19914 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Notices

collection of information, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: For the limited

time the Interim Final Rule will be in

effect, EPA assumed an IEE would be

the most likely environmental

documentation submitted by operators,

and that there would be no reporting for

cases of emergency. The EPA further

assumed that, for the initial year the

Interim Final Rule was in effect (e.g.,

1997–1998) and the subsequent three

years, the most likely scenario would

be:

(1) For the initial year, no PERMs or

CEEs would be submitted, with four

IEEs submitted on behalf of nine

operators;

(2) For the subsequent three years,

four revised IEEs would be submitted on

behalf of nine operators;

(3) For the initial year and subsequent

three years, procedures would be

implemented to assess and provide a

regular and verifiable record of the

actual impacts of any activity which

proceeds on the basis of an IEE;

(4) No PERMs, new IEEs, or CEEs

would be submitted during the

subsequent three years; and

(5) For the initial year, no

emergencies would occur requiring

emergency reporting, and none would

occur during the subsequent three years.

The detailed estimate of burden and

costs, which considers all three levels of

environmental documentation, and

includes the models and assumptions

for the estimate of burden and costs for

operators is presented in EPA’s

Supporting Statement for this ICR

which is available from the Contacts or

at the World Wide Website listed above.

In summary, based on the most likely

scenario listed above, EPA anticipates

the following:

Affected Public: Commercial tour

operators and all other

nongovernmental entities including

privately funded research expeditions.

Frequency of Reporting: Once per

year.

Number of Respondents: 9.

Estimated Average Annual Time: For

the initial year, no PERMs or CEEs were

submitted; four IEEs were submitted on

behalf of nine operators with an

estimated average burden of 216 hours

per IEE, or 96 hours per operator,

including assessment and verification

procedures. For each of the subsequent

years, four IEEs are anticipated on

behalf of nine operators with an

estimated annual average burden of 96

hours per IEE, or 43 hours per operator,

including assessment and verification

procedures.

Estimated Start-up Costs: None.

Estimated O&M Costs: The O&M costs

for the initial year and each of the

subsequent years are estimated at $140

for an IEE including assessment and

verification procedures, or $62 per

operator.

Estimated Total Burden for the Initial

Year and Three Subsequent Years: The

total respondent burden is estimated as

2,020 hours, or 224 hours per operator;

and the total respondent cost is

estimated as $126,746, or $14,083 per

operator.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a federal

agency. This includes the time needed

to: Review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

Richard E. Sanderson,

Director, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98–10715 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6000–9]

Draft Residual Risk Report to

Congress

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of document availability

and request for comment.

SUMMARY: This Report to Congress (RTC)

was prepared in response to section

112(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and

provides the information requested in

section 112(f)(1) and also presents EPA’s

proposed strategy for assessing any risk

remaining (residual risk) due to the

continued emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) from any industry

source category subject to the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

standards required by section 112(d) of

the CAA. The CAA identified several

topics to be addressed: (a) Methods of

calculating the risk to public health

remaining, or likely to remain, from

sources subject to regulation under

section 112(d); (b) the public health

significance of such estimated

remaining risk and the technologically

and commercially available methods

and costs of reducing such risk; (c) the

actual health effects with respect to

persons living in the vicinity of sources,

any available epidemiological or other

health studies, risks presented by

background concentrations of hazardous

air pollutants, any uncertainties in risk

assessment methodology or other health

assessment technique, and any negative

health or environmental consequences

to the community of efforts to reduce

such risks; and (d) recommendations as

to legislation regarding such remaining

risk. Congress directed that this RTC be

prepared ‘‘after consultation with the

Surgeon General and after opportunity

for public comment.’’ This notice of

document availability is in fulfillment

of the requirement to have a time for the

public to comment on this RTC.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice announces

a 60-day public comment period

beginning April 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft RTC will

be available from the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (MC–

6102), Docket No. A–97–39, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Room M–1500,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)

260–7548, between the hours of 8:00 am

and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying. Written

comments should be submitted to this

address. Comments and data may also

be submitted electronically by following

the instructions under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION of this notice. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis A. Pagano or Kelly Rimer, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Notices 19915

Air Quality Strategies and Standards

Division, Risk and Exposure Assessment

Group, MD–15, Research Triangle Park,

NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–0502 or

541–2962.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This RTC

is also available electronically by

accessing the following address: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. Comments may

be made electronically by sending them

to EPA at: A-and-RDocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1

file or ASCII file format. All comments

and data in electronic form must be

identified by the Docket No. A–97–39.

Electronic comments on this draft RTC

may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

Background

This RTC responds to the statutory

directives in section 112(f) of the CAA

and also provides EPA’s strategy for

assessing residual risk remaining from

the HAP being emitted from source

categories subject to MACT standards.

Chapter 2 provides a brief legislative

and regulatory background on the CAA

air toxics program in order to provide

context for what follows. Chapter 2 also

provides a short history of the

development of risk-based programs and

of risk assessment as the primary tool

used by EPA to analyze the potential

impacts of air toxics emissions on the

exposed population and environment.

As discussed in Section 2.3 of the RTC,

the development of EPA’s risk-based

program for air toxics has incorporated

input from the National Research

Council, the Commission on Risk

Assessment and Risk Management, State

and local air toxics programs, and a

variety of risk assessment policies and

guidelines developed (and in some

cases under development) by EPA. The

RTC then addresses, in Chapters 3 and

4, the required statutory elements, as

shown in the text box on page 1 of the

RTC. Chapter 3 provides information on

the methods for conducting human and

ecological risk assessments for

emissions of air toxics, describes the

data required, and the methods for

evaluating mixtures. Chapter 4

addresses the remaining statutory

elements listed in CAA section 112(f)(1)

(B), (C), and (D) in the order listed in the

CAA. In Chapter 5, the RTC describes

EPA’s strategy to conduct residual risk

analyses, as well as discuss other

provisions in section 112(f) (2) through

(6) of the CAA.

The intent of this RTC is to address

the legislative requirements of section

112(f)(1) and to provide the reader with

a basic understanding of how EPA will

conduct its risk analyses and make

decisions concerning these risk

assessments. The methodology

descriptions provided are not presented

as strict guidance but are discussed with

enough detail to inform the reader of

EPA’s intentions and directions in

implementing the ‘‘residual risk’’

analyses. The EPA prefers to be flexible

in this process so that as changes are

made in the way risk assessments are

done, they may be incorporated as

needed.

It is important to note that this RTC

does not contain the results of any

residual risk analyses or information on

EPA’s potential actions after conducting

such analyses. The EPA is currently

collecting existing data on source

categories for which MACT standards

have been promulgated and will begin

analyzing these data using the proposed

strategy.

Congress also requested EPA to report

on additional elements related to

residual risk. This RTC describes EPA’s

proposals for considering these

elements as they apply to residual risk

assessments.

• Public Health Significance: This

RTC presents EPA’s plan to use the

benzene NESHAP framework (54 FR

38044, September 14, 1989) which

provides a 2-step decision process, as a

gauge of significance for the purposes of

making regulatory decisions under the

residual risk program. This RTC also

describes when the benzene framework

will be applied. In this context, the RTC

states clearly that the benzene

framework does not address noncancer

effects nor does it address carcinogens

for which a ‘‘margin of exposure’’ type

of analysis is the more appropriate

method to use in determining the level

of concern. For these latter two types of

effects, the RTC states that EPA is in the

process of developing these decision

frameworks, and that they will not be

developed in time to be included in this

RTC.

The EPA is also mandated to address

ecological effects. Currently there are no

policies in place for considering them in

air management decisions. The EPA is

developing guidance for making these

risk management decisions, but they

will not be developed in time to be

incorporated into this RTC.

• Technologically and Commercially

Available Methods and Costs: The EPA

presents a range of control options if it

is determined that additional control is

needed to reduce residual risks. This

RTC provides an overview of these

options with an emphasis on pollution

prevention approaches.

• Actual Health Effects Information:

The information available on actual

health effects resulting from exposure to

air toxics is very limited. This RTC

presents a summary discussion of

epidemiological data, laboratory data,

and other exposure study data. It also

briefly describes how EPA intends to

use these data and any actual source

category-specific health effects data that

may become available when residual

risk assessments are conducted.

• Background Concentrations: This

RTC discusses general information on

background levels of HAP, including

EPA’s cumulative risk policy which is

under development, and presents a

definition of background concentrations

for air toxics and residual risk purposes.

It describes approaches used by other

EPA programs and includes examples of

rules and guidance that consider the

issue of background. It also presents a

discussion of the difficulties in

addressing background concentrations

in residual risk analyses and identifies

data needs to assess background. The

discussion concludes by describing the

EPA’s options to analyze and consider

background concentrations in residual

risk analyses.

• Negative Health or Environmental

Consequences to Communities: The

EPA interprets this requirement to mean

that any risk management options for

reducing residual risks must consider

other possible health consequences to

the community resulting from those

decisions. The EPA is aware that

pollution control technologies targeted

at a single pollutant (e.g., a specific

HAP) and single medium (e.g., air),

especially conventional end-of-the-pipe

treatment technologies, can

inadvertently transfer pollutants and

risks to different media, different

locations, and different receptors, and

can unintentionally create new and

different risks in the process of

controlling the targeted risk. Thus, EPA

intends, as it conducts its residual risk

analyses and any subsequent standardsetting actions, to identify potential

negative health and environmental

consequences when possible and

consider the risk-risk tradeoffs

associated with any standards

established under the residual risk

program.

• Legislative Recommendations:

Congress required EPA to make

‘‘legislative recommendations regarding

any identified residual risk.’’ The EPA

has interpreted this congressional

requirement to mean that if an

unacceptable residual risk were

identified, and no current authority
19916 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Notices

within the CAA were determined to be

adequate to reduce that risk, then EPA

would propose an approach that would

assure that risk reductions would occur.

The EPA believes that the regulatory

approach embodied in the CAA is

adequate for maintaining the goal of

protecting the public and environment’s

health, and, therefore, is not proposing

any legislative changes.

The EPA is requesting comment on

this draft RTC with a special emphasis

on the sections discussed above, i.e., the

public health significance,

technologically and commercially

available methods and costs, the actual

health effects, the background

concentration, and the negative health

or environmental consequences

sections.

Peer Review

The EPA is fully committed to

environmental protection that is

founded on sound and credible science.

Objective, independent peer review of

the scientific and technical bases of the

Agency’s actions is critical to

accomplishing the Agency’s mission.

The Agency’s commitment to credible,

effective peer review is stated in the

Peer Review Policy of June 7, 1994. Full

implementation of that policy remains

an Agency priority.

Most of the major references that form

the foundation of this RTC have

undergone (or are currently undergoing)

external peer review. In addition, EPA

intends to have this RTC peer reviewed

during the public comment period

because it outlines specific applications

for the methods and policies contained

in these references. For example, the

EPA believes that it is necessary to

obtain an independent evaluation of

questions, such as whether the RTC

identifies the most relevant and useful

methods of assessing risks from

stationary sources and whether it

properly characterizes the types of data

on which these methods rely. The

results of this peer review will be

incorporated into the final RTC.

Dated: April 14, 1998.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 98–10720 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6000–4]

Transfer of Confidential Business

Information to Contractors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of transfer of data and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: EPA will transfer Confidential

Business Information (CBI) to its

contractor, Research Triangle Institute

and its subcontractors: DPRA, Inc.; Tetra

Tech, Inc. and HydroGeoLogic, Inc. that

has been or will be submitted to EPA

under Section 3007 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Under RCRA, EPA is involved in

activities to support, expand and

implement solid and hazardous waste

regulations.

DATES: Transfer of confidential data

submitted to EPA will occur no sooner

than May 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Regina Magbie, Document Control

Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460. Comments should be identified

as ‘‘Transfer of Confidential Data.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina Magbie, Document Control

Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460, 703–308–7909.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Transfer of Confidential Business

Information

Under EPA Contract 68–W–98–085

Research Triangle Institute, and its

subcontractors, will assist the Office of

Solid Waste, Economics, Methods, and

Risk Analysis Division, by providing

technical and regulatory support for:

Toxicological Studies; Information

Gathering and Analysis; and

Documentation Preparation. EPA has

determined that Research Triangle

Institute and its subcontractors, will

need access to RCRA CBI submitted to

the Office of Solid Waste to complete

this work. Specifically, Research

Triangle Institute and its subcontractors,

need access to the CBI that EPA collects,

under the authority of Section 3007 of

RCRA, in Industry Studies Surveys and

other studies of industries involved

with waste management.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.305(h),

EPA has determined that Research

Triangle Institute, and its

subcontractors, require access to CBI

submitted to EPA under the authority of

RCRA to perform work satisfactorily

under the above-noted contract. EPA is

submitting this notice to inform all

submitters of CBI of EPA’s intent to

transfer CBI to these firms on a need-toknow basis. Upon completing its review

of materials submitted, Research

Triangle Institute, and its

subcontractors, will return all CBI to

EPA.

EPA will authorize Research Triangle

Institute, and its subcontractors, for

access to CBI under the conditions and

terms in EPA’s ‘‘Contractor

Requirements for the Control and

Security of RCRA Confidential Business

Information Security Manual.’’ Prior to

transferring CBI to Research Triangle

Institute, and its subcontractors, EPA

will review and approve its security

plans and Research Triangle Institute,

and its subcontractors, will sign nondisclosure agreements.

Dated: March 30, 1998.

Matt Hale,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 98–10721 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6000–3]

Transfer of Confidential Business

Information to Contractors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of transfer of data and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) will transfer Confidential

Business Information (CBI) to its

contractor, Hazmed and its

subcontractors: Eastern Research Group,

Inc.; ICF, Inc.; Energetics Inc.; and

Project Proformance, Corp. that has been

or will be submitted to EPA under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). Under RCRA, EPA is

involved in activities to support, expand

and implement solid and hazardous

waste regulations.

DATES: Transfer of confidential data

submitted to EPA will occur no sooner

than May 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Regina Magbie, Document Control

Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. Comments should be identified

as ‘‘Transfer of Confidential Data.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina Magbie, Document Control