16830 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

implement it. It commits to providing

EPA with future demonstrations of

resource adequacy as necessary as new

requirements become known.

The LLCHD submitted a schedule for

implementing section 112 requirements

in its part 70 program submittal. This

schedule will apply to both part 70 and

non-Part 70 sources, since adoption by

reference of the standard will apply

simultaneously to both types of sources.

Finally, the LLCHD has demonstrated

that it has the legal authority to take

civil and enforcement actions against

any section 112 source for all CAA

requirements, including the section 112

requirements.

The reader may consult the Technical

Support Document, available from the

contact above, for a more detailed

explanation of these topics.

III. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to grant approval

under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR

63.91 of the LLCHD’s program for

receiving delegation of future section

112 standards that are unchanged from

Federal standards as promulgated for

both Part 70 and non-Part 70 sources. In

addition, EPA proposes to delegate

existing standards under 40 CFR parts

61 and 63 for non-Part 70 sources.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed notice.

Copies of LLCHD’s submittal and other

information relied upon for this

proposal are contained in a docket

maintained at the EPA Regional Office.

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

proposal. The principle purposes of the

docket are:

1. To allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents so they

can effectively participate in the

approval process; and

2. To serve as the record in case of

judicial review, EPA will consider any

comments received by May 3, 1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because this action does not impose

any new requirements, it does not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations,, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 13, 1995.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8083 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS–400032A; FRL–4944–8]

RIN 2070–AC00

Ammonia; Ammonium Sulfate

(Solution); Ammonium Nitrate

(Solution); Water Dissociable

Ammonium Salts; Toxic Chemical

Release Reporting; Community Rightto-Know

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Amended proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is amending its March

30, 1990 proposal to grant a petition to

delete ammonium sulfate (solution)

from the list of toxic chemicals subject

to reporting under section 313 of the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA).

The March 30, 1990 proposal was based

on EPA’s belief that releases of

ammonium sulfate (solution) can be

more effectively covered by the EPCRA

section 313 ammonia listing. EPA is

amending the proposed rule in order to

allow the public to comment on data not

available or included at the time of the

original proposal. EPA is also expanding

the proposal to include the deletion of

ammonium nitrate (solution) as a

separately listed toxic chemical on the

EPCRA section 313 list because EPA

believes that releases of ammonium

nitrate (solution) are more effectively

covered by the EPCRA section 313

listings for ammonia and the recently

added water dissociable nitrate

compounds category. In addition, EPA

is proposing to modify the ammonia

listing to make it clear that aqueous

ammonia from all water dissociable

ammonium salts is reportable under the

EPCRA section 313 listing for ammonia.

In the March 30, 1990 proposal, EPA

discussed two options for the reporting

of aqueous ammonia, as total ammonia

or as some proportion of total ammonia.

Today, EPA is proposing that 10 percent

of total aqueous ammonia be reported

under the ammonia listing.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by May 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria J. Doa, Petitions Coordinator,

202–260–9592, for specific information

on this amended proposed rule, or for

more information on EPCRA section

313, the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Hotline,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail

Code 5101, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460, Toll free: 1–800–535–0202,

in Virginia and Alaska: 703–412–9877

or Toll free TDD: 1–800–553–7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

This amended proposal is issued

under section 313(d) and (e)(1) of the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42

U.S.C. 11023. EPCRA is also referred to

as Title III of the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1986 (SARA) (Pub. L. 99–499).

B. Background

Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain

facilities manufacturing, processing, or

otherwise using listed toxic chemicals

to report their environmental releases of

such chemicals annually. Beginning

with the 1991 reporting year, such

facilities must also report pollution

prevention and recycling data for such

chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of

the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.

13106). When enacted, section 313

established an initial list of toxic

chemicals that was comprised of more

than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical

categories. Section 313(d) authorizes

EPA to add chemicals to or delete

chemicals from the list, and sets forth

criteria for these actions. EPA has added

chemicals to and deleted chemicals

from the original statutory list. Under

section 313(e)(1), any person may

petition EPA to add chemicals to or

delete chemicals from the list. Pursuant

to EPCRA section 313(e)(1), EPA must

respond to petitions within 180 days

either by initiating a rulemaking or by

publishing an explanation of why the

petition is denied.

EPA issued a statement of petition

policy and guidance in the Federal

Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR

3479), to provide guidance regarding the

recommended content and format for

petitions. On May 23, 1991 (56 FR

23703), EPA issued a statement of

policy and guidance regarding the

recommended content of petitions to

delete individual members of the

section 313 metal compound categories.

EPA has published a statement
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16831

clarifying its interpretation of the

section 313(d)(2) criteria for adding and

deleting chemicals from the section 313

list (59 FR 61439, November 30, 1994).

Facilities that manufacture, process,

or otherwise use ammonia, ammonium

sulfate (solution), ammonium nitrate

(solution), and other water dissociable

ammonium salts may be affected by this

amended proposed rule if they meet the

following criteria: (1) The facility has

the equivalent of 10 or more full-time

employees; and (2) the facility is

included in Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Codes 20 through

39; and (3) the facility manufactures

(defined to include importing),

processes, or otherwise uses the

chemicals listed above in quantities

equal to or greater than 25,000 pounds

for manufacturing or processing and

10,000 pounds for otherwise using.

II. Description of Petition and Original

Proposed Rule

A. Description of Petition

On January 23, 1989, EPA received a

petition from Allied-Signal Inc. to delete

ammonium sulfate (solution) from the

EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals. The petition was based on

Allied-Signal Inc.’s contention that

ammonium sulfate (solution) does not

meet the EPCRA section 313 criteria for

listing. Specifically, Allied-Signal Inc.

claimed that: (1) Ammonium sulfate is

not known to cause and cannot

reasonably be anticipated to cause

significant adverse acute human health

effects at concentration levels that are

reasonably likely to exist beyond facility

site boundaries as a result of

continuous, or frequently recurring

releases, (2) ammonium sulfate does not

show potential for causing in humans

cancer or teratogenic effects, serious or

irreversible reproductive dysfunction,

neurological disorders, heritable genetic

mutations, or other chronic health

effects, and (3) ammonium sulfate does

not show potential for adverse effects on

the environment due to toxicity,

persistency in the environment, and/or

tendency to bioaccumulate in the

environment.

B. Review of Proposed Rule

On March 30, 1990, EPA issued a

proposed rule in the Federal Register

(55 FR 12144), proposing to delete

ammonium sulfate (solution) from the

EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals. This proposal, hereafter

referred to as ‘‘the original proposal,’’

was based on EPA’s belief that the only

concerns identified for ammonium

sulfate (solution) were for the aqueous

ammonia present in the solution and

that this aqueous ammonia is more

appropriately reported under the

EPCRA section 313 listing for ammonia.

Aqueous ammonia is coincidentally

manufactured when ammonium salts

that dissociate in water (such as

ammonium sulfate) are dissolved in

water. Therefore, releases of these

ammonium salt solutions are

environmentally equivalent to the

release of aqueous ammonia generated

by dissolving anhydrous ammonia in

water.

The original proposal and the

combined docket for the original

proposal and this proposed amendment

contain complete discussions and

documentation of EPA’s technical

review of ammonium sulfate (solution),

aqueous ammonia, and the options EPA

has considered for resolving the

reporting requirements under the

ammonia listing. The following two

sections summarize EPA’s technical

evaluation and options as discussed in

the original proposal.

1. Summary of technical review. The

chemistry of ammonia in water (i.e.,

aqueous ammonia) has been extensively

studied and is well understood. When

anhydrous ammonia or water

dissociable ammonium salts (such as

ammonium sulfate) are dissolved in

water an equilibrium is reached

between two forms of ammonia, the unionized form (NH3) and the ionized form

(NH4

∂). The term ‘‘total ammonia’’

refers to the sum of both the un-ionized

and ionized forms of ammonia and is

synonymous with the term ‘‘aqueous

ammonia.’’ The relative proportions of

each form of ammonia are mainly

dependent on the pH and temperature

of the solution, with the amount of the

un-ionized form increasing with both

increased pH and increased

temperature. These two forms rapidly

interconvert and the relative

proportions of each form change

instantly with changes in the pH and

temperature of the solution. The

concentration of the un-ionized form of

ammonia increases 10-fold with each

one unit increase in pH and

approximately doubles with every 10 °C

increase in temperature. There are

differences in the concentrations of the

un-ionized form of ammonia between

equimolar solutions of aqueous

ammonia generated by dissolving

dissociable ammonium salts versus

anhydrous ammonia. These differences

are due to the buffering effects (mainly

reflected as pH differences) of the

counter ions from the ammonium salts

and disappear when both solutions are

released to the environment.

EPA preliminarily concluded that

there were no known significant human

health effects associated with

ammonium sulfate (solution). EPA also

preliminarily concluded that the

ecotoxicity concerns for ammonium

sulfate (solution) were limited to the

aqueous ammonia (i.e., total ammonia)

present in these solutions and that the

sulfate portion was not of concern. The

toxicity of aqueous ammonia to aquatic

organisms has been extensively studied

and is well understood. The toxicity of

aqueous ammonia solutions is primarily

attributable to the un-ionized form of

ammonia with the ionized form being

relatively less toxic. Because both the

toxicity of aqueous ammonia and the

concentration of the un-ionized form of

ammonia vary with the pH and

temperature of the solution, aqueous

ammonia toxicity cannot be represented

solely by the concentration of unionized

ammonia. Thus, the toxicity of an

aqueous solution of ammonia cannot be

represented by a single value but must

be expressed as a function of pH and

temperature. Since the un-ionized

ammonia concentration changes with

pH and temperature, it is necessary to

calculate the total ammonia

concentration in order to determine the

toxicity of the solution as the pH and

temperature conditions change.

EPA’s Office of Water has conducted

a detailed study of the toxicity of

aqueous ammonia which is provided in

the criteria document, Ambient Water

Quality Criteria for Ammonia - 1984. No

new information has become available

to the Agency that has significantly

changed the conclusions reached in this

document. Therefore, this document

remains the Agency’s aquatic toxicity

hazard assessment for aqueous

ammonia. The criteria developed for

this document were derived from

toxicity tests conducted with several

ammonium compounds, including

ammonium sulfate. The criteria are

estimates of the highest concentrations

that should not cause toxicity to aquatic

organisms and are expressed as a

function of pH and temperature. The

criteria are presented in terms of both

the concentrations of the un-ionized

form of ammonia and the concentration

of total ammonia.

In the original proposal, EPA reported

that the majority (95 percent) of the

ammonium sulfate consumed in the

U.S. is used as a fertilizer and that,

based on reports submitted to the Toxic

Release Inventory (TRI), in 1987, 90.2

million pounds of ammonium sulfate

(solution) were released to water and/or

publicly-owned treatment works

(POTWs). EPA conducted a limited

exposure assessment based on data

obtained from the TRI. The assessment

focused on releases to surface waters
16832 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

and POTWs since these releases will

have a direct impact on aquatic

ecosystems. EPA determined that 30

percent of the facilities reviewed were

not being regulated through their State

programs for discharges of ammonia.

2. Summary of options in the original

proposal. EPA considered three options

for responding to the petition:

(i) Deny the petition.

(ii) Grant the petition and propose to

delete ammonium sulfate (solution)

from the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals.

(iii) Grant the petition and propose to

delete ammonium sulfate (solution)

while at the same time, use the

rulemaking to revise release reporting of

ammonia.

EPA recognized that certain facilities

might not be aware of the chemistry of

aqueous solutions of ammonium salts.

Therefore, under option (iii), EPA

discussed three options concerning how

to inform the regulated community of

the technical determination that these

solutions are equivalent to solutions of

aqueous ammonia generated by

dissolving anhydrous ammonia in

water. The options considered were:

(a) Create an ‘‘ammonium salts’’

category to make the technical

determination more explicit.

(b) Modify the ammonia listing to

read as follows: ammonia (includes total

ammonia resulting from solutions of

water dissociable salts).

(c) Revise EPA’s guidance for

ammonia reporting.

EPA believed that creating an

ammonium salts category would be

confusing and could potentially cause

problems concerning double reporting

and reporting on salts that do not

dissociate. EPA believed that

modification of the ammonia listing was

not necessary in order to capture

releases of aqueous ammonium salt

solutions and that it would reinforce the

artificial distinction between releases of

aqueous solutions of ammonia

generated from anhydrous ammonia and

those generated from water dissociable

ammonium salts. EPA, therefore, issued

technical guidance clarifying the

reporting requirements under the

ammonia listing.

In the same issue of the Federal

Register in which the proposal was

published, a notice of availability was

published (55 FR 12148) notifying the

public and the regulated community of

the availability of a guidance document

on the reporting of ammonia releases.

The guidance document explained that

manufacturing, processing, or otherwise

using aqueous solutions of ammonium

salts that dissociate in water is

equivalent to manufacturing,

processing, or otherwise using aqueous

ammonia solutions generated by

dissolving anhydrous ammonia (an

EPCRA section 313 listed toxic

chemical) in water. Therefore, those

facilities that manufacture, process, or

otherwise use aqueous solutions of

ammonium salts that dissociate in water

should make threshold determinations

under EPCRA section 313 to assess

whether reporting for releases under the

ammonia listing is required.

In the original proposal, EPA also

discussed two options for reporting

releases of aqueous ammonia:

(1) Report releases of total ammonia;

or

(2) Report a proportion of the releases

of total ammonia.

In discussing the two options, EPA

stated that reporting total ammonia

would allow communities to determine

the proportion of un-ionized ammonia

and ionized ammonia present in the

receiving stream based on the pH and

temperature characteristics of the

stream. This information allows

communities to easily determine the unionized ammonia and ionized ammonia

loading resulting from facility releases

of aqueous ammonia. EPA stated that

although the ionized form of ammonia

is less toxic to aquatic organisms than

the un-ionized form of ammonia, it is

present in a higher proportion under

environmental conditions and may

present the greater hazard. EPA also

stated that reporting releases as a

proportion of the amount of un-ionized

ammonia released would result in data

that cannot be used as well since it must

be extrapolated to determine the amount

of total ammonia released.

EPA proposed the second option in

recognition of the fact that the unionized form of ammonia is more toxic

than the ionized form of ammonia and

that under environmental conditions

only a proportion of total ammonia

contains un-ionized ammonia. EPA

requested comment on whether a

proportion, which would be the same

for all facilities, of releases of total

ammonia should be reported. EPA

stated that this proportion would be a

worst-case estimate of the proportion of

the un-ionized form of ammonia present

in processing waters reflecting an upper

bound level of the amount of the unionized form of ammonia formed. EPA

also requested comment on what

proportion of total ammonia should be

used as an estimate.

III. Rationale for Amending the

Proposal

The issue of what forms of ammonia

should be reportable under the

ammonia listing has been the source of

ongoing discussions between EPA and

affected parties since the publication of

the original proposal. This has resulted

in a significant amount of additional

information becoming available to EPA,

and is one of the reasons EPA is

amending the proposed rule. This

information has been placed in the

docket for this rulemaking. Also, due to

the recent addition of a nitrate

compounds category to the EPCRA

section 313 list of toxic chemicals (59

FR 61439, November 30, 1994), EPA

believes that it would be appropriate to

expand the proposed rule to include the

deletion of ammonium nitrate (solution)

as a separately listed chemical under

EPCRA section 313. Therefore, EPA

decided to publish this amended

proposal to allow for adequate public

notice and comment.

The following sections discuss this

additional information as well as the

expansion of the proposal to include the

deletion of ammonium nitrate

(solution).

A. Additional Information

1. Average pH and temperature of

U.S. waters (Ref. 1). Data concerning the

pH and temperature of lakes, rivers, and

streams in the U.S. were not discussed

or provided in the original proposal.

This information is important since the

pH and temperature of these receiving

bodies will determine the proportion of

aqueous ammonia that will exist in the

more toxic un-ionized form. EPA has

analyzed data tabulated from the

Agency’s STORET data base for all 50

states and found that at the 50th

percentile for pH and temperature in

surface waters, approximately 1 percent

of aqueous ammonia would exist in the

un-ionized form, at the 90th percentile

it would be 10 percent, and at the 95th

percentile it would be 15 percent. This

information suggests an upper boundary

for the amount of the un-ionized form

of ammonia that will be generated from

the releases of aqueous ammonia.

2. Toxicity data (Ref. 2). Additional

data concerning the toxicity of aqueous

ammonia to one aquatic organism has

become available since the original

proposal was issued. This new data

indicate that the amphipod Hyalella

azteca shows no dependency towards

pH and temperature with regards to

chronic toxicity from aqueous ammonia.

This suggests that, for this organism,

aqueous ammonia toxicity is not due

primarily to the un-ionized form of

ammonia and that, for this organism, the

ionized form may be equally as toxic as

the un-ionized form.

3. Environmental fate of aqueous

ammonia (Ref. 3). Aqueous ammonia

does not persist or bioaccumulate in the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16833

environment as ammonia. In surface

waters the important and competitive

processes that remove aqueous

ammonia are nitrification and

volatilization. The rate of volatilization

of ammonia from surface waters is

highest at the sources of releases, while

nitrification processes tend to be more

significant in lakes, slow moving rivers,

and estuaries. Nitrification, which is

one process within the nitrogen cycle,

involves two steps that yield metabolic

energy for two specific microorganisms.

In the first step, Nitrosomonas converts

ammonia to nitrite and in the second

step, Nitrobacter converts nitrite to

nitrate. Because the nitrogen cycle is

dynamic, industrial releases of aqueous

ammonia should not result in dramatic

buildups of ammonia in surface waters.

Nitrification is responsive to high inputs

of ammonia such as those from

industrial releases. However, it should

be noted that high nitrification may lead

to low levels of dissolved oxygen and

the eutrophication of a water body. This

effect is typically limited to coastal

waters and estuaries where nitrogen is

the limiting nutrient. Aqueous ammonia

may also be removed by adsorption to

particles which then settle to the

sediment where soil-type processes take

over. The ionized form of ammonia is

also assimilated by most plants.

4. Additional exposure information

(Ref. 4). EPA has conducted an

additional exposure analysis of releases

of aqueous ammonia to surface waters.

This exposure assessment analyzed the

releases of ammonium sulfate (solution)

and ammonium nitrate (solution) that

were reported to the TRI for reporting

year 1992. Releases of ammonia

reported under the ammonia listing

were not included since this data are a

mixture of reports of total ammonia

releases and un-ionized ammonia

releases and EPA has no way to readily

determine how a facility calculated its

releases. Although this exposure

assessment represents only a small

portion of the aqueous ammonia

released to surface waters, it was helpful

in identifying facilities that might be

releasing aqueous ammonia in

concentrations that exceed water quality

criteria. The results showed that not all

facilities with significant releases of

these ammonium salts are covered by

permits that control releases of aqueous

ammonia and for those that are covered

by such permits violations of these

permits occur.

EPA has recently clarified how

exposure information is used in listing

and delisting decisions under EPCRA

section 313 (59 FR 61432, November 30,

1994). EPA does not consider exposure

information when evaluating whether

highly ecotoxic chemicals meet the

EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) listing

criteria. EPA believes that for highly

ecotoxic chemicals it is sufficient to

consider only hazard when determining

whether a chemical meets the EPCRA

section 313(d)(2)(C) listing criteria. EPA

only considers exposure information

when evaluating low or moderately

ecotoxic chemicals. EPA considers the

un-ionized form of ammonia to be

highly toxic to aquatic organisms;

therefore, EPA did not consider

exposure information in evaluating

whether aqueous ammonia from

ammonium sulfate (solution)

contributes to aquatic toxicity. The

exposure information provided in this

amended proposal and in the original

proposal was not used as a basis for

determining whether ammonium sulfate

(solution) meets the EPCRA section

313(d)(2)(C) listing criteria, but was

provided as additional information

since many states issue permits that

require monitoring or limitation of

ammonia releases.

5. Science Advisory Board review

(Ref. 5). In order to help resolve the

scientific issues concerning the

reporting of aqueous ammonia under

the EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing,

EPA asked the Agency’s Science

Advisory Board (SAB) to review the

issues. The SAB assigned the review to

the Toxics Reporting Subcommittee of

the Ecological Processes and Effects

Committee which met in Washington,

DC on January 4, 1995, in a public

meeting to discuss the issue. EPA

submitted two questions for the

subcommittee to respond to:

(i) What is the most appropriate way

to report releases of aqueous ammonia

under EPCRA section 313: as un-ionized

ammonia or as total ammonia?

(ii) Does total ammonia meet the

EPCRA section 313 listing criteria?

The SAB responded with a letter to

the Agency dated February 2, 1995. In

this letter the SAB concluded that the

acute toxicity of the un-ionized form of

ammonia to aquatic life is

approximately 100 times greater than

the ionized form of ammonia and that

the toxicity of the two forms is

approximately additive. With regard to

what form of ammonia should be

reported under EPCRA section 313, the

SAB stated that, for aquatic toxicity,

reporting concentrations of the unionized form of ammonia at a standard

pH and temperature would address this

endpoint. The SAB also stated that for

other effects such as nitrogen nutrient

enrichment, the specific forms of

ammonia are not very relevant since

both have the same nutrient enrichment

properties. The SAB went on to

conclude, ‘‘Thus, the question of

whether to list or how to list ammonia

or any of its forms is not a scientific

issue but strictly a matter of policy for

the Agency to decide.’’

With regard to whether total ammonia

meets the EPCRA section 313 criteria,

the SAB stated that, based on their

evaluation of the criteria, total ammonia

meets the EPCRA section 313 criteria

only if, as stated in the statute, the

Administrator determines that it causes

a significant adverse effect on the

environment of sufficient seriousness to

warrant reporting.

B. Proposed Deletion of Ammonium

Nitrate (solution)

Ammonium nitrate (solution) is a

solution of aqueous ammonia and

nitrate ions. On November 30, 1994 (59

FR 61432), EPA added a water

dissociable nitrate compounds category

to EPCRA section 313 . The addition of

this category and reporting of aqueous

ammonia from water dissociable

ammonium salts under the ammonia

listing obviate the need to have

ammonium nitrate (solution) as a

separately listed chemical under EPCRA

section 313. EPA believes that the

aqueous ammonia from ammonium

nitrate (solution) is more appropriately

reported under the EPCRA section 313

ammonia listing and that the nitrate

portion of ammonium nitrate (solution)

is more appropriately reported under

the new water dissociable nitrate

compounds category. Although EPA is

proposing to delete ammonium nitrate

(solution), this action would not result

in any loss of information concerning

releases of this material.

IV. Proposed Actions and Rationale

A. Proposed Actions

EPA is proposing to take the following

four actions:

1. Delete ammonium sulfate (solution)

from the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals.

2. Require that threshold and release

determinations for aqueous ammonia be

based on 10 percent of the total

ammonia present in aqueous solutions

of ammonia.

3. Modify the ammonia listing by

adding the following qualifier: ammonia

(includes anhydrous ammonia and

aqueous ammonia from water

dissociable ammonium salts and other

sources; 10 percent of total aqueous

ammonia is reportable under this

listing).

4. Delete ammonium nitrate (solution)

as a separately listed chemical on the

EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals.
16834 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

B. Rationale for Proposed Actions

The rationale for proposing each of

these actions is discussed below.

1. Deletion of ammonium sulfate

(solution). EPA agrees with the

petitioner’s claim that ammonium

sulfate (solution) does not meet the

human health listing criteria under

EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A) and (B).

However, EPA does not agree with the

petitioner’s claim that ammonium

sulfate (solution) does not show

potential for adverse effects on the

environment because when a facility

dissolves ammonium sulfate in water,

that facility, in effect, manufactures

aqueous ammonia. The un-ionized form

of ammonia present in aqueous

ammonia is highly toxic to aquatic

organisms and therefore meets the

EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) criteria for

listing. An aqueous solution of

ammonium sulfate is environmentally

equivalent to aqueous ammonia

generated from anhydrous ammonia

because when each of these solutions is

released to receiving waters the amount

of un-ionized ammonia present is

dependent upon environmental

conditions. In fact, ammonium sulfate is

one of the many ammonium salts used

by researchers as a source of aqueous

ammonia for aquatic toxicity studies.

EPA does not believe that the sulfate

portion of ammonium sulfate (solution)

meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A),

(B), or (C) criteria. EPA has previously

reviewed the toxicity of sodium sulfate

(54 FR 7217 and 54 FR 25850) and

concluded that sulfate from sodium

sulfate did not meet the EPCRA section

313(d)(2)(A), (B), or (C) criteria.

EPA believes that the only component

of ammonium sulfate (solution) that

meets the EPCRA section 313 listing

criteria is the aqueous ammonia present

in this solution. EPA believes that this

aqueous ammonia is more appropriately

reported under the EPCRA section 313

ammonia listing, therefore it is

appropriate to delete ammonium sulfate

(solution) from the EPCRA section 313

list of toxic chemicals. Ten percent of

the ammonium portion of ammonium

sulfate (solution) would remain

reportable under the ammonia listing.

2. Reporting 10 percent of total

ammonia. EPA has considered all data

available to the Agency concerning the

chemistry, toxicity, and environmental

fate of aqueous ammonia and believes

that: (1) Aqueous ammonia does not

persist or bioaccumulate in the

environment as ammonia, (2) the most

toxic form of ammonia is the un-ionized

form, (3) the un-ionized form of

ammonia makes up a relatively small

percentage of total ammonia under most

environmental conditions, (4) reporting

a percentage of total aqueous ammonia

under the ammonia listing would

adequately represent the toxicity of

aqueous ammonia, and (5) reporting unionized ammonia without pH and

temperature data would not provide

sufficient information to quantify

potential hazards from releases. EPA

believes that reporting aqueous

ammonia as 10 percent of total ammonia

is appropriate since, based on the 90th

percentile pH and temperature data for

U.S. waters, releases of aqueous

ammonia will consist of no more than

approximately 10 percent of the unionized form of ammonia. Reporting

aqueous ammonia as a percentage of

total ammonia would also allow for easy

determination of the amount of total

ammonia released. The amount of total

ammonia released, along with the sitespecific pH and temperature data for the

receiving body, are required in order to

calculate the amount of un-ionized

ammonia released to any one specific

water body. Under this proposal,

facilities would be required to include

10 percent of the total ammonia in

aqueous solutions in all threshold and

release determinations under the

EPCRA section 313 listing for ammonia.

The proposal to report 10 percent of

total ammonia is consistent with the

original proposal in which EPA asked

for comment on whether a proportion of

total ammonia, that would be the same

for all facilities, should be reported.

This proposal is also consistent with the

SAB conclusion that reporting unionized ammonia under standard

conditions adequately addresses the

aquatic toxicity endpoint. Also, users of

TRI data who wish to assess the

contribution of ammonia to nitrogen

loading in nitrogen limited waters could

extrapolate from the reported data.

3. Modification of the ammonia

listing. In the original proposal, EPA

discussed three ways to clarify that

aqueous ammonia from water

dissociable ammonium salts is

reportable under the ammonia listing.

One method considered was to add a

modifier to the ammonia listing to read:

ammonia (includes total ammonia

resulting from solutions of water

dissociable salts). EPA was concerned,

however that such a modification would

reinforce the artificial distinction

between releases of aqueous solutions of

ammonia generated from anhydrous

ammonia and those generated from

water dissociable ammonium salts, a

distinction which is not present under

environmental conditions. However,

EPA is now concerned that without

such a qualifier the regulated

community might not realize that the

aqueous ammonia from water

dissociable ammonium salts is

reportable under the ammonia listing.

EPA guidance in response to inquires

concerning what is reportable under the

ammonia listing has been that aqueous

ammonia from water dissociable

ammonium salts is reportable under the

listing. However, even after publishing

this guidance in 1990 (55 FR 12148),

EPA has continued to receive numerous

inquires regarding what should be

reported. Therefore, EPA proposes to

add a qualifier to the ammonia listing to

clarify that aqueous ammonia from

water dissociable ammonium salts is

reportable under the ammonia listing.

EPA believes that modification of the

ammonia listing to specify that the

listing includes anhydrous ammonia

and aqueous ammonia from water

dissociable ammonium salts and other

sources, would aid the regulated

community in determining whether

they are required to report and would

eliminate any confusion over what is

reportable under the ammonia listing.

This modification would also include

the proposal discussed above to limit

reporting of aqueous ammonia to 10

percent of total aqueous ammonia. Upon

finalization of this proposed rule, EPA

will publish a revised guidance

document for the ammonia listing.

4. Deletion of ammonium nitrate

(solution). EPA is proposing to delete

ammonium nitrate (solution) because

the recent addition of the water

dissociable nitrate compounds category

(59 FR 61432, November 30, 1994) and

reporting of aqueous ammonia from

water dissociable ammonium salts

under the ammonia listing negate the

need for a separate listing for this

chemical solution. EPA does not believe

that this would be a significant change

since the releases of ammonium nitrate

(solution) would still be reported under

the EPCRA section 313 listing for

ammonia and the nitrate compounds

category. Under the nitrate compounds

category, the amount of ammonium

nitrate in solution would be counted in

threshold determinations for the

category, but only the amount of nitrate

ion would be counted in release and

transfer determinations, therefore no

double counting of releases would

occur. This proposal would simply

consolidate the reporting of ammonium

nitrate (solution) under existing EPCRA

section 313 listings. The original

proposal discussed the reporting of

water dissociable ammonium salts

under the ammonia listing. Since

ammonium nitrate is a water dissociable

ammonium salt and since no loss of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16835

information would result from this

deletion, EPA believes that it is

appropriate to add this proposal to this

rulemaking.

V. Effective Dates

The changes described in this

amended proposal (with the exception

of the deletion of ammonium nitrate

(solution)) would be effective on the

date of publication of the final rule,

which EPA expects to occur prior to

July 1, 1995. These changes would

therefore be effective for the 1994

reporting year.

Section 313(d)(4) of EPCRA provides,

‘‘Any revision [to the section 313 list]

made on or after January 1 and before

December 1 of any calendar year shall

take effect beginning with the next

calendar year. Any revision made on or

after December 1 of any calendar year

and before January 1 of the next

calendar year shall take effect beginning

with the calendar year following such

next calendar year.’’ EPA interprets this

delayed effective date provision to

apply only to actions that add chemicals

to the section 313 list; EPA may, at its

discretion, make deletions from the list

and amendments to listings

immediately effective.

EPA believes that the purpose behind

section 313(d)(4) is to allow facilities

adequate planning time to incorporate

newly added chemicals to their TRI

release data collection processes. A

facility would not need additional

planning time not to report releases of

a delisted chemical. Moreover, where

EPA has determined that a chemical

does not satisfy the criteria of section

313(d)(2)(A) through (C), no purpose is

served by requiring facilities to collect

release data or file release reports for

that chemical, or, therefore, by leaving

that chemical on the section 313 list for

any additional period of time. Nothing

in the legislative history suggests that

section 313(d)(4) was intended to apply

to deletions as well as additions. Thus,

a reasonable construction of section

313(d)(4), given the overall purposes

and structure of EPCRA—to provide the

public with information about

chemicals which meet the criteria for

inclusion on the section 313 list — is to

apply the delayed effective date

requirement only to additions to the list.

This construction of section 313(d)(4) is

also consistent with previous rules

deleting chemicals from the section 313

list.

An immediately effective date for the

actions in this amended proposal is also

consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), since

a deletion from the section 313 list

relieves a regulatory burden. EPA

believes the combined effect of the

changes in this amended proposal

would be to reduce the burden by

clarifying what is reportable under the

ammonia listing and by simplifying the

reporting requirements for ammonia. In

addition, the proposal to require

facilities to include 10 percent of total

ammonia in aqueous solutions in

threshold determinations might relieve

some facilities from the obligation to

report for aqueous ammonia.

If EPA were to publish a final rule

before July 1, 1995, the following

effective dates and requirements would

apply.

1. Deletion of ammonium sulfate

(solution). The deletion of ammonium

sulfate (solution) would be effective for

the 1994 reporting year (reports due July

1, 1995).

2. Deletion of ammonium nitrate

(solution). The deletion of ammonium

nitrate (solution) would be effective for

the 1995 reporting year (reports due July

1, 1996). EPA is proposing to delay the

effective date of this provision to

coincide with the effective date of the

recently added water dissociable nitrate

compounds category (59 FR 61432,

November 30, 1994). The requirement

that aqueous ammonia from ammonium

nitrate (solution) be reported under the

ammonia listing as 10 percent of total

aqueous ammonia would also be

effective for the 1995 reporting year.

3. Reporting 10 percent of total

aqueous ammonia. The requirement

that 10 percent of total aqueous

ammonia be reported under the

ammonia listing for aqueous ammonia

from all water dissociable ammonium

salts (except ammonium nitrate

(solution)) would be effective for the

1994 reporting year. EPA believes that

facilities that have been subject to

record keeping requirements for

ammonium sulfate (solution) already

have the information needed to

calculate threshold and release

quantities for 10 percent total aqueous

ammonia. Specifically, a facility would

multiply the appropriate ammonium

sulfate (solution) quantities by 2.7

percent, which represents 10 percent of

the weight percent of aqueous ammonia

from ammonium sulfate (solution).

Facilities that currently report or

make threshold determinations for the

aqueous ammonia from other water

dissociable ammonium salts may not be

keeping the kind of information in their

records that would allow them to

calculate 10 percent of total aqueous

ammonia from their un-ionized

ammonia data. EPA recognizes that

issuance of the final rule may come so

late in the reporting year that some of

these facilities may not be able to

comply with this requirement before the

July 1, 1995 reporting date. Accordingly,

for this one year, such facilities could

continue to use the pH and temperature

of their process and waste streams to

estimate the quantities of un-ionized

ammonia present for threshold and

release determinations, respectively.

Facilities that had already reported

under the current requirements at the

time the final rule is issued would not

be required to resubmit their reports

under the new requirements. They

could, however, withdraw their reports

if they did not meet the threshold for

ammonia under the revised ammonia

listing.

VI. Request for Public Comment

EPA requests public comment on the

actions discussed in this amended

proposed rule. Comments should be

submitted to the address listed under

the ADDRESSES unit. All comments

must be received on or before May 3,

1995. In developing the final rule, EPA

will consider comments submitted in

response to this amended proposal and

comments previously submitted on the

original proposal.

VII. Rulemaking Record

The record supporting the original

proposal and proposed amendment is

contained in docket number OPPTS–

400032. All documents, including an

index of the docket, are available in the

TSCA Nonconfidential Information

Center (NCIC), also known as, TSCA

Public Docket Office from noon to 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. TSCA NCIC is located at

EPA Headquarters, Rm. NE–B607, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

VIII. References

(1) Data from EPA’s STORET water

quality data base as tabulated in,

Industry Comments for the U.S. EPA

Science Advisory Board Ecological

Processes and Effects Committee on

Delisting of Ammonium Sulfate Under

EPCRA Section 313 and Reporting of

Ammonia Releases, December 16, 1994,

by BP Chemicals Inc., Monsanto, and

Sterling Chemicals.

(2) Uwe Borgmann, Chronic Toxicity

of Ammonia to the Amphipod Hyalella

azteca; Importance of Ammonium Ion

and Water Hardness, Environmental

Pollution, 86 (1994) 329–335.

(3) Summary Review of Health Effects

Associated with Ammonia, U.S. EPA

Office of Health and Environmental

Assessment, EPA/600/8–89/052F June

1989.

(4) U.S. EPA, OPPT, EETD, EAB,

Water Quality Modeling of Ammonium

Sulfate (solution) and Ammonium

Nitrate (solution) Toxic Release
16836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Inventory (TRI) Surface Water Releases

and Transfers to POTWs, March 13,

1995.

(5) Letter of February 2, 1995 to Carol

M. Browner, Administrator U.S. EPA

from Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair,

Executive Committee, Science Advisory

Board.

IX. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

Under section 3(f), the order defines a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an

action likely to lead to a rule (1) Having

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities (also

referred to as ‘‘economically

significant’’); (2) creating serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfering

with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially altering

the budgetary impacts of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4)

raising novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in this Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of this Executive

Order, it has been determined that this

amended proposed rule is not

‘‘significant’’ and therefore not subject

to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980, the Agency must conduct a

small business analysis to determine

whether a substantial number of small

entities would be significantly affected

by a proposed rule. Because the

amended proposed rule does not create

any new requirements and consolidates

other requirements, it would not

significantly affect facilities, including

small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This amended proposed rule does not

result in any new information collection

requirements subject to the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Community right-to-know, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, and

Toxic chemicals.

Dated: March 29,1995.

Susan H. Wayland,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Therefore it is proposed that, 40 CFR

part 372 be amended as follows:

PART 372—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 372

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

§ 372.65 [Amended]

2. Sections 372.65(a) and (b) are

amended by removing the entire entry

for ammonium sulfate (solution) and

ammonium nitrate (solution) and by

adding the following language to the

ammonia listing ‘‘includes anhydrous

ammonia and aqueous ammonia from

water dissociable ammonium salts and

other sources; 10 percent of total

aqueous ammonia is reportable under

this listing’’ under paragraph (a) and

removing the entire CAS No. entry for

7783–20–2 and 6484–52–2 under

paragraph (b).

[FR Doc. 95–8202 Filed 3–30–95; 1:29 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–67; RM–8481]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Collegeville, MN

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: This document dismissed a

petition for rule making filed by Saint

John’s University requesting the

allotment of Channel 260A to

Collegeville, Minnesota, and reservation

of the channel for noncommercial

educational use. See 59 FR 35292, July

11, 1994. In reviewing this proceeding,

we discovered that we erroneously

proposed reservation of the channel at

Collegeville. The Notice should only

have proposed allotment of a channel to

Collegeville. Saint John’s proposal does

not meet the established guidelines to

reserve a channel in the commercial

band. Since no comments were received

expressing an intention to use the

channel as a commercial station, we

have terminated the proceeding without

making an allotment. With this action,

this proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 94–67,

adopted March 16, 1995, and released

March 28, 1995. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M

Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C.

20037, (202) 857–3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended,

1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, as amended.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–7947 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD11

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: Proposal To Determine

Endangered Status for Three Wetland

Species Found in Southern Arizona

and Northern Sonora

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

petition findings.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) proposes endangered

status pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended,

for two plants, Spiranthes delitescens

(Canelo Hills ladies’-tresses) and

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva

(Huachuca water umbel), and one

amphibian, the Sonora tiger salamander

(Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi). These

species occur in a limited number of

wetland habitats in southern Arizona

and northern Sonora, Mexico. They are

threatened by one or more of the

following—collecting, disease,

predation, competition with nonnative

species, catastrophic floods, drought,

and degradation and destruction of