14164
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
56
/
Monday,
March
24,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Generating
Station
are
available
electronically
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
region07/
programs/
artd/
air/
title5/
petitiondb/
petitiondb2001.
htm.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Steven
Riva,
Chief,
Permitting
Section,
Air
Programs
Branch,
Division
of
Environmental
Planning
and
Protection,
EPA,
Region
2,
290
Broadway,
25th
Floor,
New
York,
New
York
10007
 
1866,
telephone
(
212)
637
 
4074.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
Act
affords
EPA
a
45­
day
period
to
review,
and
object
to
as
appropriate,
operating
permits
proposed
by
State
permitting
authorities.
Section
505(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act
authorizes
any
person
to
petition
the
EPA
Administrator
within
60
days
after
the
expiration
of
this
review
period
to
object
to
State
operating
permits
if
EPA
has
not
done
so.
Petitions
must
be
based
only
on
objections
to
the
permit
that
were
raised
with
reasonable
specificity
during
the
public
comment
period
provided
by
the
State,
unless
the
petitioner
demonstrates
that
it
was
impracticable
to
raise
these
issues
during
the
comment
period
or
the
grounds
for
the
issues
arose
after
this
period.

I.
Con
Edison's
74th
Street
Station
On
May
14,
2001,
the
EPA
received
a
petition
from
NYPIRG,
requesting
that
EPA
object
to
the
issuance
of
the
title
V
operating
permit
for
the
Consolidated
Edison
74th
Street
Station.
The
petition
raises
issues
regarding
the
permit
application,
the
permit
issuance
process,
and
the
permit
itself.
NYPIRG
asserts
that:
(
1)
The
permit
does
not
assure
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements
as
mandated
by
40
CFR
70.1(
b)
and
70.6(
a)(
1)
because
many
individual
permit
conditions
lack
adequate
monitoring
and
are
not
practically
enforceable;
(
2)
DEC
violated
the
public
participation
requirements
of
40
CFR
70.7(
h)
by
inappropriately
denying
NYPIRG's
request
for
a
public
hearing;
(
3)
the
permit
is
based
on
an
incomplete
permit
application
in
violation
of
40
CFR
70.5(
c);
(
4)
the
permit
is
accompanied
by
an
insufficient
statement
of
basis
as
required
by
40
CFR
70.7(
a)(
5);
(
5)
the
permit
distorts
the
annual
compliance
certification
requirement
of
Clean
Air
Act
section
114(
a)(
3)
and
40
CFR
70.6(
c)(
5);
(
6)
the
permit
does
not
assure
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements
as
mandated
by
40
CFR
70.1(
b)
and
70.6(
a)(
1)
because
it
illegally
sanctions
the
systematic
violation
of
applicable
requirements
during
startup/
shutdown,
malfunction,
maintenance,
and
upset
conditions;
and
(
7)
the
permit
does
not
require
prompt
reporting
of
all
deviations
from
permit
requirements
as
mandated
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
B).
On
February
19,
2003,
the
Administrator
issued
an
order
partially
granting
and
partially
denying
the
petition
on
the
Con
Edison
74th
Street
Station.
The
order
explains
the
reasons
behind
EPA's
conclusion
that
the
NYSDEC
must
reopen
the
permit
to:
(
1)
Include
annual
tune­
ups
and
necessary
parametric
monitoring
to
ensure
the
turbines'
compliance
with
their
NOX
RACT
emission
limits;
(
2)
revise
recordkeeping
provisions
to
require
that
records
relating
to
sulfur
monitoring
be
kept
for
five
years;
(
3)
include
appropriate
conditions
for
particulate
matter
monitoring
that
meets
the
requirements
of
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B);
(
4)
include
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
with
regard
to
the
use
of
architectural
coatings
and
sealers;
(
5)
note
the
existence
and
applicability
of
the
Episodic
Action
Plan;
and
(
6)
incorporate
``
Appendix
A''
of
the
opacity
consent
order.
The
order
also
explains
the
reasons
for
denying
NYPIRG's
remaining
claims.
NYPIRG
raises
each
of
the
above
seven
issues,
except
for
the
public
hearing
issue,
in
the
petitions
for
the
Danskammer
Generating
Station
and
the
Lovett
Generating
Station,
as
well.
In
the
Danskammer
Generating
Station
petition,
NYPIRG
raises
five
additional
issues:
(
1)
The
permit
lacks
federally
enforceable
conditions
that
govern
the
procedures
for
permit
renewal;
(
2)
the
permit
fails
to
include
federally
enforceable
emission
limits
established
under
pre­
existing
permits;
(
3)
the
permit
does
not
properly
include
CAA
section
112(
r)
requirements;
(
4)
the
permit
improperly
describes
the
annual
compliance
certification
due
date;
and
(
5)
the
permit
does
not
assure
Danskammer's
compliance
with
applicable
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO2)
emission
limitations.
In
the
petition
on
the
Lovett
Generating
Station,
NYPIRG
raises
three
additional
issues:
(
1)
The
proposed
permit
lacks
a
compliance
schedule
designed
to
bring
the
Lovett
Generating
Station
into
compliance
with
PSD
requirements;
(
2)
the
proposed
permit
fails
to
include
federally
enforceable
emission
limits
established
under
preexisting
permits;
and
(
3)
the
proposed
permit
does
not
correctly
include
the
CAA
section
112(
r)
requirements.
In
each
of
these
petitions,
the
issue
on
monitoring
is
subdivided
into
several
detailed
points,
some
of
which
are
permit­
specific
and
some
of
which
are
shared
among
the
other
permits.

II.
Danskammer
Generating
Station
On
December
10,
2001,
the
EPA
received
a
petition
from
NYPIRG,
requesting
that
EPA
object
to
the
issuance
of
the
title
V
operating
permit
for
the
Danskammer
Generating
Station,
on
the
grounds
listed
above.
On
February
14,
2003,
the
Administrator
issued
an
order
partially
granting
and
partially
denying
the
petition.
The
order
explains
the
reasons
behind
EPA's
conclusion
that
the
NYSDEC
must
reopen
the
permit
to:
(
1)
Specify
normal
operating
ranges
for
ESP
parameters
and
(
2)
delete
language
allowing
digital
recording
of
COM
data
to
be
replaced
by
manual
recording.
The
order
also
explains
the
reasons
for
denying
NYPIRG's
remaining
claims.

III.
Lovett
Generating
Station
On
November
26,
2001,
the
EPA
received
a
petition
from
NYPIRG,
requesting
that
EPA
object
to
the
issuance
of
the
title
V
operating
permit
for
the
Lovett
Generating
Station,
on
the
grounds
listed
above.
On
February
19,
2003,
the
Administrator
issued
an
order
partially
granting
and
partially
denying
the
petition.
The
order
explains
the
reasons
behind
EPA's
conclusion
that
the
NYSDEC
must
reopen
the
permit
to:
(
1)
Incorporate
opacity
monitoring
to
assure
compliance
with
New
York
State
regulations
at
6
NYCRR
section
211.3;
and
(
2)
incorporate
all
necessary
requirements
from
the
opacity
consent
order.
The
order
also
explains
the
reasons
for
denying
NYPIRG's
remaining
claims.

Dated:
March
6,
2003.
Jane
M.
Kenny,
Regional
Administrator,
Region
2.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
7049
Filed
3
 
21
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
125
[
FRL
 
7472
 
2]

RIN
 
2040
 
AD85
Withdrawal
of
Direct
Final
Rule;
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
 
Amendment
of
Final
Regulations
Addressing
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
for
New
Facilities
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Withdrawal
of
direct
final
rule.

SUMMARY:
Because
EPA
received
adverse
comment,
we
are
withdrawing
the
direct
final
rule
for
``
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
 
Amendment
of
Final
Regulations
Addressing
Cooling
Water
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
11
Mar
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
24MRR1.
SGM
24MRR1
14165
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
56
/
Monday,
March
24,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Intake
Structures
for
New
Facilities;
Direct
Final
Rule.''
We
published
the
direct
final
rule
on
December
26,
2002
(
67
FR
78948),
to
make
three
minor
technical
corrections
to
the
final
regulations
implementing
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
for
new
facilities.
We
stated
in
the
direct
final
rule
that
if
we
received
adverse
comment
by
January
27,
2003,
we
would
publish
a
timely
notice
of
withdrawal
in
the
Federal
Register.
We
subsequently
received
adverse
comment
on
the
direct
final
rule.
We
will
address
those
comments
in
a
subsequent
final
action
based
on
the
parallel
proposal
also
published
on
December
26,
2002
(
67
FR
78956).
As
stated
in
the
parallel
proposal,
we
will
not
institute
a
second
comment
period
on
this
action.
DATES:
As
of
March
24,
2003,
EPA
withdraws
the
direct
final
rule
published
at
67
FR
78948,
on
December
26,
2002.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Martha
Segall,
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
4303T),
USEPA
Office
of
Science
and
Technology,
Ariel
Rios
Bldg.,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC,
20460
(
phone:
202
 
566
 
1041;
email:
segall.
martha@
epa.
gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
EPA
published
a
direct
final
rule
on
December
26,
2002,
to
make
minor
changes
to
a
final
rule
published
December
18,
2001,
implementing
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
The
December
2001
final
rule
established
national
technology­
based
performance
requirements
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
new
facilities
using
water
withdrawn
from
rivers,
streams,
lakes,
reservoirs,
estuaries,
oceans
or
other
waters
of
the
United
States
for
cooling.
The
national
requirements
established
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
these
structures.
The
direct
final
rule
clarified
three
technical
issues
on
velocity
monitoring,
authority
to
require
additional
design
and
construction
technologies,
and
procedures
governing
requests
for
less
stringent
alternative
requirements.
EPA
published
a
companion
proposed
rule
on
the
same
day
as
the
direct
final
rule.
The
proposed
rule
invited
comment
on
the
substance
of
the
direct
final
rule.
The
proposed
rule
stated
that
if
EPA
received
adverse
comment
by
January
27,
2003,
the
direct
final
rule
would
not
take
effect
and
EPA
would
publish
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
withdrawing
the
direct
final
rule
before
the
March
26,
2003,
effective
date.
The
EPA
subsequently
received
adverse
comment
on
the
direct
final
rule.
EPA
plans
to
address
those
comments
in
a
subsequent
action.
Today's
action
withdraws
the
direct
final
rule;
the
amendments
to
the
final
regulations
addressing
cooling
water
intake
structures
for
new
facilities
will
not
take
effect
on
March
26,
2003.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
125
Environmental
protection,
Cooling
water
intake
structures,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal,
Water
pollution
control.

Dated:
March
19,
2003.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
7047
Filed
3
 
21
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
180
[
OPP
 
2002
 
0278;
FRL
 
7299
 
4]

Pesticides;
Tolerance
Exemptions
for
Active
and
Inert
Ingredients
for
Use
in
Antimicrobial
Formulations
(
Food­
Contact
Surface
Sanitizing
Solutions);
Withdrawal
of
Direct
Final
Rule
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Direct
final
rule;
withdrawal.

SUMMARY:
EPA
received
adverse
comment
on
the
direct
final
rule
``
Pesticides;
Tolerance
Exemptions
for
Active
and
Inert
Ingredients
for
Use
in
Antimicrobial
Formulations
(
Food­
Contact
Surface
Sanitizing
Solutions),''
published
in
the
Federal
Register
of
December
3,
2002,
because
of
the
adverse
comment
EPA
is
withdrawing
the
direct
final
rule.
The
direct
final
rule
was
intended
to
add
a
new
section
to
part
180
listing
the
pesticide
chemicals
that
are
exempt
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
when
used
in
food­
contact
surface
sanitizing
solutions.
DATES:
The
withdrawal
is
effective
March
24,
2003.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Kathryn
Boyle,
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
305
 
6304;
fax
number:
(
703)
305
 
0599;
e­
mail
address:
boyle.
kathryn@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
I.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?
You
may
be
potentially
affected
by
this
action
if
you
are
a
food
manufacturer,
or
antimicrobial
pesticide
manufacturer.
Potentially
affected
categories
and
entities
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
 
Industry
(
NAICS
311),
e.
g.,
Food
manufacturing.
 
Producers
(
NAICS
32561),
e.
g.,
Antimicrobial
pesticides.
This
listing
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
this
unit
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
this
action
might
apply
to
certain
entities.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

II.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

A.
Docket
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0278.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
This
docket
facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
docket
telephone
number
is
(
703)
305
 
5805.

B.
Electronic
Access
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
11
Mar
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
24MRR1.
SGM
24MRR1
