18360 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: April 3, 1995.

John C. Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8878 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 271

Louisiana; Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Immediate final rule;

administrative correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects

administrative errors published in a

Federal Register (FR) document on

January 23, 1995. That document

contained EPA’s response to public

comments received during the public

review and comment period of an

immediate final rule EPA published in

the FR on November 7, 1994, and

affirmed the Agency’s prior decision to

grant final authorization to the

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality (LDEQ) effective January 23,

1995.

DATES: This correction of administrative

errors in the FR document published by

EPA to respond to public comments

received regarding LDEQ’s final

authorization [60 FR 4380, January 23,

1995], affirms the Agency’s immediate

final rule previously published [59 FR

55368, November 7, 1994], and notifies

the public that the final authorization

was effective January 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dick

Thomas, Region 6 Authorization

Coordinator, Grants and Authorization

Section, RCRA Programs Branch, U.S.

EPA Region 6, First Interstate Bank

Tower at Fountain Place, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, phone

(214) 665–8528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 7, 1994, EPA published

a FR document granting final

authorization to LDEQ for most rules

referred to by EPA as Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

(HSWA) Cluster I. EPA received adverse

written comments during the public

review and comment period associated

with that document. On January 23,

1995, EPA published a second FR

document with its response to the

comments, and affirmed its decision to

grant authorization to LDEQ for the

published rules. After publication, EPA

realized it published a draft version of

the FR document which contained

language deleted or modified in the

final version. To correct this

administrative error, and for the

convenience of the reader, EPA is

hereby publishing corrections to the

prior FR document that affirmed the

Agency’s immediate final rule

implementing final authorization to

LDEQ, effective January 23, 1995.

Correction of Publication

On page 4380, in the last column, in

the first paragraph under SUMMARY, the

last sentence is corrected to read ‘‘As

such, EPA published an immediate final

rule in the Federal Register (FR) on

November 7, 1994, with a 45-day public

review and comment period, to be

effective on January 23, 1995.’’

On page 4381, in the first column, in

the first paragraph under Response to

Public Comments, the second sentence

is corrected to read ‘‘One supplied

LDEQ with an independent

environmental audit report of

conditions at Bayou Steel to support

both commentors’ claims, and the

commentor believed LDEQ’s lack of

enforcement response to those and other

complaints demonstrated the State’s

inability to take on additional program

revisions, and unwillingness to

appropriately address complaints.’’

The third sentence in the same

paragraph is corrected to read ‘‘Also, the

commentors questioned whether LDEQ

had adequate resources to enforce the

RCRA corrective action provisions in

this program revision.’’

The second paragraph under

Response to Public Comments is

corrected to read ‘‘EPA reviewed the

commentors’ assertions and LDEQ’s

actions regarding complaints about

Bayou Steel. EPA noted LDEQ’s files

contained numerous complaints

regarding Bayou Steel’s activities,

including those from the commentors.

The files showed LDEQ initiated

investigations to address all but one

complaint within seven days of receipt,

and in that instance the investigation

was initiated within seven days of a

records review. State records further

revealed that LDEQ investigated all

Bayou Steel complaints in an

appropriate and timely manner. LDEQ’s

inspection reports were in permanent

files and available for public review.

Copies of requested portions of the files

were available to the public.’’

In the third paragraph under

Response to Public Comments, the first

sentence is corrected to read ‘‘State

records also showed that the various

Divisions of LDEQ had conducted 29

inspections at Bayou Steel since 1993.’’

In the third paragraph under

Response to Public Comments, the

second sentence is corrected to read

‘‘Some resulted in enforcement actions,

including penalties, for the facility’s

violations of Louisiana’s environmental

regulations.’’

The fourth paragraph under Response

to Public Comments is corrected to read

‘‘EPA determined that LDEQ has

adequate resources to take on the

additional portions of RCRA included in

this program revision. As noted above,

various LDEQ Divisions conducted

numerous inspections at Bayou Steel

since 1993, dedicating significant

resources to the inspections. These

inspections, covering all media, were in

addition to inspections and

investigations performed by LDEQ at

other facilities in the State. Because of

the number and variety of complaints

LDEQ received regarding Bayou Steel,

LDEQ requested that EPA, with its

authority, resources, and experience,

perform a complete multi-media facility

inspection. EPA considered this an

appropriate referral. EPA conducted the

Bayou Steel multi-media inspection in

June 1994. After EPA completed and

analyzed the inspection and sampling

reports, it recognized the need for

additional information on Bayou Steel’s

waste management practices. This

detailed and thorough investigation is

almost complete, and EPA will issue a

report of the results in the future. Until

the report is complete, EPA will not be

able to present any findings regarding

the facility.’’

The fifth paragraph under Response to

Public Comments is corrected to read

‘‘Additionally, some complaints to the

State about Bayou Steel concerned

LDEQ’s lack of sufficient resources to

enforce RCRA’s prohibition of

unlicensed burial of hazardous waste.

The commentor wrote that LDEQ

admitted it lacked sufficient resources

to enforce RCRA corrective action

requirements. At the time of LDEQ’s

inspections of the facility, EPA had not

authorized the State to regulate or

address waste subject to Federal

corrective action authority under HSWA

in lieu of EPA.’’

The ninth paragraph under Response

to Public Comments is corrected to read

‘‘EPA considered Louisiana’s ‘de novo

review’ provision not to be the same as

‘trial de novo’ (new trial) recognized

and defined in the Pardue Court, but

that under the de novo review

provisions the reviewing court can

exercise only appellate jurisdiction

(review of the record). The Louisiana

legislature enacted laws that authorize

only the Secretary of LDEQ to grant or

deny permits, not the judiciary.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, (R.S.)

§ 30:2011(D)(2). Additionally, R.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 18361

§ 30:2014(A) provides, in part, that the

Secretary shall act as the primary public

trustee of the environment, and shall

consider and follow the will and intent

of the Louisiana Constitution and

Louisiana statutory law in making any

determination relative to the granting or

denying of permits. This matter is also

clarified in LDEQ’s revised Program

Description, which refers to the review

as a ‘de novo review of the record. ’’

In the tenth paragraph under

Response to Public Comments, the third

sentence is corrected to read ‘‘The

commentor alleged LDEQ argued that

the courts have jurisdiction to review its

decisions only when the decision

resulted from an LDEQ mandatory

adjudicatory hearing.’’

In the tenth paragraph under

Response to Public Comments, the fifth

sentence is corrected to read ‘‘Thus,

none of LDEQ’s hazardous waste

permitting decisions, with the possible

exception of commercial treatment,

storage, or disposal facility permits,

would be subject to judicial review.’’

In the tenth paragraph under

Response to Public Comments, the sixth

sentence is corrected to read ‘‘However,

EPA considered this issue resolved by

the Louisiana Supreme Court in Matter

of American Waste and Pollution

Control Co., 642 So.2d 1258 (La 1994),

where the Court ruled that LDEQ

decisions are appealable whether or not

they result from a mandatory

adjudicatory hearing.

On page 4382, in the twelfth

paragraph under Response to Public

Comments, the third sentence is

corrected to read ‘‘In addition, EPA

retains Federal enforcement authority

under RCRA §§ 3008(h) and 7003.’’

In the fourteenth paragraph under

Response to Public Comments, the

second sentence is corrected to read

‘‘Even then, EPA will retain the

authority to enforce against violators,

even in an authorized State, under

RCRA §§ 3008(h) and 7003.’’

In the fifteenth paragraph under

Response to Public Comments, the first

sentence is corrected to read ‘‘EPA has

reevaluated its decision to approve this

final authorization for revision to the

State’s hazardous waste program, and

revisited all pertinent documentation,

including the authorization application

with revised Program Description, and

several EPA mid-year and end-of-year

evaluation reports on LDEQ.’’

Finally, in the fifteenth paragraph

under Response to Public Comments,

the third sentence is corrected to read

‘‘EPA hereby affirms its decision to

approve this final authorization, which

was effective January 23, 1995.’’

Dated: March 29, 1995.

Jane N. Saginaw,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8876 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS–400085A; FRL–4929–3]

RIN 2070–AC00

Copper Phthalocyanine Compounds;

Toxic Chemical Release Reporting;

Community Right-To-Know

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is deleting copper

phthalocyanine compounds that are

substituted with only hydrogen and/or

bromine and/or chlorine from the

‘‘copper compounds’’ category on the

list of toxic chemicals subject to

reporting under section 313 of the

Emergency Planning and Community

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

This action is based on EPA’s

conclusion that copper phthalocyanine

compounds that are substituted with

only hydrogen and/or bromine and/or

chlorine meet the deletion criteria of

EPCRA section 313(d)(3). By

promulgating this rule, EPA is relieving

facilities of their obligation to report

releases of copper phthalocyanine

compounds that are substituted with

only hydrogen and/or bromine and/or

chlorine that occurred during the 1994

reporting year, and releases that will

occur in the future.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

April 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria J. Doa, Petitions Coordinator,

202–260–9592, for specific information

on this final 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 action is issued under section

313(d) and (e)(1) of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow 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 (PPA) 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 or delete chemicals from the

list, and sets forth criteria for these

actions. Under section 313(e)(1), any

person may petition EPA to add

chemicals to or delete chemicals from

the list. EPA has, from time to time,

added and deleted chemicals from the

original statutory list.

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 compound categories. EPA

has also published a statement

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).

II. Description of Petition and Proposed

Action

On March 5, 1993, the Agency

received a petition from the Color

Pigments Manufacturers Association

(CPMA) to delete Color Index (C.I.)

Pigment Blue 15:1 from the chemical

category ‘‘copper compounds’’ subject

to EPCRA reporting requirements. C.I.

Pigment Blue 15:1 is a mixture of C.I.

Pigment Blue 15 (copper

phthalocyanine) and copper

monochlorophthalocyanine. Because

C.I. Pigment Blue 15 had already been

deleted from the chemical category

‘‘copper compounds’’ (56 FR 23650;

May 23, 1991), the Agency treated this

petition as a request to remove copper

monochlorophthalocyanine from the

chemical category ‘‘copper

compounds.’’

Following a review of the petition,

EPA issued a proposed rule in the

Federal Register of June 6, 1994 (59 FR

29252), proposing to delete copper