Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37309

Any safety concerns regarding exposure

to residues of edible food commodities

have been addressed by the long history

of safe use of foods in commerce, as

well as the adequate regulation of foods

by the Food and Drug Administration.

Additionally, any cumulative effects

from aggregate exposure to residues of

food commodities when used as

pesticides in or on other food

commodities would not likely impact

those effects that may occur from much

broader exposure via consumption of

food in the diet. Since food

commodities are non toxic to humans

including infants and children, EPA has

not assessed the risk from food

commodities using a safety factor

approach. Accordingly, application of

an additional 10X safety factor analysis

or quantitative risk assessment for the

protection of infants and children is not

necessary to protect the safety of infants

and children.

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D),

EPA has reviewed the available

scientific data and other relevant

information in support of this action.

Based on the information and data

considered, the Agency has determined

that, in amending 40 CFR 180.1164, as

proposed, there is reasonable certainty

that no harm to the general population,

including infants and children will

result from aggregate exposure to edible

food commodities used as pesticides.

An exemption from tolerance is

appropriate for these pesticides because

EPA believes they do not pose a dietary

risk under reasonably forseeable

circumstances. Accordingly, EPA

proposes that the exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance be

established as set forth below.

IV. Public Docket and Electronic

Submissions

The official record for this rule

making, as well as the public version,

has been established for this rule

making under document control number

[OPP–300680] (including comments and

data submitted electronically). A public

version of this record, including

printed, paper versions of electronic

comments, which does not include any

information claimed as CBI, is available

for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4

p.m.,Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. The public record is

located in Room 119 of the Public

Information and Records Integrity

Branch, Information Resources and

Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA. 22202.

Electronic comments may be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for this rule

making, as well as the public version, as

described above will be kept in paper

form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer

any copies of comments received

electronically into printed paper form as

they are received and will place the

paper copies in the official rule making

record. The official rule making record

is the paper record maintained at the

Virginia address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at

the beginning of this document.

V. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

This rule proposes an exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance under

FFDCA section 408(d). The EPA is

proposing this regulation on its own

initiative. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted these

types of actions from review under

Executive Order 12866, entitled

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993). This action

does not contain any information

collections subject to OMB approval

under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose

any enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described under

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; Pub. L.

104–4). Nor does it require any prior

consultation as specified by Executive

Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR

58093, October, 1993), or special

considerations as required by Executive

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629), February 16,

1994), or require OMB review in

accordance with Executive Order 13045,

entitled Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612),

the Agency previously assessed whether

establishing tolerances, exemptions

from tolerances, raising tolerance levels

or expanding exemptions might

adversely impact small entities and

concluded, as a generic matter, that

there is no adverse economic impact.

The factual basis for the Agency’s

generic certification for tolerance

actions published on May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950), and was provided to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Agricultural commodities, Food

additives, Feed additives, Pesticides and

pests, Reporting and record keeping

requirements.

Dated: June 29, 1998.

Kathleen D. Knox,

Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I, part 180

is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371

2. Section 180.1164 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 180.1164 Food and food by-products;

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance.

* * * * *

(d) Any edible food commodity

(except for peanuts, tree nuts, milk,

eggs, fish, crustacea, and wheat) used as

a pesticide is exempted from the

requirement of a tolerance when used in

accordance with good agricultural

practice in or on all food commodities.

This exemption shall not apply to any

edible food commodity that is

adulterated under section 342 of Title

21 of the United States Code.

[FR Doc. 98–18280 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 264 and 265

[IL–64–2–5807; FRL–6122–8]

Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for

OSi Specialties, Inc., Sistersville, WV

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental proposal.

SUMMARY: This document proposes a

narrow modification being considered

by the EPA in implementing a project

under the Project XL program for the

OSi Specialties, Inc., plant, a wholly

owned subsidiary of Witco Corporation,

located near Sistersville, West Virginia

(‘‘the Sistersville Plant’’). To implement

this XL project, the EPA proposed on

March 6, 1998, a site-specific regulatory

deferral of certain air emission

standards. That action has not yet been
37310 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

promulgated. Today’s document

addresses the narrow issue of a

condition contained in that proposed

site-specific deferral, which requires the

Sistersville Plant to conduct an initial

performance test within 60 days of

initial start-up of a thermal oxidizer.

DATES: Comments on this document will

be accepted through July 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Supporting

information for today’s supplemental

proposal is available for public

inspection and copying at the EPA’s

docket office located at Crystal Gateway,

1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First

Floor, Arlington, Virginia. The public is

encouraged to phone in advance to

review docket materials. Appointments

can be scheduled by phoning the Docket

Office at (703) 603–9230. For

information specific to today’s

supplemental proposal, refer to RCRA

docket number F–98–MCCA–FFFFF.

For information used in developing the

XL project and the proposed rule, refer

to RCRA docket number F–98–MCCP–

FFFFF.

Hand delivery of items and review of

docket materials are made at the

Virginia address. To submit comments

by mail, the mailing address for the

RCRA docket office is RCRA

Information Center (5305W), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

A duplicate copy of the docket is

available for inspection and copying at

U.S. EPA, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, during

normal business hours. Persons wishing

to view the duplicate docket at the

Philadelphia location are encouraged to

contact Mr. Tad Radzinski in advance,

by telephoning (215) 814–2394. NOTE:

comments will not be received at the

Philadelphia location; All comments

must be submitted to the RCRA

Information Center (5305W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments: Written comments

regarding today’s supplemental

proposal may be mailed to the RCRA

Information Center of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, at the

above-mentioned Washington, D.C.

mailing address. Please send an original

and two copies of all comments, and

refer to Docket Number F–98-MCCAFFFFF.

The EPA will consider comments on

this supplemental proposal that are

received through July 24, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about this document, the

proposed site-specific regulatory

deferral, or the OSi XL project, please

contact Mr. Tad Radzinski, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 3 (3WC11), Waste Chemical

Management Division, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA, 19103–2029, (215)

814–2394.

To be included on the OSi Specialties

Project XL mailing list to receive

information about future public

meetings, XL progress reports and other

mailings from OSi on the XL Project,

contact: Okey Tucker, OSi Specialties,

Inc., 3500 South State Rte. 2, Friendly,

WV 26146. Mr. Tucker can also be

reached by telephone at (304) 652-8131.

For information on all other aspects of

the XL Program contact Christopher

Knopes at the following address: Office

of Reinvention, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Room 1029WT, 401 M Street, SW

(1802), Washington, DC 20460.

Additional information on Project XL,

including documents referenced in this

document, other EPA policy documents

related to Project XL, regional XL

contacts, application information, and

descriptions of existing XL projects and

proposals, is available via the Internet at

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL’’ and

via an automated fax-on-demand menu

at (202) 260–8590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

6, 1998, the EPA proposed in the

Federal Register (63 FR 11200) a

conditional site-specific regulatory

deferral to implement a project under

the Project XL program. The XL project

and the conditional site-specific deferral

are applicable only to the Sistersville

Plant. The proposed site-specific

deferral would grant to the Sistersville

Plant a conditional deferral from certain

technical requirements applicable to

two on-site hazardous waste surface

impoundments. The standards proposed

to be deferred are codified in 40 CFR

parts 264 and 265 under subpart CC

(referred to as the ‘‘subpart CC

standards’’).

The proposed site-specific deferral

includes specific technical and

administrative requirements for the

operation of a thermal oxidizer at the

Sistersville Plant. As proposed, the sitespecific deferral requires the Sistersville

Plant to perform initial start-up of the

thermal oxidizer no later than April 1,

1998. The proposed deferral also

requires the Sistersville Plant to conduct

an initial performance test of the

thermal oxidizer within 60 days of the

initial start-up. That requirement is

found at paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) in

§§ 264.1080 and 265.1080 of the

proposed site-specific deferral. See 63

FR 11200, March 6, 1998. It is this

initial performance test deadline that is

the subject of today’s supplemental

proposal.

Following initial start-up of the

thermal oxidizer on April 1, 1998, the

Sistersville Plant encountered certain

operational difficulties related to the

new equipment. At that time,

representatives from the Sistersville

Plant notified EPA of those difficulties.

On May 26, 1998, the Sistersville Plant

notified EPA that it would not be able

to meet the proposed requirement to

conduct the initial performance test by

May 31, 1998, which is the date 60 days

after initial start-up of the on-site

thermal oxidizer. Representatives from

the Sistersville Plant conveyed that they

expected to conduct the initial

performance test by the end of June

1998; however, they requested the

deadline be extended by an additional

60 days to allow for possible further

delays due to additional unexpected

events.

This missed deadline is a material

failure by the Sistersville Plant to meet

the provisions set forth in the Final

Project Agreement (‘‘FPA’’) for the XL

project, as well as the proposed

requirements of the site-specific

deferral. It is the expectation of all the

stakeholders that the Sistersville Plant

will adhere to its commitments to

achieving the environmental benefits of

this XL project in exchange for the sitespecific regulatory flexibility provided

by EPA and WV OAQ. The XL project

and the related requirements of the

proposed site-specific deferral were

developed by mutual agreement among

EPA, the West Virginia Office of Air

Quality (‘‘WV OAQ’’), and the

Sistersville Plant. The FPA was made

available for public review and

comment on June 27, 1997. See 62 FR

34748. Though not in itself an

enforceable document, the EPA and the

other Project XL stakeholders consider

the FPA to be a clear expression of the

Sistersville Plant’s agreement with EPA

and WV OAQ to comply with the

specified project requirements,

particularly the requirements to be

codified through the site-specific

deferral.

Although the site-specific deferral is

not yet promulgated, the provisions of

that deferral, as proposed March 6,

1998, are currently applicable to, and

enforceable against, the Sistersville

Plant under a consent order issued by

the WV OAQ. In discussions and

correspondence with OSi, EPA has

emphasized the importance of meeting

deadlines contained in the FPA, and

complying with the conditions

contained in the proposed site-specific

deferral. Upon promulgation, the sitespecific deferral will become directly
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37311

enforceable by EPA, WV OAQ and

citizens.

The EPA and WV OAQ have reviewed

documentation provided by the

Sistersville Plant regarding their failure

to conduct the initial performance test

within 60 days of initial start-up, or May

31, 1998. It appears from that

documentation that the Sistersville

Plant made good faith efforts to comply

with that requirement of the XL project,

the proposed site-specific deferral, and

the WV OAQ consent order. In

recognition that the Sistersville Plant

cannot possibly meet that passed

deadline, and the site-specific deferral

which proposed that requirement has

not yet been promulgated, the EPA

proposes to modify the site-specific

deferral prior to its promulgation.

The modification would extend by 60

days, the initial performance test

deadline that was contained in the

proposed site-specific deferral. The EPA

proposes an extension period of 60 days

in response to the Sistersville Plant’s

representative’s written statement that

the test could be accomplished by the

end of June, 1998, but that the recent

history of operational difficulties at the

Sistersville Plant indicates additional

time may become necessary. A copy of

that electronic mail note, dated May 26,

1998 from Mr. Tony Vandenberg to Ms.

Beth Termini and Ms. Michele Aston,

has been entered into the docket for this

supplemental notice. A recent telephone

meeting between EPA and the

Sistersville Plant confirmed that further

delays to the initial performance test

schedule have occurred, due to

continued operational problems with

the thermal oxidizer and severe

inclement weather in the Sistersville,

West Virginia area, and that the initial

performance test is scheduled for July

14 and 15, 1998.

The EPA proposes that extending the

initial performance test deadline by 60

days will not result in significant, if any,

decreases in the environmental benefits

of this XL project. The Sistersville Plant

has reported that the thermal oxidizer

began operation on April 1, 1998, and

following some initial technical

difficulties, has been fully operational

in accordance with the conditions of the

proposed site-specific deferral, since

April 13, 1998. The primary purpose of

the initial performance test is to set a

site-specific operating temperature that

will indicate the thermal oxidizer is

achieving the required 98 percent by

weight reduction of the organics in the

controlled vapor stream, as set forth in

the proposed site-specific deferral. The

FPA and the proposed site-specific

deferral set a default operating

temperature of 1600 degrees Fahrenheit

for the period prior to conducting the

initial performance test. This

requirement is contained in the

proposed site-specific deferral at

§§ (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1)(I) of paragraphs

264.1080 and 265.1080, and is currently

enforceable under the WV OAQ consent

order. See 63 FR 11200, March 6, 1998.

Because the Sistersville Plant has

reportedly operated the thermal oxidizer

at 1600 degrees Fahrenheit, EPA

estimates that the Sistersville Plant has

been achieving the majority, if not all,

of the environmental benefits of the

thermal oxidizer’s operation since it

first began its fully operational service

on April 13, 1998.

In light of the apparent good faith

effort by the Sistersville Plant to meet

the May 31, 1998 deadline for the initial

performance test, their timely

notification to EPA of the missed

deadline, and their compliance with the

requirements otherwise applicable to

the thermal oxidizer (e.g., continuously

operating the unit at 1600 degrees

Fahrenheit), the EPA proposes to extend

the deadline for the initial performance

test.

At the EPA’s request, the Sistersville

Plant has agreed to provide direct

written notice of this issue to the XL

project stakeholder group, and to notify

this group that a Federal Register

document will be published requesting

public comment on this issue. The

Sistersville Plant has also agreed that,

upon publication of today’s document

in the Federal Register, it will promptly

notify the stakeholder group, and

publish a notification in the local

Sistersville newspaper of the

opportunity for public comment related

to today’s supplemental proposal.

The EPA considers a 14-day comment

period to be adequate for this document,

due to the very narrow scope of the

issue, the narrow applicability of the

site-specific deferral being considered,

and the extensive notice to interested

parties that the Sistersville Plant will

provide prior to, and immediately

following, publication of this

supplemental proposal in the Federal

Register.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Parts 264 and

265

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous waste,

Organics, Surface impoundment,

Thermal oxidizer.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

J. Charles Fox,

Associate Administrator, Office of

Reinvention.

[FR Doc. 98–18463 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL–6123–4]

Tennessee; Tentative Approval of

State Underground Storage Tank

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

tentative determination on application

of State of Tennessee for final approval,

public hearing and public comment

period.

SUMMARY: The State of Tennessee has

applied for approval of its underground

storage tank program for petroleum

substances under Subtitle I of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed

the Tennessee application and has made

the tentative decision that Tennessee’s

underground storage tank program for

petroleum substances satisfies all of the

requirements necessary to qualify for

approval. The Tennessee application for

approval is available for public review

and comment. A public hearing will be

held to solicit comments on the

application, unless insufficient public

interest is expressed.

DATES: A public hearing is scheduled for

September 3, 1998, unless insufficient

public interest is expressed in holding

a hearing. EPA reserves the right to

cancel the public hearing if sufficient

public interest is not communicated to

EPA in writing by August 20, 1998. EPA

will determine by August 27, 1998,

whether there is significant interest to

hold the public hearing. The State of

Tennessee will participate in the public

hearing held by EPA on this subject.

Written comments on the Tennessee

approval application, as well as requests

to present oral testimony, must be

received by the close of business on

August 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Tennessee

approval application are available at the

following addresses for inspection and

copying:

Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation, Division of

Underground Storage Tanks, 401

Church Street 4th Floor, L&C Tower,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1541,

Phone: (615) 532–0945, 8:00 am

through 4:30 pm, Central Daylight

Savings Time

U.S. EPA Docket Clerk, Office of

Underground Storage Tanks, c/o

RCRA Information Center, 1235