Environmental Protection Agency 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide pyrazon, and opens a public comment period on this document. The Agency's risk assessments and other related documents also are available in the pyrazon Docket. Pyrazon [5- amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone], also known as chloridazon, is an herbicide belonging to the pyridazinone class of pesticides, and is used for weed control on sugar beets, red table beets, and ornamentals. EPA has reviewed pyrazon through the public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.

This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for the combined residues of imidacloprid, (1-[6-chloro-3-pyridinyl) methyl]-N- nitro-2-imidazolidinimine) and its metabolites containing the 6- chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as parent in or on pomegranates. This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on pomegranates. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of imidacloprid in this food commodity. The tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2008.

This action finalizes national emission standards (NESHAP) for hazardous air pollutants for hazardous waste combustors (HWCs): hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial/commercial/institutional boilers and process heaters, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. EPA has identified HWCs as major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring hazardous waste combustors to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the performance of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The HAP emitted by HWCs include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins and furans, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, lead, manganese, and mercury. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation to the lung, skin, and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous system, kidney damage, and cancer. The adverse health effects associated with exposure to these specific HAP are further described in the preamble. For many HAP, these findings have only been shown with concentrations higher than those typically in the ambient air. This action also presents our decision regarding the February 28, 2002 petition for rulemaking submitted by the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, relating to EPA's implementation of the so-called omnibus permitting authority under section 3005(c) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). That section requires that each permit issued under RCRA contain such terms and conditions as permit writers determine to be necessary to protect human health and the environment. In that petition, the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition requested that we repeal the existing site-specific risk assessment policy and technical guidance for hazardous waste combustors and that we promulgate the policy and guidance as rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act if we continue to believe that site-specific risk assessments may be necessary.

This action revises the mobile source air toxics (MSAT) rule's default baseline values for reformulated gasoline and conventional gasoline to reflect the national average toxics performance of gasoline during 1998-2000. EPA's MSAT rule, Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources (66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001), requires that the annual average toxic performance of gasoline must be at least as clean as the average performance of the gasoline produced or imported during the period 1998-2000 (known as the ``baseline period''). The baseline performance is determined separately for each refinery and importer, and the rule established default toxics baseline values for refineries and importers that could not develop individual toxics baselines. The default toxics baseline values are based on the national average performance of gasoline during the baseline period. However, at the time of the final rule, gasoline toxics performance data were not yet available for the year 2000. Therefore, the final rule included regulations directing the EPA to revise the default toxics baseline values in the rule to reflect the entire 1998-2000 baseline period once the appropriate data became available. With this action, EPA is revising the default toxics baseline values for refineries and importers to reflect the national average toxics performance of gasoline during 1998-2000.

EPA proposes to approve the Sections 111(d) and 129 negative declaration submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) on August 23, 2005. This negative declaration adequately certifies that there are no existing hospital/medical/ infectious waste incinerators (HMIWIs) located within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed amendment to an administrative settlement. The settlement will incorporate twelve (12) parties who will be bound to the terms and conditions of the original settlement (which became effective June 22, 2004), thus becoming jointly and severally liable for funding $10,000,000.00 toward the ongoing Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (``RI/FS'') of the Lower Passaic River Study Area, along with the thirty-one (31) original Settling Parties. In exchange, these additional Settling Parties will resolve their potential liability for performance of the RI/FS and for Past and Future Response Costs incurred and to be incurred in connection with the RI/FS. Furthermore, all the Settling Parties have committed to paying EPA up to an additional $750,000.00 in contingent funding toward Future Response Costs in the event that EPA needs additional funds to complete the RI/ FS. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

EPA is revising the format of part 52 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52) for materials submitted by Nashville-Davidson County that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by the local agency and approved by EPA. This format revision will affect the ``Identification of Plan'' sections of 40 CFR part 52, by adding a table for the Nashville- Davidson portion of the Tennessee SIP. This revision will also affect the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, and the Regional Office.

In this final action, EPA is correcting an error in the incorporation by reference provisions in the approval of revisions to the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01) published on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). This correction removes the list of State toxic air pollutants from the definition of ``regulated air pollutant'' in the EPA-approved Idaho State implementation plan.

This notice announces that pesticide relatedinformation submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the submitter, will be tranferred to Computer Sciences Corporation and its subcontractor, Systems Integration Group, in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Computer Sciences Corporation and its subcontractor, Systems Integration Group, have been awarded a contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Computer Sciences Corporation and its subcontractor, Systems Integration Group, to fulfill the obligations of the contract.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing, approved ``emergency'' collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2005. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the Emission Credit Banking and Trading program. Additionally, EPA is proposing approval of a section of the Texas rules on Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds that cross-references the Emission Credit Banking and Trading program. We are also proposing approval of a subsection of Chapter 116 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification, which provides a definition referred to in the Emission Credit Banking and Trading Program.

EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) program for emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) ozone nonattainment area. Additionally, EPA is proposing approval of several subsections of Chapter 116 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) (Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification) that provide cross-references to the MECT Program.

EPA is approving three negative declarations submitted by the City of Albuquerque (Bernalillo County) certifying that there are no existing sources subject to the requirement of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act under their jurisdiction. These three negative declarations are for Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Plants, Fluoride Emissions from Phosphate Fertilizer Plants, and Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions from Kraft Pulp Mills. This is a direct final rule action without prior notice and comment because this action is deemed noncontroversial.

EPA is approving four related revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on February 9, 2005. These revisions affect the Northern Kentucky area, which is comprised of the Kentucky Counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton, and is part of the Cincinnati-Hamilton Metropolitan Statistical Area. EPA is approving the movement of the regulation underlying the Northern Kentucky inspection and maintenance (I/M) program from the regulatory portion of the Kentucky SIP to the contingency measures section of the Northern Kentucky 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. EPA is also approving revisions to a Kentucky rule which provides for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from new solvent metal cleaning equipment. Further, EPA is approving a new rule into the Kentucky SIP affecting commercial motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing operations in Northern Kentucky. Finally, EPA is approving updated mobile source category emissions projections with updated, state motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2010. This final rule addresses comments made on EPA's proposed rulemaking previously published for this action.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a renewal of an existing approved collection. This ICR was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2005. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2005. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

EPA is taking direct final action on the ``State Plan'' submitted by the state of Oklahoma on June 29, 2005, to fulfill the requirement of sections 111/(d)/129 of the Clean Air Act for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units. The State Plan provides for the implementation and enforcement of the Emissions Guidelines, as promulgated by EPA December 1, 2000, applicable to existing CISWI units for which construction commenced on or before November 30, 1999. The State Plan establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, and recordkeeping requirements for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerator (CISWI) units for which construction commenced on or before November 30, 1999.

Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to revise certain requirements for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The purpose of these revisions is to reduce reporting burden associated with the TRI reporting requirements while continuing to provide valuable information to the public that fulfills the purposes of the TRI program. ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. The Agency will continue to provide valuable information to the public pursuant to section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) regarding toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities. If adopted, today's proposed action would increase eligibility for the Form A Certification Statement for non-Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) chemicals by raising the eligibility threshold to 5000 pounds for the ``annual reportable amount'' of a toxic chemical. It would also, for the first time, allow limited use of Form A for PBT chemicals where total releases are zero and the PBT annual reportable amount does not exceed 500 pounds. Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are excluded from consideration for expanded Form A eligibility. Today's proposal applies to the reporting of individual chemicals and is not intended to apply automatically to all reports that a facility may be required to file. For non-PBTs under the current regulations, the annual reportable amount is the combined total quantity released at the facility, treated at the facility, recovered at the facility as a result of recycle operations, combusted for the purpose of energy recovery at the facility, and amounts transferred from the facility to off-site locations for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and/or disposal. This combined total corresponds to the quantity of the toxic chemical in productionrelated waste, i.e., the sum of Sections 8.1 through and including Section 8.7 of the Form R. Today's proposal would define a PBT annual reportable amount that would also include amounts managed and reported under Section 8.8 of the Form R. Greater detail on how reporters can qualify for increased Form A eligibility is provided later in today's proposal under Section III.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the 2005 Fall Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). This OTC meeting will explore options available for reducing ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context.

The EPA is proposing amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production, which were issued on March 23, 2000 under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and amended on December 30, 2002. This action proposes to correct a punctuation error in the definition of ``clean charge'' and a typographical error in the operating temperature of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln afterburner. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are taking direct final action on the proposed amendments because we view the amendments as noncontroversial, and we anticipate no adverse comments. We have explained our reasons for the proposed amendments in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comments, we will take no further action on the proposed amendments. If we receive adverse comments, we will withdraw the amendments. We will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating that the amendments are being withdrawn. If the direct final rule amendments in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register are withdrawn, all comments will be addressed in a subsequent final action based on the proposed amendments. We will not institute a second comment period on the subsequent final action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, see the direct final rule.

The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning New York's permitting program. The SIP revision consists of amendments to Title 6 of the New York Code, Rules and Regulations, Part 201, ``Permits and Certificates.'' The intended effect of this approval is to incorporate administrative changes to New York's permitting program into the SIP.

Provide a one page overview of your entire project in the following format; pages in excess of one will not be reviewed. (a) Organization: Briefly describe: (1) Your organization, and (2) list your key partners for this grant, if applicable. Partnerships are encouraged and considered to be a major factor in the success of projects. Full details about your organization and staff will be an appendix. (b) Summary Statement: Provide an overview of your project that explains the concept and your goals and objectives. This should be a basic explanation in layman's terms to provide a reviewer with an understanding of the purpose and expected outcomes of your educational project. If a person unfamiliar with your project reads this paragraph and cannot grasp your basic concept, then you have not achieved what is requested here. (c) Educational Priority: Identify which priority listed in Section I you will address, such as education reform or teaching skills. Proposals may address more than one educational priority for the same project; however, EPA cautions against losing focus on projects. Evaluation panels often select projects with a clearly defined purpose, rather than projects that attempt to address multiple priorities at the expense of a quality outcome. (d) Delivery Method: Explain how you will reach your audience, such as workshops, conferences, field trips, interactive programs, etc. (e) Audience: Describe the demographics of your target audience including the number and types you expect to reach, such as teachers and/or students and specific grade levels, health care providers, the general public, etc. (f) Costs: List the types of activities on which you will spend the EPA portion of the grant funds. (2) Project Description: Describe precisely what your project will achievewhy, who, when, how, and with what. Explain each aspect of your proposal clearly and address each topic below. If you choose to reorder the following paragraphs, include the headings below or you risk the possibility of information being overlooked when the project is scored. Please address all of the following to ensure that grant reviewers can fully comprehend and score your project correctly. (a) Why: (i) Explain the purpose of your project and how it will address an educational priority listed in Section I, such as teaching skills. (ii) Identify your environmental issue, such as energy conservation, clean air or water, ecosystem protection, or cross- cutting topics. Explain the importance to your community, state, or Region. If the project has the potential for wide application, and/or can serve as a model for use in other locations with a similar audience, explain how. (iii) Stewardship: Explain how your project will increase environmental stewardship as defined in Section I. (b) Who: Explain who will manage and conduct the project; also identify the target audience, the number to be trained, and demonstrate an understanding of the needs of that audience. Important: Explain your recruitment plan to attract your target audience, and clarify any incentives used such as stipends and continuing education credits. (c) How: Explain your strategy, objectives (outputs and outcomes), activities, and delivery methods to establish that you have realistic goals and objectives and will use effective methods to achieve them. Clarify for the reviewers how you will complete all basic steps from beginning to end. Do not omit steps that lead up to or follow the actual delivery methods; e.g., if you plan to make a presentation about your project at a local or national conference, specify where. (d) With What: Demonstrate that the project uses or produces quality educational products or methods that teach critical-thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. Please note the following restrictions on the development of educational materials.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing a notice of intent to partially delete the Jacobs Smelter Superfund Site, located in Tooele County, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this notice of intent. Specifically, EPA intends to delete Operable Unit 3 from the site, comprised only of soils within the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) right-of-way. The NPL constitutes appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 as amended. The EPA and the state of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed for the properties subject to the partial deletion. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final notice of partial deletion of the Jacobs Smelter Superfund Site without prior notice of intent to partially delete because we view this as a non-controversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this partial deletion in the preamble to the direct final partial deletion. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this notice of intent to partially delete or the direct final notice of partial deletion, we will not take further action on this notice of intent to partially delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final notice of partial deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final partial deletion notice based on this notice of intent to partially delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this notice of intent to partially delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct final notice of partial deletion that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register.