Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21649

§ 100.718 Annual Suncoast Kilo Run;

Sarasota Bay, Sarasota, FL.

* * * * *

(d) Dates: This section becomes

effective at 8 a.m. and terminates at 1

p.m. EDT on June 30, 2000.

Dated: April 7, 2000.

G.W. Sutton,

Captain U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District, Acting.

[FR Doc. 00–10151 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region VII Tracking No. MO 098–1098b;

FRL–6583–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve the Eagle-Picher

Technologies’ LLC Consent Agreement

as a revision to the Missouri State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This

Consent Agreement ensures that the

operation of their newly installed

emissions controls at the Chemicals

Divisions in Joplin, Missouri, are

permanent, enforceable, and

measurable.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 23,

2000 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse written comment by

May 24, 2000. If EPA receives such

comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to Kim Johnson, Air Planning

and Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

Copies of the state submittal(s) are

available at the following address for

inspection during normal business

hours: Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Johnson at (913) 551–7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA.

This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

What is a SIP?

What is the Federal approval process for a

SIP?

What does Federal approval of a state

regulation mean to me?

What is being addressed in this document?

Have the requirements for approval of a

SIP revision been met?

What action is EPA taking?

What Is a SIP?

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires states to develop air

pollution regulations and control

strategies to ensure that state air quality

meets the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) established by EPA.

These ambient standards are established

under section 109 of the CAA, and they

currently address six criteria pollutants.

These pollutants are: carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these

regulations and control strategies to EPA

for approval and incorporation into the

Federally enforceable SIP.

Each Federally approved SIP protects

air quality primarily by addressing air

pollution at its point of origin. These

SIPs can be extensive, containing state

regulations or other enforceable

documents and supporting information

such as emission inventories,

monitoring networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the Federally

enforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the regulations and control

strategies consistent with state and

Federal requirements. This process

generally includes a public notice,

public hearing, public comment period,

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or

control strategy is adopted, the state

submits it to EPA for inclusion into the

SIP. EPA must provide public notice

and seek additional public comment

regarding the proposed Federal action

on the state submission. If adverse

comments are received, they must be

addressed prior to any final Federal

action by EPA.

All state regulations and supporting

information approved by EPA under

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated

into the Federally approved SIP.

Records of such SIP actions are

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state

regulations which are approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

outright but are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that EPA has

approved a given state regulation with

a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean to Me?

Enforcement of the state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

the Federally approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the

regulation is Federally approved, EPA is

authorized to take enforcement action

against violators. Citizens are also

offered legal recourse to address

violations as described in the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

In 1995, the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources (MDNR) and EPA

initiated a review of small lead sources

with the potential to emit five tons of

lead per year or more. The purpose of

this review is to determine whether or

not the sources have the potential to

cause or contribute to violations of the

lead NAAQS of 1.5 μg/m3. The first

review consisted of an emissions

inventory review and preliminary

screening modeling.

Preliminary modeling of the

emissions at Eagle-Picher, Chemicals

Division in Joplin, Missouri, predicted

ambient air lead values near this facility

which exceeded the NAAQS for lead of

1.5 μg/m3.

As a result of this modeling, the state

of Missouri planned to place an ambient

air lead monitor in the area. In order to

effectively locate a monitor, additional

information was needed for a more

refined modeling analysis.

On March 25, 1998, EPA issued an

order under section 114 of the CAA

requesting additional facility

information and stack testing of three of

the facility’s major emissions points.

These three points accounted for 71

percent of the lead emissions from the

facility.

Shortly after the 114 Order was

issued, Eagle-Picher informed EPA and

MDNR that as a result of an internal

environmental review, they planned to

install controls in August 1998, on the

Basic Silicate White Lead (BSWL)

scrubber drier exhaust, their most

significant lead source which

contributed almost 60 percent of the

lead emissions from this facility.

Eagle-Picher agreed to enter into a

Consent Agreement with the state of

Missouri to ensure these controls are

permanent, enforceable, and

measurable. This Consent Agreement

defines control specifications, operation

parameters, and testing and reporting

requirements for the BSWL baghouse at

21650 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the Eagle-Picher facility in Joplin,

Missouri. The operation of this

baghouse reduces lead emissions from

the most significant lead source at the

facility by 99.85 percent or an

equivalent decrease of 2.8 tons/year.

Have the Requirements for Approval of

a SIP Revision Been Met?

The state submittal has met the public

notice requirements for SIP submissions

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The

submittal also satisfied the

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V. In addition, as explained

above and in more detail in the

technical support document which is

part of this document, the revision

meets the substantive SIP requirements

of the CAA, including section 110 and

implementing regulations.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA is processing this action as a

direct final action because the Consent

Agreement affects only one source and

does not appear to be controversial;

therefore, we do not anticipate any

adverse comments.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves

preexisting requirements under state

law and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

states, on the relationship between the

national government and the states, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

CAA. This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. In this context, in the absence

of a prior existing requirement for the

state to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of

section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not

apply. As required by section 3 of

Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,

EPA has taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the Executive Order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of

nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The

EPA is not required to submit a rule

report regarding this action under

section 801 because this is a rule of

particular applicability. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by June 23, 2000. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: April 6, 2000.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator, Region 7.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA—Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended in

paragraph (d), table titled EPAAPPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE

SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS, to

add the following entry at the end of the

table:

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21651

(D) EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS

Name of source Order/permit

number

State

effective

date

EPA

approval

date

Explanation

*******

Eagle-Picher Technologies Joplin, MO ........................................ Consent

Agreement.

08/26/99 4/24/00

65 FR

21651

[FR Doc. 00–10031 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6583–6]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is granting a petition

submitted by DuraTherm, Inc.,

(DuraTherm) to exclude from hazardous

waste control (or delist) a certain solid

waste. This action responds to the

petition submitted by DuraTherm to

delist the desorber solids on a

‘‘generator specific’’ basis from the lists

of hazardous waste.

After careful analysis, the EPA has

concluded that the petitioned waste is

not hazardous waste when disposed of

in subtitle D landfills. This exclusion

applies to desorber solids generated at

DuraTherm’s San Leon, Texas, facility.

Accordingly, this final rule excludes the

petitioned waste from the requirements

of hazardous waste regulations under

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of

in subtitle D landfills but imposes

testing conditions to ensure that the

future-generated wastes remain

qualified for delisting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this

final rule is located at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202, and is available for

viewing in the EPA Freedom of

Information Act review room on the 7th

floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays. Call (214) 665–6444

for appointments. The reference number

for this docket is ‘‘F–99–TXDEL–

DURATHERM.’’ The public may copy

material from any regulatory docket at

no cost for the first 100 pages and at a

cost of $0.15 per page for additional

copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact Bill

Gallagher, at (214) 665–6775. For

technical information concerning this

document, contact Michelle Peace, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665–

7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA finalizing?

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?

C. What are the limits of this exclusion?

D. How will DuraTherm manage the waste

if it is delisted?

E. When is the final delisting exclusion

effective?

F. How does this action affect states?

II. Background

A. What is a delisting?

B. What regulations allow facilities to

delist a waste?

C. What information must the generator

supply?

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What wastes did DuraTherm petition

EPA to delist?

B. How much wastes did DuraTherm

propose to delist?

C. How did DuraTherm sample and

analyze the waste data in this petition?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the

proposed rule?

B. How will DuraTherm segregate the

petitioned waste from the other wastes

accepted and processed in the thermal

desorption unit?

C. Why is EPA applying the Land Disposal

Restrictions to the petitioned wastes?

V. Regulatory Impact

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

IX. Congressional Review Act

X. Executive Order 12875

XI. Executive Order 13045

XII. Executive Order 13084

XIII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancements Act

XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

The EPA is finalizing:

(1) the decision to grant DuraTherm’s

petition to have their desorber solids

excluded, or delisted, from the

definition of a hazardous waste; and

(2) the use of the EPA Composite

Model for Landfills as the fate and

transport model to evaluate the

potential impact of the petitioned waste

on human health and the environment.

The Agency used this model to predict

the concentration of hazardous

constituents released from the

petitioned waste once it is disposed. After evaluating the petition, EPA

proposed, on August 18, 1999 to

exclude the DuraTherm waste from the

lists of hazardous wastes under

§§ 261.31 and 261.32 (see 64 FR 44866).

B. Why Is EPA Approving This

Delisting?

DuraTherm petitioned to exclude the

desorber solids because it does not

believe that the petitioned waste meets

the criteria for which it was listed.

DuraTherm also believes that the

waste does not contain any other

constituents that would render it

hazardous. Review of this petition

included consideration of the original

listing criteria, as well as the additional

listing criteria and the additional factors

required by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.

See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4).

For reasons stated in both the

proposal and this document, EPA

believes that DuraTherm’s desorber

solids should be excluded from

hazardous waste control. The EPA

therefore is granting a final exclusion to

DuraTherm, located in San Leon, Texas,

for its Desorber Solids.

C. What Are the Limits of This

Exclusion?

This exclusion applies to the waste

described in the petition only if the

requirements described in Table 1 of

part 261 and the conditions contained

herein are satisfied. The maximum

annual volume of the Desorber Solids is

20,000 cubic yards.

D. How Will DuraTherm Manage the

Waste if It Is Delisted?

The Desorber Solids is currently

disposed of in an off-site hazardous