Environmental Protection Agency March 28, 2007 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed Agreement for Recovery of Response Costs (``Agreement,'' Region 9 Docket No. 9-2006- 0025) pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA concerning the Denova Superfund Site, (the ``Site''), located in Rialto, California. The settling parties are Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, the Boeing Company, Georgia Pacific, BNSF Railway Company, Royal Caribbean Cruises, JBL Inc., the Marquardt Company, Davis Wire Corp., Aerojet- General Corp., the Department of Energy (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), the Department of Energy (Sandia National Laboratory), NASA, the Department of the Interior and the Navy. The Agreement compensates EPA and the County of San Bernardino Consolidated Fire District for past response costs related to the removal action taken at the Site. The Agreement provides for a total recovery of $1,246,160. The Agreement also provides the settling parties with contribution protection under CERCLA section 113(f)(2) for response cost paid under the Agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this Notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed Agreement. The Agency's response to any comments will be available for public inspection at the Agency's Region IX offices, located at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

EPA is proposing to approve the State of Arizona's boundary redesignation of the Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment area into two separate PM10 nonattainment areas: Hayden and Miami. EPA is also proposing to find that the Miami PM10 nonattainment area is attaining the PM10 national ambient air quality standard, and, based on this attainment finding, EPA is proposing to determine that certain Clean Air Act requirements are not applicable for so long as the Miami area shows continued attainment of the standard based on current, publicly available, quality-assured monitoring data. EPA is taking this action consistent with obligations under the Clean Air Act to act on State redesignations. Lastly, EPA is proposing to correct two errors in previous rulemakings that involved the designations of PM10 areas within the State of Arizona.

This document announces the availability of objections filed with respect to the establishment of two boscalid tolerances under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The objections were filed on February 20, 2007 by the Natural Resources Defense Council (``NRDC''). NRDC's objections assert that EPA unlawfully removed the additional 10X safety factor for the protection of infants and children. Additionally NRDC claims that EPA's action was arbitrary and capricious for failing to provide an adequate explanation for the decision on the children's safety factor. This document seeks comment on the NRDC objections.

Today the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to determine that HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are unacceptable for use in the foam sector under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The SNAP program reviews alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances and approves use of alternatives which do not present a substantially greater risk to public health and the environment than the substance they replace or than other available substitutes. In prior rulemakings, the Agency listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable substitutes in several foam end uses; here, EPA is amending a determination for one category of end-uses and taking the following actions for remaining applications. First, EPA is finding HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes for HCFC-141b in commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other'' rigid polyurethane foams and removing narrowed use limits previously established in those applications. Second, EPA is finding HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes for CFCs in all foam end-uses. Third, the Agency is establishing a grandfathering period to allow existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in pour foam applications, including commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other'' rigid polyurethane foams other than foam for marine applications, until March 1, 2008 to implement alternatives; existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b foam blowing agents in the manufacture of foam for marine applications (e.g., flotation foam) will be allowed to continue use of these blowing agents until September 1, 2009. Fourth, the Agency is grandfathering existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam and in all other foam end uses until January 1, 2010 in order to allow time for those users to complete their transition to alternatives.