Environmental Protection Agency 2006 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

EPA is proposing to remove the limited status of its approval of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that requires all major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT). EPA is proposing to convert its limited approval of Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX RACT regulations to full approval because EPA has approved or is currently conducting rulemaking to approve all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania for the affected sources. In prior final rules, EPA has previously fully approved Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX RACT regulations for the Philadelphia-Wilmington- Trenton, and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley areas. EPA is now proposing to convert its limited approval of Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX RACT regulations as they apply in the remainder of the Commonwealth to full approval because EPA has approved or is currently conducting rulemaking to approve all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania for the affected sources in the remainder of the Commonwealth. Final action converting the limited approval to full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve either (1) the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known in the remainder of the State, outside of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas; or (2) for a sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to riparian resources and air quality, and recommended additional protections for these resources be included in the Final EIS. Rating EC2.

On November 1, 2004, EPA published a proposal that contained several options for the control of cooling water intake structures at existing Phase III facilities and at new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. This rule establishes categorical section 316(b) requirements for intake structures at new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities that have a design intake flow threshold of greater than 2 million gallons per day and that withdraw at least 25 percent of the water exclusively for cooling purposes. For existing Phase III facilities, EPA determined that uniform national standards are not the most effective way at this time to address cooling water intake structures at these facilities. Instead, EPA believes that it is better to continue to rely upon the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which implements section 316(b) for existing facilities not covered under the Phase II rule on a case-by-case, best professional judgment basis. This final action constitutes Phase III of EPA's section 316(b) regulation development. This rule does not alter the regulatory requirements for facilities subject to the Phase I or Phase II regulations.

Under the authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, EPA anticipates that approximately $700,000 will be available to support grants to States in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 for programs to promote the use of successful pollution prevention techniques by businesses and technical assistance providers. This grant program seeks to increase access to pollution prevention information and ensure this information is available to all facilities, businesses, or technical assistance providers. Federal funds must be matched dollar for dollar in this grant program. The maximum cost of an application is $240,000 with $120,000 from Federal funding.

This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide Bacillus mycoides isolate J on sugar beets when applied/used to control Cercospora Leaf Spot (Cercospora beticola) in sugar beets. Montana Microbial Products submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting the temporary exemption from tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J. The temporary tolerance exemption will expire on December 31, 2007.

This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of pendimethalin in or on onion, green; leek; onion, welsh; shallot, fresh leaves; and strawberry.

This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of pendimethalin in or on fruiting vegetable group, pome fruit group, apple pomace, juneberry, stone fruit group, and pomegranate.

This document notifies the public that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture a draft final rule as required by section 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As described in the Agency's semi-annual Regulatory Agenda, the draft final rule will establish procedures to implement section 3(g) of FIFRA which provides for periodic review of pesticide registrations. The goal of these regulations, which are required by FIFRA section 3(g), is to review a pesticide's registration every 15 years. The regulations will address the following procedural aspects of the program: establishing pesticide cases for registration review; establishing schedules; assembling information to be considered during the review; deciding on the scope and depth of the review; calling in data under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) that are needed to conduct the review; reviewing data and conducting risk assessments or benefit analyses, as needed; deciding whether a pesticide continues to meet the standard of registration in FIFRA; and public participation in the registration review process. If a pesticide does not meet the FIFRA standard, and cancellation is determined to be needed, the Agency will follow cancellation procedures in section 6 of FIFRA. This program will begin after the completion of tolerance reassessment in 2006 and before the completion of reregistration in 2008. Each pesticide will be reviewed every 15 years to assure that the it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration, including compliance with any new legislation, regulations or science policy.

This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of potassium silicate in or on all food commodities when applied/used as a fungicide, insecticide or miticide so long as the potassium silicate is not applied at rates exceeding 1% by weight in aqueous solution and when used in accordance with good agricultural practices. PQ Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of potassium silicate.

Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, EPA gives notice of a meeting of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board. The Board meets three times each calendar year at different locations along the U.S.-Mexico border and in Washington, DC. It was created by the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1992. An Executive Order delegates implementing authority to the Administrator of EPA. The Board is responsible for providing advice to the President and the Congress on environmental and infrastructure issues and needs within the States contiguous to Mexico in order to improve the quality of life of persons residing on the United States side of the border. The statute calls for the Board to have representatives from U.S. Government agencies; the governments of the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas; and private organizations with expertise on environmental and infrastructure problems along the southwest border. The purpose of the meeting is to hold a public comment session and also to hear presentations from local experts on the topic of its next report to the President: ``Environmental Protection and Border Security on the U.S. Border with Mexico.'' A copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb.

EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for twelve major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

In 1994, EPA promulgated National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI). This rule is commonly known as the hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) and established maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards to regulate the emissions of organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from production processes that are located at major sources. The Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to assess the risk remaining (residual risk) after the application of the MACT standards and to promulgate additional standards if required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or prevent adverse environmental effect. The CAA also requires us to review and revise MACT standards, as necessary, every eight years, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred during that time. Based on our findings from the residual risk and technology review, we are proposing two options (to be considered with equal weight) for emissions standards for new and existing SOCMI process units. The first proposed option would impose no further controls, proposing to find that the existing standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety and prevent adverse environmental impacts, as required by section 112(f)(2) of the CAA and would satisfy the requirements of section 112(d)(6). The second proposed option would provide further reductions of organic HAP at certain process units by applying additional controls for equipment leaks and by controlling some storage vessels and process vents that are uncontrolled under the current rule. This option would also protect public health with an ample margin of safety and prevent adverse environmental impacts, as required by section 112(f)(2) of the CAA and would satisfy the requirements of section 112(d)(6). Under this option, we are proposing that the compliance deadlines for additional promulgated requirements would be one to three years from the date of promulgation.

The Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10, is proposing to issue a general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for groundwater remediation discharge facilities in Idaho, pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. The draft general permit authorizes the discharge of treated groundwater from new and existing facilities to surface waters of the United States within the State of Idaho. Interested persons may submit comments on the proposed general permit to EPA Region 10 at the address below.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference for the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis.

EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision amends the regulation pertaining to the control of fuel-burning equipment, stationary internal combustion engines, and certain fuel burning installations. The revision clarifies the definition of ``interruptible gas service''. EPA is approving the revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for eight major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These sources are located in Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these revisions to establish RACT requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These revisions consist of amendments to state regulation provisions concerning maintenance, nonattainment, and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) areas for incorporation into the Virginia SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

EPA is taking final action to codify in the Agency's regulations changes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the ``Clean Water Act'' or ``CWA,'' resulting from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This action modifies the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations to provide that certain storm water discharges from field activities or operations, including construction, associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities are exempt from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. This action also encourages voluntary application of best management practices for oil and gas field activities and operations to minimize the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff and protect water quality.

The EPA is announcing a public workshop to be held to elicit public input and discussion on the process the Agency uses to conduct periodic reviews of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as discussed in a recent report prepared by an Agency workgroup entitled ``Review of the Process for Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' This workshop is not intended to cover issues related to the ongoing review of any specific NAAQS.

EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. The state is adding four chemical compounds to its list of compounds that are now exempt from being considered a volatile organic compound (VOC). Indiana also is removing a compound from the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The revisions Indiana made parallel the changes EPA made to our VOC definitions and HAP list on November 29, 2004 and that became effective on December 29, 2004. Four VOCs were found by EPA to make a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. The compounds are: 1,1,1,2,2,3,3- heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane, 3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6- dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)hexane, 1,1,1,2,3,3,3- heptafluoropropane, and methyl formate. Companies producing or using the four compounds will no longer need to follow the VOC rules for these compounds. The requirements for t-butyl acetate are also modified. It is not considered a VOC for emission limits and content requirements. T-butyl acetate will still be considered a VOC for the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, and inventory requirements. Indiana is removing ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) (2- Butoxyethanol) from its HAP list, too. EGBE will no longer be considered a hazardous air pollutant.

EPA is approving a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). This approval pertains to revisions to the state's rule which restricts emissions from specific Missouri lead smelter-refinery installations. The effect of this approval is to remove duplication between two SIP-approved documents, and does not affect the stringency of the requirements.

EPA has authorized its contractor Eagle Technologies, Incorporated of Lanham, MD access to information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

The Chuitna Coal Project (Project) is located on State of Alaska land in the Beluga Coal Field, approximately 45 miles west of Anchorage, Alaska. The Project is based on the development of a 1 billion ton, ultra low sulfur, subbituminous coal resource. The proposed Project includes a surface coal mine and associated support facility, mine access road, coal transport conveyor, personnel housing, air strip facility, a logistic center, and coal export terminal. The proposed coal mine is located approximately 10 miles inland from the Native Village of Tyonek and Cook Inlet. The project proponent, PacRim Coal, LP, predicts a coal production rate of approximately 15 million tons per year, and a 25-year mine life based on current estimated coal reserves. A previous Project design was evaluated in an EIS and permitted by most of the applicable State and Federal regulatory programs in the early 1990s, although the Project did not proceed to development. There have been substantial changes in the Project design and in the regulatory requirements since this project went through the first permitting and EIS process. Therefore, a comprehensive, stand-alone Supplemental EIS will be prepared for the new proposal. The administrative actions that the SEIS must address include issuing an EPA Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) new source permit and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act section 10 permit. The SEIS will also address issues related to the Alaska Surface Coal Mining Control and Reclamation Act (ASCMCRA) permit, which governs all aspects of the mining operation and infrastructure. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Alaska are participating as cooperating agencies in the NEPA process. Alternatives: The alternatives to be evaluated include: The ``no action'' alternative, wastewater discharge alternatives and alternative discharge locations. In addition, the SEIS will evaluate mine access road and conveyor alignment alternatives, and coal export terminal alternatives. Additional alternatives may be developed based on comments received during scoping. Scoping: The public scoping period begins with the publication of this Notice and concludes July 24, 2006. EPA invites Federal agencies, Native Tribes, State and local governments, and members of the public to comment on the scope of the SEIS. Scoping meetings for the purpose of identifying issues to be evaluated in the SEIS will be held in Kenai on July 10, in Anchorage on July 11, and in the Tyonek and Beluga communities on July 12, 2006. The exact locations and times of the meetings will be announced in local papers. The public is invited to attend and identify issues that should be addressed in the SEIS. A scoping document that explains in greater detail the project and alternatives identified at this time will be sent to known interested parties. The public can obtain a copy of the scoping document by contacting Hanh Shaw at the phone number, e-mail address, and mailing address listed at the above in this notice. How to Comment: EPA invites public comment on the proposed scope of this SEIS. Comments may be submitted by mail, electronic mail, or fax, to Hanh Shaw at the contact information above, by July 24, 2006. Estimated Date of DSEIS Release: February 2007. Responsible Official: Ron Kreizenbeck, Deputy Regional Administrator.

EPA expressed environmental concerns about contamination from past industrial uses of the project site and requested additional information on hazardous materials characterization and procedures to be used to address contamination.