Environmental Protection Agency February 4, 2009 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Notice is hereby given that an exemption to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act have been granted to ExxonMobil Environmental Services Company for a Class I injection well located at Pasadena, Texas. As required by 40 CFR part 148, the company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by the petition and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by ExxonMobil, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this exemption, into Class I hazardous waste injection well No. WDW- 397 at the Agrifos Pasadena Texas Fertilizer facility, Pasadena, Texas, until December 31, 2020, unless EPA moves to terminate this exemption under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. As required by 40 CFR 148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice was issued November 25, 2008. The public comment period closed on January 9, 2009. No comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The State of Oklahoma has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of Oklahoma. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

EPA is issuing a direct final rule to make corrections to its rule entitled ``Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Effects Abroad of EPA Actions,'' which was published September 19, 2007. Since the final rule became effective on October 19, 2007, EPA has received inquiries about some minor inconsistencies and ambiguities in the final rule. This action involves four minor, technical corrections to the rule to address those issues. The first correction expands the definition of ``applicants'' to include those who request EPA approvals. The second change clarifies that a categorical exclusion includes vacant land. The third change corrects the text to indicate that the number of extraordinary circumstances is ten. The last change expands Subpart C to apply to EPA approvals as well as permits and assistance grants.

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is requesting nominations for experts to serve on a SAB Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Committee. This Committee will review peer-reviewed publications from EPA scientists and makes recommendations for awards.

In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (``CAA'' or ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Environmental Integrity Project, Community Power & Development Association, Inc., Public Citizen's Texas Office, and Refinery Reform Campaign (collectively ``Plaintiffs'') in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. Johnson, No.1:09-cv-00087 PLF, (D.D.C.). Plaintiffs filed a deadline suit to compel the Administrator to respond to an administrative petition seeking EPA's objection to a CAA Title V operating permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to Premcor Refining Group, Inc. (``Premcor'') for a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA has agreed to respond to the petition by April 30, 2009.