthalate--0.365; p-cresol--
                                                                       11.4; 2,4-dinitrotoluene--0.13;
                                                                       formaldehyde--343; and napthalene--.728;
                                                                      (b) The total concentrations measured in
                                                                       any sample may not exceed the following
                                                                       levels (mg/kg): chromium 760000; mercury--
                                                                       10.4; thallium--116000; 2,4-
                                                                       dinitrotoluene--100000; and formaldehyde--
                                                                       6880.
                                                                      2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To
                                                                       verify that the waste does not exceed the
                                                                       specified delisting levels, Ford must
                                                                       collect and analyze one representative
                                                                       sample of KCAP's sludge on a quarterly
                                                                       basis.
                                                                      3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Ford
                                                                       must notify the EPA in writing if the
                                                                       manufacturing process, the chemicals used
                                                                       in the manufacturing process, the
                                                                       treatment process, or the chemicals used
                                                                       in the treatment process at KCAP
                                                                       significantly change. Ford must handle
                                                                       wastes generated at KCAP after the
                                                                       process change as hazardous until it has
                                                                       demonstrated that the waste continues to
                                                                       meet the delisting levels and that no new
                                                                       hazardous constituents listed in appendix
                                                                       VIII of part 261 have been introduced and
                                                                       Ford has received written approval from
                                                                       EPA for the changes.
                                                                      4. Data Submittals: Ford must submit the
                                                                       data obtained through verification
                                                                       testing at KCAP or as required by other
                                                                       conditions of this rule to EPA Region 7,
                                                                       Air, RCRA and Toxics Division, 901 N.
                                                                       5th, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The
                                                                       quarterly verification data and
                                                                       certification of proper disposal must be
                                                                       submitted annually upon the anniversary
                                                                       of the effective date of this exclusion.
                                                                       Ford must compile, summarize, and
                                                                       maintain at KCAP records of operating
                                                                       conditions and analytical data for a
                                                                       minimum of five years. Ford must make
                                                                       these records available for inspection.
                                                                       All data must be accompanied by a signed
                                                                       copy of the certification statement in 40
                                                                       CFR 260.22(i)(12).
                                                                      5. Reopener Language--(a) If, anytime
                                                                       after disposal of the delisted waste,
                                                                       Ford possesses or is otherwise made aware
                                                                       of any data (including but not limited to
                                                                       leachate data or groundwater monitoring
                                                                       data) relevant to the delisted waste at
                                                                       KCAP indicating that any constituent is
                                                                       at a level in the leachate higher than
                                                                       the specified delisting level, or is in
                                                                       the groundwater at a concentration higher
                                                                       than the maximum allowable groundwater
                                                                       concentration in paragraph (e), then Ford
                                                                       must report such data in writing to the
                                                                       Regional Administrator within 10 days of
                                                                       first possessing or being made aware of
                                                                       that data.
                                                                      (b) Based on the information described in
                                                                       paragraph (a) and any other information
                                                                       received from any source, the Regional
                                                                       Administrator will make a preliminary
                                                                       determination as to whether the reported
                                                                       information requires Agency action to
                                                                       protect human health or the environment.
                                                                       Further action may include suspending, or
                                                                       revoking the exclusion, or other
                                                                       appropriate response necessary to protect
                                                                       human health and the environment.
                                                                      (c) If the Regional Administrator
                                                                       determines that the reported information
                                                                       does require Agency action, the Regional
                                                                       Administrator will notify Ford in writing
                                                                       of the actions the Regional Administrator
                                                                       believes are necessary to protect human
                                                                       health and the environment. The notice
                                                                       shall include a statement of the proposed
                                                                       action and a statement providing Ford
                                                                       with an opportunity to present
                                                                       information as to why the proposed Agency
                                                                       action is not necessary or to suggest an
                                                                       alternative action. Ford shall have 30
                                                                       days from the date of the Regional
                                                                       Administrator's notice to present the
                                                                       information.

[[Page 31190]]


                                                                      (d) If after 30 days Ford presents no
                                                                       further information, the Regional
                                                                       Administrator will issue a final written
                                                                       determination describing the Agency
                                                                       actions that are necessary to protect
                                                                       human health or the environment. Any
                                                                       required action described in the Regional
                                                                       Administrator's determination shall
                                                                       become effective immediately, unless the
                                                                       Regional Administrator provides
                                                                       otherwise.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-10854 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
