28506       FederaJ Register / Vol. 58, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 1993 / Rules tod Regulations

  On January 29,1992, proposed rules
regarding designated bicycle routes
within the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area were published in the
Federal Register (57 FR 3392). After
consideration of public comments, the
final regulation was published in the
FederalRegister on December 11,1992
(57 FR 58711). In both the proposed and
final rulemaking documents, the
location description of the Alta Avenue
trail, designated as open to bicycle use
in the "Supplementary Information"
section of the rule, was incorrect. This
notice corrects the location description
of this trail, found on page 56712,
middle column, of the December 11,
1992 issue of the Federal Register, from
"Alta Avenue between Wolf Back Ridge
Road and Marin City", to "Alta Avenue
between Bobcat Trail and Marin City."
  This correction neither changes the
total of 46.9 miles of trail currently
designated as opened to bicycle use, and
published on page 58712 of the
preamble to the final regulation, nor
changes the location of designated trails
as marked on the maps in the Trail Use
Designation Plan on file in the office of
the Superintendent In addition, this
correction does not affect the final
regulatory text, and neither increases
nor diminishes the superintendent's
authority to designate routes on which
bicycle use  is permitted, pursuant to 36
CFR 7.97. Designation of this open trail
by the superintendent shall be
accomplished pursuant to 36 CFR
7.97(c) of the final regulation, as
published at 57 FR 58716.
  Dated: April 30,1993.
John H. Davis,
Associate Director. Operations.
[FR Doc. 93-11522 Filed 5-13-93; 8:45 am]
MUMO CODE 4310-70-M

36 CFR Part 1232

Audiovisual Records Management

AGENCY: National Archives and Records
ACTION; Final rule.	

SUMMARY: This final rule corrects the
title of the National Audiovisual Center
in 36 CFR 1232.6 to the Multimedia and
Publications Distribution Division to
reflect a reorganization. No substantive
changes are made to the section.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on
May 14,1993.
Mary Ann Palmos or Nancy Allard on
is being promulgated as a final rule
without a prior notice of proposed
rulemaking as allowed by section
553(b)(A) of the Administrative
Procedures Act for rules pertaining
solely to agency organization.
  This rule is not a major rule for the
purposes of Executive Order 12291 of
February 17,1981. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, it is hereby
certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant impact on small
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1232
  Archives and records.
  For the reason set forth in the   	
preamble, NARA is amending 36 CFR
part 1232 to read as follows:
  1. The authority citation for part 1232
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 44 U.S.C 2904 and 3101.

§1232.6 [Amended]
  2. In § 1232.6, in the first sentence,
remove "(NAC)" and, wherever else
they appear in the section, remove the
titles "National Audiovisual Center".
"NAC". and "Center's" and add, in their
place, the title "Multimedia and
Publications Distribution Division", the
title "the Multimedia and Publications
Distribution Division", and "Division's"
  Dated: May 10,1993.
Trudy Huskamp Peterson,
Acting Archivist of the United States.
(FR Doc. 93-11510 Filed 5-13-93; 8:45 am]

 40 CFR Part 268

 Hazardous Waste Management
 System: Land Disposal Restrictions;
 Renewal of the Hazardous Debris
 Case-By-Case Capacity Variance and
 Renews! of Variance
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION; Final rule.	

 SUMMARY: On May 8,1992, EPA granted
 a one-year case-by-case capacity
variance of the Land Disposal   *
Restrictions (LDR) to persons managing
certain hazardous debris (see 57 FR
20766, May 15,1992). In that document,
EPA indicated that persons desiring a
subsequent renewal of the variance—
that is, past May 8,1993—would need
to submit an individual application.
EPA has received almost 200
applications to date. Confirmed by a
capacity analysirconducted by EPA, the
large number of applications indicates
that a lack of treatment capacity for
hazardous debris continues to exist
  Therefore under 40 CFR 268.5, EPA is
hereby renewing the extension of the
case-by-case capacity variance to May 8,
1994, for all persons managing certain
hazardous debris in lieu of responding
to the individual applications.
(Elsewhere this document explains
more fully which hazardous debris is
covered by the extension.) No further
individual applications will be required
from persons granted the extension by
this action. However, information
provided to EPA indicates that some
capacity may exist, at least for some
forms of debris. Therefore, EPA is
requiring that generators submit a report
demonstrating a good-faith effort to
locate treatment capacity to quality for
the extension.
  EPA wishes to make clear that no
further variance or extension of the LDR
effective date for hazardous debris can
be given after May 8,1994. By statute,
EPA may extend the fDR effective date
for a waste for a total of four years, two
years by national capacity variance and
up to two years for a casa-by-case
variance. With this renewal, the four
years of statutory variance time for
hazardous debris will end on May 8,
1994, and therefore no further
extensions can be granted.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule and the
extension become effective on May 8,
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
notice is identified as Docket Number
F-93-DCVN-FFFFF, and is located in
the EPA RCRA Docket, room 2427, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The docket is open from 9 ajn. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on
Federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
materials by calling (202) 260-9327. The
public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any regulatory document at
no cost. Additional copies cost $0.20
per page.
general information contact the RCRA
Hotline at (800) 424-9346 toll-free or
(703) 412-9810 locally. For information

             Federal Register /  VoL  58, No. 92  /  Friday,  May 14, 1993  /  Rules and Regulations       28507
on specific aspects of this notice,
contact Nicholas R Vizzone, Analysis
and Land Disposal Restrictions Section,
Capacity Programs Branch (OS-321W),
Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,
(703) 308-8477.
L Background
  A. History
  B. Revised Treatment Standards for
    Hazardous Debris  .
  C Paperwork Reduction Act
n. Justification for this Extension
  A. Demonstration under 40 CFR 268.5 *
  B. Consultation With the States
  C Conclusion
m. Requirements for this Extension

I. Background

A. History
  Congress enacted the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984, which amended the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Among other things, HSWA required
EPA to develop regulations that would
impose, on a phased schedule,
restrictions on the land disposal of
hazardous wastes. In particular, sections
3004(d), (e), and (g) of RCRA [42 USC
6924 (e), and (g)] prohibit the land
disposal of all wastes identified or listed
as hazardous as of November 1984,
unless the wastes are treated (or meet
treatment standards) in a manner that
"substantially diminish(es) the toxidty
of the waste or substantially reduce(s)
the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized." The alternative to
satisfying these treatment standards is
disposal in a unit from which there will
be no migration of hazardous
constituents for as long as the waste
remains hazardous.
  In developing such a broad program,
Congress recognized that adequate
alternative treatment, recovery, or
protective disposal capacity might not
be available by the applicable effective
dates. Therefore, section 3004(h)(2)
authorized EPA to grant a national
capacity variance (based on the earliest
date that such capacity would be
available but not to exceed two years)
that delays the effective date for new
treatment standards. In addition, under
section 3004(h)(3), EPA can grant an
extension of the deadline on a case-by-
case basis for one year (renewable for
one additional year); however, variances
and extensions are limited to a four year
total time period from the effective date.
  On June 1,1990, EPA published a
final rule (55 FR 22520) establishing
prohibitions and treatment standards for
wastes in the final third of the
scheduled prohibitions. Among other
things, the rule established prohibitions
and treatment standards for debris
contaminated with all hazardous wastes
subject to the LDRs (except for the
solvent and dioxin wastes covered by
section 3004(e) and California List
wastes prohibited under section
3004(d)J. Because of a lack of treatment
capacity in 1990, EPA granted a two-
year national capacity variance that
expired on May 8,1992 (40 CFR part
268.35 (e)). This variance included, not
only debris for Third Third wastes, but
also debris for First Third and Second
Third wastes that had been deferred to
the Third Third rule (see 55 FR 22649).
EPA stated that it was not uie intent of
the Agency to penalize generators of
First Third and  Second Third wastes by
allowing less time (i.e., 28 months and
37 months, respectively) for the
development of needed capacity, while
generators of Third Third wastes in the
same treatability group were allowed
the maximum 48 months. Therefore, the
capacity extension that became effective
on May 8,1990 included First, Second
and Third Third wastes. Then on May
8,1992, EPA, citing a continuing lack of
treatment capacity for the same debris
wastes addressed in the May 8,1990,
extension, as well as other nctors,
granted a one-year case-by-case capacity
variance of the LDR effective date for
most hazardous debris that expires on
May 8,1993.

B. Revised Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Debris
  The Third Third final rule stated that
debris contaminated with a listed waste
was subject to the same treatment
standards as for the contaminating
waste. However, EPA also stated in the
preamble that problems did exist with
regulating hazardous wastes in debris
matrices that could make it difficult for
hazardous debris to meet those
treatment standards. Therefore, EPA
indicated in the Third Third rule that
treatment standards specific to
hazardous debris would be promulgated
in a separate ralemaking.
  On January 9.1992. EPA published
proposed treatment standards for
hazardous debris. Among other things,
comments received on this proposed
rule indicated that there would be
inadequate capacity for hazardous
debris as of May 8,1992. The shortfall
in treatment capacity coupled with the
fact that the final rule for the hazardous
debris treatment standards would not be
promulgated by May 8, created the need
for an extension of the effective date for
hazardous debris. (The final hazardous
debris rule was published in the Federal
Register on August 18,1992, (see FR 57
37194-37282) and was effective on
November 16,1992.)
  The hazardous debris capacity
variance required that any facility
desiring a further extension of the
variance to May 8,1994, would be
required to submit an individual
application before November 8,1992. At
that time, EPA anticipated that by May
1993. treatment capacity, in compliance
with the new hazardous debris
treatment standards, would generally be
in place, or that generators could obtain
contracts for future capacity still under
construction. However, EPA has
received almost 200 case-by-case
applications fromgenerators for renewal
of .the extension. The applicants have all
stated that treatment capacity in
compliance with the August 18,1992,
debris rule is still lacking, and that the
length of time to permit these treatment
and storage units are preventing them
from providing the necessary treatment
capacity to be in compliance with LDR
restrictions. This has resulted in a
continuing capacity shortfall. A capacity
analysis conducted by EPA has shown
that a general lack of treatment  capacity
for hazardous debris does exist. (The
results of this analysis have been placed
in the official record for this notice
located in the EPA RCRA Docket.) In
addition, the physical and chemical
properties for debris from remediation
projects is unknown; this information is
necessary in order to evaluate the
type(s) of available treatment processes
and to estimate existing treatment
capacity. It is also difficult with existing
knowledge to determine which, if any
type of preprocessing is necessary prior
to treatment (for example, the amount
and type of sizing equipment needed),
along with the need and availability of
mechanical separation equipment to
remove the debris from other
contaminated media that may be
generated with the debris during
remediation. Additionally, the
applicants have also stated that once
permitting is complete, a construction
and start-up period of 6-12 months will
be necessary further delaying available
   At the same time EPA has received a
letter from the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council (HWTC), dated
March 19,1993, that discusses  available
treatment capacity for hazardous
debris.1 The letter indicates that the
  >TlM Hazardous WMte TmtoMnt Council U •
 national association that raptMents certain

 28508      Federal Register / Vol. 58, No.  92 / Friday. May 14.  1993  /  Rules and Regulations
 HWTC believes that certain capacity is
 available for hazardous debris excluding
 debris wastes affected by permitting
 delays for treatment units, oversized
 debris requiring specialized size
 reduction equipment, or specialized
 materials handling/separation
 capabilities. The HWTC states that
 capacity exists for: (1) Small objects that
 are transportable in containers and do
 not require sizing prior to treatment (e.g.
 metal objects, paper and cloth, wood
 materials); (2) cyanide contaminated
 debris using chemical oxidation; and (3)
 debris sized so as to be easily treated in
 an existing tank or container systems.
 Treatment volumes were provided for
 managing cyanide contaminated debris
 using chemical oxidation technology
 and solids incineration capacity.
   Subsequent to that letter, HWTC
 provided additional information in a
 letter dated May 4.1993 to EPA on
 hazardous waste treatment capacity. In
 particular HWTC stated that 300,000
 tons/year of combustion treatment
 capacity exists for certain debris types
 {i.e., wood, cloth, PPE, rubber, plastic,
 etc.) contaminated with organics. In
 addition, 175,000 tons/year of chemical
 oxidation treatment capacity is available
 for debris contaminated with cyanide.
 Furthermore, HWTC stated that 320.000
 tons/year of metals treatment capacity
 exists in the form of water washing and
 spraying, high pressure water washing,
 acid/alkaline solution extraction,
 chemical oxidation, chemical reduction,
 abrasive blasting and
   Based on the available knowledge of
 debris characteristics, it js difficult for
 EPA to project the amount of
 combustion or metals treatment capacity
 that will be necessary to treat currently
 generated debris because EPA only has
 very general information on the
 hazardous constituents that are in
 debris. For example, the facilities that   *
 submitted applications for an extension
 did not provide detailed information on
 the types of hazardous constituents
 contaminating their debris; therefore, it
 is impossible to know whether the types
 of capacity that HWTC states is
 available could be used to treat such
 debris. Furthermore, the amount of
 hazardous debris treatment necessary is
 difficult to accurately estimate before
 the generation of debris from
 remediation projects because of
 uncertainty in knowing what actually
commercial hazardous treatment facility owners
and operators. EPA notes that information on'
available commercial hazardous debris treatment
facilities may be available from the HWTC. The
address for HWTC is 915 15th Street NW.. Fifth
Floor. Washington, DC 20005; Telephone (202)
7*3-0870; FAX Number (202) 737-2038.
 will be generated. The volume of debris
 that the applicants anticipate generating
 could exceed the total capacity that
 HWTC believes to be available,
 depending upon the nature of the
 debris. EPA also believes that it would
 be difficult to determine which debris
 could be treated in tanks and containers
 based on the physical size of the debris;
 therefore, EPA believes it would be
 inappropriate to limit the extension
 renewal based on the size of the debris,
 as HWTC suggested.
   Thus, EPA*s information indicates
 that there is still a general shortfall of
 capacity, although some treatment
 capacity is available for some kinds of
 debris. Because a shortfall appears
 unavoidable considering the urge
 volumes of hazardous debris that will
 require treatment, EPA believes that a
 conditional one-year renewal of the
 hazardous debris case-by-case variance
 for all persons managing such debris is
 appropriate. However, as will be
 discussed in greater detail below
 generators will be expected to make a
 good faith effort to locate and use such
 treatment capacity as may be suitable
 for their debris.
   As under the original extension,
 debris contaminated with the following
 wastes are not covered by this
 extension: (1) A listed solvent or dioxin
 waste covered by the section 3004 (e)
 prohibition, and (2) a non-liquid
 "California list" waste pursuant to
 section 3004 (d) because the statutory
 time for granting an extension for the
 wastes has elapsed.
   EPA notes that the final rule
 establishing revised treatment standards
 for debris (see Fed. Reg. 37194 (Aug. 28,
 1992)) defined debris to consist of solid
 material having a particle size of 60 mm
 or larger and intended for land disposal.
 This definition excluded process
 residuals such as smelter slag and
 residues from the treatment of waste,
 wastewater, sludges or air emissions
 residues. The excluded process
 residuals will, however, be included
 within the scope of today's renewal of
 the hazardous debris extension to the
 extent the residuals fall within the
 previously applicable definition of
 debris and are not excluded from the
 extension as indicated above.
 C. Paperwork Reduction Act
  The information collection
 requirements in this notice have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq
and have been assigned OMB control
number 2050-0085.
  Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
 average 25 hours per response,
 including time for reviewing    *
 instructions, searching existing data
 sources, gathering the required data, and
 completing and reviewing the collection
 of information.
   Send comments regarding the burden
 estimate or any other aspect of this
 collection of information, including
 suggestions for reducing this burden, to
 Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-
 223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
 DC 20460; and to the Office of
 Information and Regulatory Affairs,
 Office of Management and Budget,
 Washington, DC 20503, marked
 "Attention: Jonathan Gledhill."

 n. Justification for This Extension

 A. Demonstration Under 40 CFR 268.5
   40 CFR 268.5 specifies seven
 demonstrations that musi be made for
 the approval of a case-by-case extension
 to a treatment standard of the
 prohibition effective date. From
 comments and information submitted,
 EPA has made an evaluation of these
 seven required demonstrations as
   Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(l):
 The applicant must demonstrate that he
 has made a good-faith effort to locate
 and contract with treatment, recovery,
 or disposal facilities nationwide to
 manage his waste in accordance with
 the effective date of the applicable
 restriction established under subpart C
 of this part.
   The applicants indicated that they are
 unable at this time to locate and
 contract with treatment, recovery, or
 disposal facilities. Response letters from
 commercial sites submitted with the
 applications indicated that future plans
 to develop and construct treatment
 capacity exist but the length of time
 required to issue new permits or
 modifications of existing permits is
 delaying current construction of
 treatment capacity. Permits to allow
 construction of these new units have not
 been issued yet and may require
 additional time. Permitting and
 construction of many new debris
 treatment units will probably not be
 completed when the existing variance
 expires on May 8,1993.
  In addition, information received by
 EPA indicates a general lack of capacity
 for treatment of debris. For example,
 information from the 200 applicants
 indicates that from 1.2-1.8 million
cubic meters of hazardous debris will be
generated during the period of May
 1993, to May 1994. The applicants
indicating that capacity was unavailable
did not generally distinguish between

              Federal  Register  / Vol.  58, No. 92 / Friday. May 14, 1993 / Rules and Regulations       28i
 categories of debris, and in light of their
 submission, EPA is reluctant to assume
 that sufficient capacity does in fact exist
 for those wastes. In addition. EPA is not
 confident that the categories of debris
. for which capacity is most likely to exist
 can easily be identified.
   At the same time, the information
 provided by HWTC does indicate that
 significant capacity may exist, at least
 for certain categories of debris.
 Therefore, it is a condition of this
 extension that generators make a good
 faith effort to find treatment capacity,
 and if capacity is found, to use it to the
 fullest extent possible. Therefore, the
 extension will not apply to any wastes
 for which capacity is or becomes
 available. The report required under 40
 CFR 268.5(g) will document each
 generator's good faith effort to locate
   Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(2):
 The applicant has entered into a binding
 contractual commitment to construct or
 otherwise provide alternative treatment,
 recovery (e.g., recycling), or disposal
 capacity that meets the treatment
 standards specified in subpart D or,  *
 where treatment standards have not
 been specified, such capacity is
 protective of human health and the
   The applicants have shown that the
 availability of treatment technologies to
 meet the proposed treatment standards
 is limited and will require substantial  •
 capital investment to bring such
 technology on-line. EPA believes,
 however, that there will be no ultimate
 difficulty in constructing or otherwise
 developing the needed treatment
 technology because the types of
 treatment technologies involved all exist
 and should be available given time.
   As of May 8,1994, EPA may not. by
 statute, grant any further extensions of
 the LDR effective date for hazardous
 debris. Therefore, it is to the generators'
 advantage to enter into a contractual
 agreement for treatment of hazardous
 debris as soon as possible to ensure
 adequate treatment  capacity for
 compliance by the May, 1994, deadline.
   Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(3):
 Due to circumstances beyond the
 a  jlicant's control,  such alternative
 u. acity cannot reasonably be made
 available by the applicable effective
 date. This demonstration may include a
 showing that the technical and practical
 difficulties associated with providing
 the alternative capacity will result in the
 capacity not being available by the
 applicable effective  date.
   The applicants provided numerous
 examples regarding  logistical difficulties
 associated with providing the
 alternative capacity—among them that
EPA guidance on the hazardous debris
rule has not been issued and the delay
in the permitting process. Applicants
stated that issuance of new permits or
modifications to existing permits for
storage and treatment facilities along
with approval of treatment processes
has taken longer than planned, causing
delays in planning and construction
schedules. Also, the applicants stated
that it will take time for industry to
adapt the available technologies
identified in the August 1992 debris
treatment standards to the various types
of hazardous debris to achieve BOAT.
These circumstances are beyond the
control of the generators who need to
treat or dispose of their hazardous
debris, and the information provided to
EPA suggests that these circumstances
affect most if not all debris generators.
  EPA regional offices have indicated
that interim status for treatment
facilities is generally not available.
Therefore, new permits or modifications
to permits will have to be issued. EPA
believes there to be valid concerns and
agrees that additional time is needed to
resolve the issues. These circumstances
are beyond the control of the generators
who need to treat or dispose of their
hazardous debris.
  Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(4):
The capacity being constructed or
otherwise provided by the applicant
will be sufficient to manage the entire
quantity  of waste that is the subject of
the application.
  Some of the applicants have indicated
that they have difficulty in determining
at this time the types of treatment
technologies to use for certain debris
wastes. EPA believes that this
uncertainty makes it difficult for some
owners and operators to determine their
capacity requirements at this time. The
unpredictable nature of debris
generation also makes predicting future
needs difficult.
  A critical timing concern relates to the
time needed for permit modifications,
plus (in some cases) time needed to
construct specialized debris treatment
units like containment buildings. As
noted previously in the discussion of
needed contractual commitments, EPA
believes that adequate treatment
capacity will be provided once these
elements are achieved.
  Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(5): He
provides  a detailed schedule for
obtaining required operating and
construction permits or an outline of
how and  when alternative capacity will
be available.
  A detailed schedule outlining the
amount of time required to obtain
operating permits and construction time
for on-site facilities or outlining the
amount of time required to enter into a
binding contractual agreement for off-
site treatment can be developed, and
EPA does not anticipate that generators
will have any problems in the
development of a schedule. However.
submission of a detailed schedule is not
a requirement of this variance.
  Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(6):
The applicant must demonstrate that he
has arranged for adequate capacity to
manage his waste during an extension
and has documented in the application
the location of all sites at which the
waste will be managed.
  The applications received by EPA
indicated that hazardous debris
generators will continue to store or
dispose of their wastes onsite or
contract for offsite storage or disposal
with a permitted facility. EPA believes
that generators will be able to find
adequate capaci^ to manage their
hazardous debris during the extension
  Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(7):
Any waste managed in a surface
impoundment or landfill during the
extension period will meet the
requirements of paragraph (h)(2) of 40
CFR 268.5.
  It is an absolute legal requirement of
this renewal that any generator or owner
or operator who intends to manage
hazardous debris in a surface
impoundment (which is highly
unlikely) or landfill during the one-year
extension must ensure that the unit
meets the requirement of 40 CFR
268.5(h)(2) (see RCRA section
3004(h)(4)). This requirement includes,
among other things, that that unit be
equipped with a double liner system
with a leachate collection system and
adequate ground-water monitoring.

B. Consultation With the States
  In addition to the above seven
demonstrations, EPA is required under
40 CFR 268.5(e) to consult with
appropriate state agencies in all affected
states. Before issuing the case-by-case
capacity variance on May 8,1992, EPA
consulted with several state agencies
which supported the need for an
extension of the LDR effective date for
hazardous debris. After May 8,1992,
EPA has consulted with the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials f ASTSWMO)
regarding the state's opinions on the
hazardous debris issue. ASTSWMO has
indicated that the states are in favor of
a renewal of the hazardous debris
capacity variance since many of the
generators are unable at this time to
determine which treatment methods are
required for th«ir debris.

Federal  Register /  Vol.  58.  No. 92  /  Friday. May 14, 1993  /  Rules and Regulations
   C. Conclusion
     Based on its evaluation of the
   demonstrations required under 40 CFR
   268.5, and for the reasons stated above,
   EPA is renewing the case-by-case
   extension to the Land Disposal
   Restrictions for hazardous debris as
   described elsewhere in the preamble.
   This renewal is effective from May 8,
   1993, to May 8,1994. EPA is taking this
   regulatory action because of the unique
   circumstances which have resulted in
   the lack of treatment, recovery, and
   protective disposal capacity for
   hazardous debris, and EPA's conclusion
   that treatment capacity meeting the
   recently promulgated standards is
   inadequate, or not available due to
   logistical problems such as permitting
   delays, but can ultimately be provided.
  EPA believes that granting this renewal
  (conditioned upon a requirement to seek
  available treatment capacity) is the most
  environmentally protective option
  because it will eliminate a regulatory
  obstacle that could otherwise force
  cleanup projects to be postponed.

  III. Requirements for This Extension
    To receive the benefit of this renewal,
  a generator or owner/operator must
  provide the following information to
  EPA in a report under 40 CFR 268.5(g)
  by August 12,1993, or 90 days after the
  hazardous debris is generated:
    (1) The name, mailing address,
  location and EPA identification number
  (if assigned) of the facility. The term
  "facility" includes any site, whether
  permanent (such as a manufacturing
  plant), or temporary where hazardous
  debris will be generated;
   (2) A description of the hazardous
 debris waste stream, including the
 RCRA waste code(s);
   (3) Waste generation rates (cu. m./yr.),
 and estimated inventories (cu.m.);
   (4) The owner/operator or generator
 must demonstrate that a good-faith
 effort has been made to locate and
 contract with treatment or recovery
 facilities to manage the waste in
 accordance with the effective date of the
 applicable restriction in order to utilize
 this variance. The documentation of this
 effort must be submitted to EPA.
   To make the good-faith effort
 showing, generators must include a
 summary of their activities that
 demonstrate that they have contacted
 treatment or recovery facilities, but they
 rejected the waste on the basis of its
 composition or because the facility did
not have treatment capacity to handle
the waste. Generators must provide a
summary of the letters sent to facilities
describing the waste and requesting
treatment, recovery, or disposal
                         (protective) for the waste. Generators
                         must also include a summary of
                         responses from the facilities rejecting
                         their waste; if the correspondence from
                         a facility does not clearly state why the
                         waste was rejected, generators must
                         provide an explanation.
                          In the report, generators must include
                         documentation demonstrating that they
                         have contacted a substantial number of
                         treatment or recovery facilities (EPA
                         believes that contact with 10 or more
                         facilities would constitute a substantial
                         number), but they rejected the waste on
                         the basis of its composition or because
                         the facility did not have treatment
                         capacity to handle the waste. This
                         report must be submitted to EPA by
                         August 12,1993 or within 90 days after
                         the generation of the hazardous debris.
                        Generators must contact facilities that
                        provide appropriate treatment services
                        for their wastes, if possible.
                          If capacity is found to be available
                        during the extension period, the owner
                        or operator must use the treatment
                        capacity for as large a portion of its
                        waste as possible; and
                          (5) Certification as required under 40
                        CFR 268.5(b).
                          Two copies of the above information
                        should be sent to the following address:
                        Chief of Training and Technical
                        Assistance Branch, U.S. Environmental
                        Protection Agency, Office of Waste
                        Programs Enforcement (OS-520), 401 M
                        Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,
                        Attn: Debris Case-by-Case Progress
                      .  Finally, EPA notes that the regulatory
                        amendment promulgated today contains
                        a technical amendment to 40 CFR
                        268.35(e)(2), which relates to  the case-
                       by-case renewal for contaminated soils.
                       This amendment clarifies that the
                       extension granted for soils on October
                       20,1992 applied only to soils regulated
                       under the Third Third rule.

                       List of Subjects in 44) CFR Part 268
                         Hazardous waste, Reporting and
                       recordkeeping requirements.
                         Dated: May 7.1993.
                       Richard J. Guimond,
                      Assistant Surgeon General. USPHS, Acting
                      Assistant Administrator. Office of Solid Waste
                      and Emergency Response (OS-200).
                         For the reasons set out in the
                      preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
                      of Federal Regulations is amended as

                      PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL

                         1. The authority citation for part 268
                      continues to read as follows:
                        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921
                      and 6924.
     2. In § 268.35 paragraph (e) is revised
   to read as follows:              *

   1268.35  Wssts specific prohibitions—
   Third Third wastes.
     (e) Subject to applicable prohibitions
   in §§ 268.30, 268.31, and 268.32,
   contaminated soil and debris are
   prohibited from land disposal as
     (1) Effective May 8,1994, debris that
   is contaminated with wastes listed in 40
   CFR 268.12, and debris that is
  contaminated with any characteristic
  waste for which treatment standards are
  established in subpart D of this part, are
  prohibited from land disposal.
    (2) Effective May 8,1994, mixed
  radioactive hazardous debris that is
  contaminated with wastes listed in 40
  CFR 268.12 and mixed radioactive
  hazardous debris that is contaminated
  with any characteristic waste for which
  treatment standards are established in
  subpart D of this part, are prohibited
  from land disposal.
    (3) Paragraphs (e) (1)  and (2) of this
  section shall not apply where the
  generator has failed to make a good-faith
  effort to locate treatment capacity
  suitable for its waste, has not utilized
  such capacity as it has found to be
  available, or has failed to file a report as
  required by 40 CFR 268.5(g) by August
  12,1993 or within 90 days after the
  hazardous waste is generated
  (whichever is later) describing the
 generator's efforts to locate treatment
 capacity. Where paragraphs (e) (1) and
 (2) of this section do not apply, all
 wastes described in these paragraphs are
 prohibited from land disposal effective
 May 8,1993.
   (4) Effective May 8,1993, hazardous
 soil contaminated with wastes specified
 in this section having treatment
 standards in subpart D of this part based
 on incineration, mercury retorting or
 vitrification, and soils contaminated
 with hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR
 268.10, 268.11 and 268.12 that are
 mixed radioactive hazardous wastes, are
 prohibited from land disposal.
   (5) When used in paragraphs (e) (1)
 and (2) of this section, debris is defined
 as follows:
   (i) Debris as defined in 40 CFR
 268.2(g); or
   (ii) Nonfriable inorganic solids that
 are incapable of passing through a 9.5
 mm standard sieve that require cutting,
 or crushing and grinding in mechanical
sizing equipment prior to stabilization,
limited to the following inorganic or
metal materials:
  (A) Metal slags (either dross or scoria).
  (B) Classified slag.
  (C) Glass.

             Federal Register / Vol.  58.  No. 92 / Friday. May 14, 1993  /  Rules and Regulations      28511
   (D) Concrete (excluding cementitious
 or pozzolanic stabilized hazardous
   (E) Masonry and refractory bricks.
   (F) Metal cans, containers, drums, or
   (G) Metal nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps,
 valves, appliances, or industrial
   (H) Scrap metal as defined in 40 CFR
 [FR Doc 93-11322 Piled 5-13-93; 8:45 am]

 40 CFR Parts 712 and 716
 (OPPTS-82040; FRL-4182-1)

 Preliminary Assessment Information
 and Health and Safety Data Reporting;
 Addition of Chemicals

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION; Final rule.	

 SUMMARY: The Interagency Testing
 Committee (ITC) in its Thirtieth Report
 to EPA revised the Toxic Substances
 Control Act (TSCA) section 4(e) Priority
 List by recommending for testing two
 chemical groups. There are no
 designated or recommended with
 intent-to-designate chemicals. The ITC
 recommendations must be given priority
 consideration by EPA in promulgating
 test rules. EPA is adding the two
 categories to two model information-
 gathering rules: The TSCA section 8(a)
 Preliminary Assessment Information
 Rule (PAIR) and the TSCA section 8(d)
 Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule.
 Tiese model rules will require
 .anufacturers, importers, and
 processors of the listed members of the
 categories to report production, use,
 exposure-related, and unpublished
 health and safety data to EPA.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become
 effective on June 14,1993.
 Susan B. Hazen, Director, TSCA
 Environmental Assistance Division (TS-
 799), Office of Pollution Prevention arid
 Toxics, Environmental Protection
 Agency, 401 M St., SW., Rm. E-543,
 Washington, DC 20460, Telephoned
 (202) 554-1404, TDD: (202) 554-0551.
 adds two categories of substances to
both the PAIR and the section 8(d)
Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule.
Manufacturers, processors, and
importers of these chemicals will be
required to report unpublished health
and safety data and/or end use,
exposure, and production volume data
to EPA.
   This rule also corrects the CAS
 numbers of two substances listed under
 the section 8(d) rule. Under the
 phenylenediamines category of
 § 716.120(c), the CAS number for 1,2-
 benzenediamine, 5-chloro-3-niuŁ- is
 incorrectly listed as 042389-30-0. It
 should read 42389-30-0. Under the
 alkyl phosphates category in
 § 716.120(d), the CAS number for
 phosphoric acid, dibutyl ester is
 incorrectly listed as 07-06-4. It should
 read 107-66-4.
 I. Background
   Section 4(e) of TSCA established the
 ITC and authorized it to recommend to
 EPA chemical substances and mixtures
 (chemicals) to be given priority
 consideration in proposing test rules
 under section 4. For some of these
 chemicals, the ITC may designate that
 EPA must respond to its
 recommendations within 12 months. In
 this time, EPA must either initiate a
 rulemaking to test the chemical or
 publish in the Federal Register its
 reasons for not doingsp.
   On May 29,1992, EPA announced the
 receipt of the Thirtieth Report from the
 ITC. It was then published by EPA on
 July 9,1992 (57 FR 30608). The
 Thirtieth Report revises the Committee's
 priority list of chemicals by
 recommending two categories to the
 section 4(e) priority list (for a total of 60
 chemical substances). This rule adds
 two categories of substances to both the
 PAIR and the section 8(d) Health and
 Safety Data Reporting Rule. These two
 rules are model information gathering
 rules which assist EPA in responding to
 the ITC recommendations.
  EPA issued the PAIR under section
 8(a) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)), and it
 is codified at 40 CFR part 7*12. This
 model section 8(a) rule establishes
 standard reporting requirements lor
 manufacturers and importers of the
 chemicals listed in the rule at 40 CFR
 712.30. These manufacturers and
 importers are required to submit a one-
 time report on general volume, end use,
 and exposure-related information using
 the Preliminary Assessment Information
 Manufacturer's Report (EPA Form 7710-
 35). EPA uses this model section 8(a)
 rule to gather current information on
 chemicals of concern quickly.
  EPA issued the model Health and
 Safety Data Reporting Rule under
 section 8(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
 2607(d)), and it is codified at 40 CFR
 part 716. The section 8(d) model rule
requires past, current, and prospective
manufacturers, importers, and
processors of listed chemicals to submit
to EPA copies and lists of unpublished
health and safety studies on the listed
 chemicals that they manufacture,
 import, or process. These studies
 provide EPA with useful information
 and have provided significant support
 for EPA's decision making under TSCA
 sections 4. 5, 6, 8, and 9. These model
 rules provide for the automatic addition
 of ITC priority list chemicals. Whenever
 EPA announces the receipt of an ITC
 report, EPA may, at the same time
 without further notice and comment,
 amend the two model information-
 gathering rules by adding the
 recommended chemicals. The
 amendment adding these chemicals to
 the PAIR and the Health and Safety Data
 Reporting Rule becomes effective 30
 days after publication. The ! "'* is
 currently revising the recon   nded
 chemicals identified in the 2tiri list rf
 ITC chemicals (56 FR 41212, August 19,
 1991). The PAIR/8(d) rule adding these
 chemicals will be published as soon as
 EPA receives the amended list of

 II. Chemicals To Be Added
  In its Thirtieth Report to EPA, the ITC
 recommended for priority consideration
 two categories of substances; there are
 no designated or recommended with
 intent-to-designate chemicals. More
 specifically, the ITC is recommending
 for testing two categories of chemicals.
 The two categories are siloxanes and
 chloroalkyl phosphates. For a complete
 listing of the substances, see the FTC's
 Thirtieth Report published in the
 Federal Register at 57 FR 30608
 (December 30,1991). EPA will not add
 to the section 8(d) Health and Safety
 Data Reporting Rule one substance
 listed in the ITC report because the
 substance is already on the section 8(d)
 rule and subject to a 10-year reporting
 period. This substance is:
 octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (CAS No.
 556-67-2), (49 FR 46741, November 28,

 III. Reporting Requirements

 A. Preliminary Assessment Information
  All persons who manufactured or
 imported the chemical substances
 named in this rule during their latest
 complete corporate fiscal year must
 submit a Preliminary Assessment
 Information Manufacturer's Report (EPA
 Form No. 7710-35) for each
 manufacturing or importing site at
 which they manufactured or imported a
 named substance. A separate form must
be completed for each substance and
 submitted to the Agency no later than
August 12,1993. Persons who ( ive
previously and voluntarily sub v/led a
Manufacturer's Report to the IIC  or EPA