|
Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-years collection of 46,000 files from June 1996 to June 2008 (~6.7 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,000 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. | |||
29 December 2007
[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 73700-73708]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de07-31]
[[Page 73700]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 302 and 355
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469; FRL-8511-4]
RIN 2050-AG37
CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases
of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking provides notice of, and
requests comments, including any relevant data, on a proposed
administrative reporting exemption from particular notification
requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, also known as Title III of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Specifically, the
proposed administrative reporting exemption applies to releases of
hazardous substances to the air where the source of those hazardous
substances is animal waste at farms. Nothing in this proposed rule,
however, would change the notification requirements if hazardous
substances are released to the air from any other source other than
animal waste at farms (i.e., ammonia tanks), as well as releases of any
hazardous substances from animal waste to any other environmental
media, (i.e., soil, ground water, surface water) when the release of
those hazardous substances is at or above its reportable quantity per
24 hours. This administrative reporting exemption is protective of
human health and the environment and consistent with the Agency's goal
to reduce reporting burden where there would likely be no Federal,
state or local emergency response to such release reports. Eliminating
such reporting will allow emergency response officials to better focus
on releases where the Agency is more likely to take a response action.
Finally, in proposing this administrative reporting exemption from the
notification requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, section 103(a) and the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, section 304, EPA is
not proposing to limit any of its authorities under CERCLA sections 104
(response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or
any other provisions of the Comprehensive Emergency Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act or the Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act in this rulemaking.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0469, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: Superfund Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail code: [2822T], 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2007-0469. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit I.B of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn M. Beasley, Regulation and Policy
Development Division, Office of Emergency Management (5104A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1965; fax number:
(202) 564-2625; e-mail address: Beasley.lynn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
C. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking?
D. Which Hazardous Substances Are We Proposing to Exempt From
the Notification Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA?
II. Background
III. Summary of This Action
A. What Is the Scope of This Proposed Rule?
B. Proposed Definitions
C. What Is Not Included Within the Scope of This Proposed Rule?
D. What Is EPA's Rationale for This Administrative Reporting
Exemption?
E. What Are the Economic Impacts of This Administrative
Reporting Exemption?
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
[[Page 73701]]
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(``NTTAA'')
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations)
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of entity Examples of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................. NAICS Code 111--Crop
Production.
NAICS Code 112--Animal
Production.
State and/or Local Governments........... State Emergency Response
Commissions, and
Local Emergency Planning
Committees.
Federal Government....................... National Response Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether
your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the criteria in section III.A of this proposed rule and the
applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 302.6 and 355.40 of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
In an effort to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) more efficiently, EPA is proposing
to establish an administrative reporting exemption from the
notification requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA for releases of hazardous
substances, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, to the air where the
source of the release is animal waste at farms. The Agency believes
that a federal response to such notifications is impractical and
unlikely. In addition, nothing in this proposal would limit EPA's
authority to take action under its various authorities under CERCLA
sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107
(liability), or any of provisions of CERCLA or EPCRA (other than ECPCRA
section 304) through this rulemaking.
Therefore, when submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking?
Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601, et
seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986, gives the Federal government broad authority to respond
to releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances from vessels
and facilities. The term ``hazardous substance'' is defined in section
101(14) of CERCLA primarily by reference to other Federal environmental
statutes. Section 102 of CERCLA gives the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) authority to designate additional hazardous substances.
Currently there are approximately 760 CERCLA hazardous substances,
exclusive of Radionuclides, F-, K-, and Unlisted Characteristic
Hazardous Wastes.
CERCLA Section 103(a) calls for immediate notification to the
National Response Center (NRC) when the person in charge of a facility
has knowledge of a release of a hazardous substance equal to or greater
than the reportable quantity (RQ) established by EPA for that
substance. In addition to the notification requirements established
pursuant to CERCLA section 103, section 304 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et
seq., requires the owner or operator of certain facilities to
immediately report to State and local authorities releases of CERCLA
hazardous substances or any extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) if
they exceed their RQ (see 40 CFR 355.40). This proposed rule only
applies to CERCLA section 103 notification requirements, including the
provisions that allow for continuous release reporting found in
paragraph (f)(2) of CERCLA section 103, and EPCRA section 304
notification requirements.
The Agency has previously granted such administrative reporting
exemptions (AREs) where the Agency has determined that a federal
response to such a release is impracticable or unlikely. For example,
on March 19, 1998, the Agency issued a final rule (see 63 FR 13459)
that granted exemptions for releases of naturally occurring
radionuclides. The rule entitled, Administrative Reporting Exemptions
for Certain Radionuclide Releases (``Radionuclide ARE''), granted
exemptions for releases of hazardous substances that pose little or no
risk or to which a Federal response is infeasible or inappropriate (see
63 FR 13461).
The Agency relies on CERCLA sections 102(a), 103, and 115 (the
general rulemaking authority under CERCLA) as authority to issue
regulations governing section 103 notification requirements. The Agency
relies on EPCRA section 304 as authority to issue regulations governing
EPCRA section 304 notification requirements, and EPCRA section 328 for
general rulemaking authority.
D. Which Hazardous Substances Are We Proposing to Exempt From the
Notification Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA?
EPA proposes to exempt certain releases of hazardous substances to
the air from the notification requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA, as
implemented in 40 CFR 302.6 and 40 CFR 355.40, respectively.
Specifically, we are proposing to exempt those hazardous substance
releases which are emitted to the air (typically during digestion,
break-down or decomposition) from animal waste at farms. Although
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are the most recognized hazardous
substances that are emitted from animal waste, there may also be some
amounts of additional hazardous substances released.
Ammonia is a by-product of the break-down of urea and proteins that
are
[[Page 73702]]
contained in animal waste. Hydrogen sulfide is another by-product of
the break-down of animal waste. These hazardous substances can be
emitted when animal waste is contained in a lagoon or stored in under-
floor manure pits in some animal housing, manure stockpiles, or in the
open where animals congregate. Open air or dry manure stockpiles are
not generally associated with significant hydrogen sulfide emissions.
Additional hazardous substances may be emitted to the air from
animal waste.\1\ These hazardous substances would typically be subject
to the notification requirements of CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304 once their RQ is met or exceeded. However, this proposed
rule will extend the administrative reporting exemption to all
hazardous substances emitted to the air from animal waste at farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current
Knowledge, Future Needs. National Research Council of the National
Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2003), p.
54. Additional hazardous substances may include nitrous oxide (NO)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The major constituents of VOC
emissions could include organic sulfides, disulfides, C4
to C7 aldehydes, trimethylamines, C4 amines,
quinoline (RQ = 5000 pounds), dimethylpyrazine, and C3 to
C6 organic acids, along with lesser amounts of aromatic
compounds and C4 to C7 alcohols, ketones, and
aliphatic hydrocarbons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
Under CERCLA section 103(a), the person in charge of a vessel or
facility from which a CERCLA hazardous substance has been released into
the environment in a quantity that equals or exceeds its RQ must
immediately notify the NRC of the release. A release is reportable if
an RQ or more is released into the environment within a 24-hour period
(see 40 CFR 302.6). This reporting requirement serves as a trigger for
informing the Federal government of a release so that Federal personnel
can evaluate the need for a response in accordance with the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) and undertake any necessary response action in a
timely fashion.
The NRC is located at the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
headquarters and is the national communications center for the receipt
of all pollution incidents reporting. The NRC is continuously manned
for processing activities related to receipt of the notifications. NCP
regulations, 40 CFR 300.125, require that notifications of discharges
and releases be made telephonically and state that the NRC will
immediately relay telephone notices of discharges (i.e., oil) or
releases (i.e., hazardous substances) to the appropriate predesignated
federal on-scene coordinator (OSC). The NRC receives an average of
approximately 34,000 \2\ notifications per year. Of those
notifications, averages of approximately 33,700 \3\ discharge or
release notifications are relayed to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Average number of notifications from years 2000-2006,
National Response Center statistics available at, http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/incident97-02.html.
See Superfund Docket EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0469 for a summary table.
\3\ Average number of notifications made to EPA from years 2000-
2006, National Response Center statistics available at, http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/epa97-02.html.
The average was calculated from
those notifications that went to the EPA Regions 1 through 10,
including notifications to the EPA Regions for Continuous Releases.
See Superfund Docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469 for a summary table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCRA section 304(a), three release scenarios require
notification.
First, if a release of an extremely hazardous substance
occurs from a facility at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used,
or stored, and such release requires a notification under section
103(a) of CERCLA, the owner or operator of a facility shall immediately
provide notice to the community emergency coordinator for the local
emergency planning committees (LEPC) for any area likely to be affected
by the release and to the State emergency planning commission (SERC) of
any State likely to be affected by the release. (EPCRA section
304(a)(1))
EPCRA section 304(a) also requires the owner or operator
of the facility to immediately provide notice under EPCRA section
304(b) for either of the following two scenarios:
[cir] If the release is an extremely hazardous substance, but not
subject to the notifications under section 103(a) of CERCLA. (EPCRA
section 304(a)(2))
[cir] If the release is not an extremely hazardous substance and
only subject to the notifications under section 103(a) of CERCLA.
(EPCRA section 304(a)(3))
EPCRA notification is to be given to the community emergency
coordinator for each LEPC for any area likely to be affected by the
release, and the SERC of any state likely to be affected by the
release. Through this notification, state and local officials can
assess whether a response action to the release is appropriate. EPCRA
section 304 notification requirements apply only to releases that have
the potential for off-site exposure and that are from facilities that
produce, use, or store a ``hazardous chemical,'' as defined by
regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.1200(c)) and by section 311 of EPCRA.
In establishing the RQs for the various hazardous substances, EPA
adjusted the statutory RQs of CERCLA hazardous substances based on
specific scientific and technical criteria that relate to the
possibility of harm from the release of a hazardous substance in a
reportable quantity. (See 50 FR 13456, April 4, 1985.) The adjusted RQs
did not reflect the determination that a release of a substance will be
hazardous at the RQ level and not hazardous below that level. EPA did
not, at the time, make such a determination because the actual hazard
will vary with the unique circumstances of the release. Instead, the
RQs reflect the Agency's judgment of which releases should trigger
notification to the federal government so that the government may
assess to what extent, if any, a federal removal or remedial action may
be necessary. (See 50 FR 13465.)
For the purposes of making RQ adjustments under CERCLA, EPA adopted
the five RQ levels of 1, 10, 100, 1000, and 5000 pounds originally
established pursuant to CWA section 311 (see 40 CFR part 117). The
Agency adopted the five-level system primarily because: (1) It has been
successfully used pursuant to the CWA, (2) the regulated community was
familiar with these five levels, and (3) it provided a relatively high
degree of discrimination among the potential hazards posed by different
CERCLA hazardous substances.
The methodology used for adjusting RQs begins with an evaluation of
the intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological properties of each
designated hazardous substance. The intrinsic properties examined--
called ``primary criteria''--are aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity
(oral, dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity, and chronic
toxicity.\4\ In addition, substances that were identified as potential
carcinogens were evaluated for their relative activity as potential
carcinogens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Chronic toxicity was defined as toxicity resulting from
repeated or continuous exposure to either a single release or
multiple releases of a hazardous substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency ranks each intrinsic physical, chemical, and
toxicological property on a five-tier scale, associating a specific
range of values on each scale with a particular RQ value. Thus, each
substance receives several tentative RQ values based on its particular
properties. For example, ammonia received a tentative RQ of 100 pounds
based on its aquatic toxicity levels; however, for the intrinsic
property, mammalian toxicity (inhalation), ammonia received a tentative
RQ value of 1000 pounds. The lowest of all of the tentative RQs for
[[Page 73703]]
each hazardous substance becomes the ``primary criteria RQ'' for that
substance. After the primary criteria RQs are assigned, substances are
further evaluated for their susceptibility to certain extrinsic
degradation processes. These ``secondary criteria'' are biodegradation,
hydrolysis, and photolysis, or ``BHP.'' If the hazardous substance
degrades relatively rapidly to a less harmful compound through one or
more of these processes when it is released into the environment, the
primary criteria RQ is raised one level. The single RQ assigned to each
hazardous substance on the basis of the primary criteria and BHP
becomes the adjusted RQ for that substance.
The single RQ approach was adopted to provide a relatively simple
reporting system that does not unduly burden either EPA or the
regulated community. Since releases into more than one medium often
occur, the single RQ approach prevents confusion. Section 102(a) of
CERCLA expressly authorizes the Administrator to set a single quantity
for each hazardous substance, and the legislative history emphasizes
the virtues of simplicity and administrative convenience. (For a more
detailed discussion of the methodology that was used to establish the
RQs for hazardous substances, see 50 FR 13465, Apr. 4, 1985.)
Owners and operators of farms, like all other facilities, are
required to report the release of hazardous substances into the
environment \5\ in accordance with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section
304 when it meets or exceeds the RQ of the hazardous substance. For
example, releases into the environment of ammonia or any other
hazardous substance, from tanks located on a farm, at or above an RQ
are reportable under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Environment means, ``(A) the navigable waters, the waters of
the contiguous zone, and the ocean waters for which the natural
resources are under the exclusive management authority of the United
States * * *, and (B) any other surface water, ground water,
drinking water supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient
air within the United States or under the jurisdiction of the United
States.'' See CERCLA section 101(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, EPA received a petition from the National Chicken Council,
National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, seeking
an exemption from CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements for ammonia
emissions from poultry operations. The Agency published a notice in the
Federal Register on December 27, 2005 (70 FR 76452) that acknowledged
receipt of the petition and requested public comment. The comment
period closed on March 27, 2006.
Also, in 2005, EPA offered the owners and operators of animal
agricultural operations an opportunity to sign up for an air monitoring
study. The purpose of the air monitoring study is to develop emissions
estimating methodologies for all animal agricultural operations.\6\
Over 2600 animal feeding operations, representing over 14,000 farms,
signed up for the study. The monitoring study which began in the spring
of 2007 includes 25 representative sites (lagoons or barns) on 21
different farms in 10 states (NC, NY, IA, WI, CA, KY, TX, WA, IN, and
OK). The sites will be monitored for two years, allowing the Agency to
account for emissions variability by season, and for the effect of any
seasonal operational changes (such as pumping out lagoons), that could
have an effect on emission levels. At the end of the monitoring study,
EPA will use the data along with any other relevant, available data to
develop emissions estimating methodologies. The monitoring study
results will be publicly available upon completion of the study. In
addition, EPA will publish the emissions estimating methodologies based
on these results, within 18 months of the study's conclusion. Thus,
such information will be widely available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The National Academy of Sciences, Board on Agriculture and
Natural Resources appointed a 16-person ad hoc committee, the
Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, to
evaluate the scientific information needed to address issues raised
by EPA regarding CAA regulation of air emissions from animal feeding
operations (AFOs) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture aid to
farmers in mitigating the effects of air emissions with modified
agricultural practices. One of the findings of that Committee was,
in part, direct measurements of air emissions at all AFOs are not
feasible. Nevertheless, measurements on a statistically
representative subset of AFOs are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of This Action
A. What Is the Scope of This Proposed Rule?
The scope of this proposed rule is limited to releases of hazardous
substances to the air from animal waste at farms. Specifically, the
Agency is proposing an administrative reporting exemption from the
CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements as
implemented in 40 CFR 302.6 and 302.8 and 40 CFR 355.40, respectively.
The scope of this proposed rule is intended to include all hazardous
substances that may be emitted to the air from animal waste at farms.
(See Section I.D. for further discussion of which hazardous substances
we are proposing to include within the administrative reporting
exemption.)
B. Proposed Definitions
In proposing this rule, the Agency believes it is important to
provide clarity with respect to the scope of the proposed reporting
exemption. Therefore, the Agency is proposing definitions for animal
waste and farm (to be added to the Code of Federal Regulations) that
only pertains to regulations promulgated pursuant to CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304, specifically 40 CFR 302.3 (definitions) and 40
CFR 355.20 (definitions).
Animal Waste--means manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and
bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive
emissions, and urea. The definition includes animal waste when mixed or
commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other materials
typically found with animal waste.
The Agency is not aware of any existing definition for animal waste
and thus, seeks comment from the public on the appropriateness, clarity
and completeness of this definition.
The Agency also is limiting the proposed reporting exemption to
animal waste that is generated on farms, and is proposing a specific
definition for farm under this proposal. For this proposed exemption
only, EPA defines farm, by using the definition found in the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census of Agriculture, and
adopting it. Also, the Agency recognizes that Federal and state
research farms utilizing farm animals are subject to the conditions
experienced on other farms; therefore, EPA proposes to include Federal
and state poultry, swine, dairy and livestock research farms.
Farm--means (a.) any place whose operation is agricultural and from
which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold,
or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Operations
receiving $1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as
farms, even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to
have $1,000 or more in sales; or, (b.) a Federal or state poultry,
swine, dairy or livestock research farm.
EPA seeks comment on the proposed definition for a farm, and
whether an alternative definition may be more appropriate. In addition,
the Agency is aware that animal waste also is generated at other
facilities, such as zoos and circuses. Because the focus of this
proposal is on animal waste generated or found at farms, we are not
proposing to expand the reporting
[[Page 73704]]
exemption beyond such facilities. However, the Agency requests comment
on whether the reporting exemption should be expanded to other types of
facilities that also generate animal waste, and if so, what other types
of facilities should be included in the reporting exemption. Any
alternative approaches presented must include an appropriate rationale
and supporting data in order for the Agency to be able to consider them
for final action.
C. What Is Not Included Within the Scope of This Proposed Rule?
As noted previously, this administrative reporting exemption is
limited in scope to those releases of hazardous substances to the air
from animal waste at farms. EPA is not proposing to exempt from CERCLA
section 103 or EPCRA section 304 notification requirements for releases
of hazardous substances from animal waste to any other environmental
media or at any other facilities other than farms (i.e., meat
processing plants, slaughter houses, tanneries). In addition, EPA is
not proposing to exempt from CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304
notification requirements of any release of hazardous substances to the
air from any source other than animal waste at farms.
The Agency believes that there could be releases to the air from
other sources of hazardous substances at farms where an emergency
response to that release may be possible. For example, EPA is not
proposing to exempt ammonia releases from ammonia storage tanks at
farms. In addition, notification of a release of a hazardous substance,
which meets or exceeds its RQ, from animal waste to any environmental
media (other than air) is still required under this proposal. Thus,
notification that there was a release of a hazardous substance that
meets or exceeds the RQ where stored animal waste is released into
water (i.e., a lagoon burst) would still be required under this
proposal. Such notifications would alert the government to an emergency
situation that could pose serious environmental consequences if not
immediately addressed. Hence, those releases to the environment would
still be reportable at or above their RQ as they are more likely to
result in a response action from Federal, state or local governments.
No EPCRA statutory requirements, other than the emergency hazardous
substance notification requirements under EPCRA section 304, are
included within this proposal. The proposal does not limit the Agency's
authority under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106
(abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA
and EPCRA to address releases of hazardous substances from animal waste
at farms.
D. What Is EPA's Rationale for This Administrative Reporting Exemption?
EPA's rationale for this administrative reporting exemption is
based on the purpose of notifying the NRC, and SERCs and LEPCs when a
hazardous substance is released, and then the likelihood that a
response to that release would be taken by any government agency.
Upon receipt of a notification from the NRC, EPA determines whether
a response is appropriate. See 40 CFR 300.130(c). If it is determined
that a response is appropriate, the NCP regulations describe the roles
and responsibilities for responding to the release. Thus, the question
that EPA considered is whether the Agency would ever take a response
action, as a result of such notification, for releases of hazardous
substances to the air from animal waste at farms. We believe not and,
thus, are proposing to no longer require such reporting. This
conclusion is based in part on EPA's experience.\7\ Specifically, to
date, EPA has not initiated a response to any NRC notifications of
ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, or any other hazardous substances released
to the air where animal waste at farms is the source of that release.
Moreover, we cannot foresee a situation where the Agency would take any
future response action as a result of such notification of releases of
hazardous substances from animal waste at farms because in all
instances the source (animal waste) and nature (to the air over a broad
area) are such that on-going releases makes an emergency response
unnecessary, impractical and unlikely. Typically, if a response is
taken as a result of a release notification, the government may require
monitoring or make recommendations to local officials regarding
evacuations and shelter-in-place. While this may be an appropriate
response to hazardous substances releases from tanks, pipes, vents or
in train derailment situations where the emergency may result in acute
exposures, the Agency does not believe that this is a necessary or
appropriate response to the release of hazardous substances to the air
from animal waste at farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Notifications must still be made when and if hazardous
substances are released to the air at farms from any other source
(other than animal waste), as well as releases of any hazardous
substances from animal waste to any other environmental media (i.e.,
soil, groundwater and surface water).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several states have indicated that such response actions are
unlikely to be taken as a result of a notification of releases of
hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. EPA received 26
comment letters from state and/or local emergency response agencies in
its request for public comment on the 2005 petition from the National
Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry & Egg
Association (``poultry petition''). All of those commenters supported
granting the poultry petition--that is, exempting from CERCLA and EPCRA
reporting requirements for ammonia emissions from poultry operations.
Generally, those agencies supported the petition because they are aware
of the operations in their jurisdictions, were concerned about the
resource implications of receiving the notifications (i.e., having to
process the notifications), and would not conduct an emergency response
as a result of the notifications. Thus, the comments received from
state and/or local emergency response agencies is consistent with EPA's
view.
Furthermore, the Agency does not need to receive such notifications
in order to enforce applicable CWA, CAA, RCRA, and/or other applicable
CERCLA and EPCRA regulations at farms. EPA still retains those
enforcement authorities to address threats to human health and the
environment.
We estimate that the private sector, state and local, and the
Federal governments spend approximately three hours per release to
prepare and process episodic notifications and 24.5 hours to process
continuous release notifications.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For episodic releases, this estimate was calculated using
the burden hours described in the Information Collection Requests
1049.10 and 1395.06 for episodic releases of hazardous substances to
the NRC and emergency notifications to SERCs and LEPCs. For
continuous releases, this estimate was calculated using the burden
hours described in the Information Collection Request 1445.06 for
continuous release reporting requirements. Supporting statements for
both information collection requests are available in the Superfund
Docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these reasons, the Agency believes it is appropriate to
propose to eliminate the reporting requirement under CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304 for hazardous substances released to the air at
farms where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste.
Nevertheless, the Agency solicits comments on whether there might be a
situation where a response would be triggered by such a notification of
the release of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste
[[Page 73705]]
at farms, and if so, what an appropriate response would be. Any
comments that would support such an action should include an
appropriate rationale in order for the Agency to be able to consider it
for final action.
E. What Are the Economic Impacts of This Administrative Reporting
Exemption?
This proposed administrative reporting exemption will reduce the
costs of complying with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 for
those farms that release hazardous substances to air from animal waste.
Entities that are expected to experience a reduction in burden and cost
include both the farms that are no longer required to report those
releases, as well as the Federal, state and local governments
responsible for receiving the reports. The economic analysis completed
for this proposed rule is available in the docket for this rulemaking
and is based on the underlying economic analyses that were completed
for the regulations that established the notification requirements.\9\
We estimate that this proposed rule will reduce burden on farms
associated with making notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304 by approximately 3,432,000 hours over the ten year period
beginning in 2009 and associated costs by approximately $160,173,000
over the same period. We estimate that this proposed rule will also
reduce burden on Federal, State and local governments responsible for
receiving and processing the notifications under CERCLA section 103 and
EPCRA section 304 by approximately 161,000 hours over the ten year
period beginning in 2009 and associated costs by approximately
$8,109,000 over the same period. In evaluating the potential burden and
cost savings to those farms that would no longer be required to make
notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 and the
government entities that are no longer required to receive and process
such notifications, we used the same universe as used in the 2003 CAFO
Rule (see 68 FR 7176, Feb 12, 2003). We also assumed that over the ten
year period (2009-2018) that there would be a declining number of
CAFOs; however, some of those operations would increase in size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The following documents are available in the Superfund
Docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-00469: Regulatory Impact Analysis of
Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under Sections 102 and 103 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, Volume 1 (March 1985); Regulatory Impact Analysis in Support of
Rulemaking Under Sections 302, 303, and 304 of Title III of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (April 1987);
and Economic Analysis in Support of the Continuous Release Reporting
Regulation Under Section 103(f)(2) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (April
1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed rule
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Rather, this proposed rule represents a reduction in burden for both
industry and the government by administratively exempting the reporting
requirement for releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal
waste at farms. OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 302 and
40 CFR part 355 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0046, EPA
ICR number 1049.10 for 40 CFR 302.6 (Episodic releases of oil and
hazardous substances), OMB control number 2050-0086, EPA ICR number
1445.06 for 40 CFR 302.8 (Continuous release reporting requirements)
and OMB control number 2050-0092, EPA ICR number 1395.06 for 40 CFR 355
(Emergency planning and notification). A copy of the OMB approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained by writing to:
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling (202) 566-1700.
EPA ICR number 1049.10 covers collection requirements for
notification of episodic releases of oil and hazardous substances; EPA
ICR number 1445.06 covers collection requirements for the continuous
release reporting requirements; and EPA ICR number 1395.06 covers
collection requirements for the notification requirements for releases
of hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances to both
SERCs and LEPCs. Each of these information collections are affected by
this proposed rule. However, this proposed rule represents a reduction
in the burden for both industry and the government through an
administrative reporting exemption from those reporting requirements.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies
[[Page 73706]]
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
This rulemaking will relieve regulatory burden because we propose
to eliminate the reporting requirement for releases of hazardous
substances to the air from animal waste at farms. We expect the net
reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with reporting air
releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms under
CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 to decrease. This reduction in
burden will be realized by small and large businesses. We have
therefore concluded that this proposed rule will relieve regulatory
burden for all affected small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. That is, the proposal imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector; rather, this proposed rule will result in burden
reduction in the receipt of notifications of the release to the air of
hazardous substances, primarily ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, from
animal waste at farms.
Additionally, EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This proposed rule reduces regulatory burden and the
private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million.
Thus, the proposal is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202
and 205 of UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. There are no state and local
government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this proposed
rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This
proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose substantial direct
compliance costs on them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks)
The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
[[Page 73707]]
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed
rule will reduce the burden associated with the notification of
releases to air of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA'')
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As discussed in the Background section of the preamble for
this proposed rule, the adjusted RQs do not reflect the determination
that a release of a substance will be hazardous at the RQ level and not
hazardous below that level. Instead, the RQs reflect the Agency's
judgment of which releases should trigger notification to the federal
government so that the government may assess to what extent, if any, a
federal removal or remedial action may be necessary. In addition, the
requirement to notify the government under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304 does not require the notifying entity to take any specific
action to address the release. Therefore because the notification is
not specifically designed to protect human health or the environment
and EPA has determined that a response action would be unlikely, EPA
does not believe that exempting these releases from CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements will have a
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effect on minority or low-income populations.
This proposed rule addresses information collection requirements
for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304. No EPCRA programs, other
than the emergency notification program under EPCRA section 304, are
included in this proposal and the Agency is not proposing to limit
CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions),
107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA through this
proposed rulemaking. The Agency also retains its authority to apply
existing statutory provisions in its efforts to prevent minority and or
low-income communities from being subject to disproportionately high
and adverse impacts and environmental effects. We therefore have
determined that this proposal does not have a disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous
waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.
40 CFR Part 355
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Disaster assistance, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: December 20, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
2. Section 302.3 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of ``Animal waste'' and ``Farm'' to read as follows:
Sec. 302.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal Waste means manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and
bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive
emissions, and urea. The definition includes animal waste when mixed or
commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other typical
materials found with animal waste.
* * * * *
Farm means:
(1) Any place whose operation is agricultural and from which $1,000
or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally
would have been sold, during the census year. Operations receiving
$1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as farms,
even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to have
$1,000 or more in sales; or
(2) A Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research
farm.
* * * * *
3. Section 302.6 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as
follows:
[[Page 73708]]
Sec. 302.6 Notification requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Releases to the air of any hazardous substance from animal
waste at farms.
* * * * *
PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION
4. The authority citation for part 355 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and 11048.
5. Section 355.20 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of ``Animal waste'' and ``Farm'' to read as follows:
Sec. 355.20 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal Waste as used in Sec. 355.40 only, animal waste means
manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by
livestock that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea.
The definition includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with
bedding, compost, feed, soil and other typical materials found with
animal waste.
* * * * *
Farm as used in Sec. 355.40 only, farm means:
(1) Any place whose operation is agricultural and from which $1,000
or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally
would have been sold, during the census year. Operations receiving
$1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as farms,
even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to have
$1,000 or more in sales; or
(2) A Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research
farm.
* * * * *
6. Section 355.40 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(viii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 355.40 Emergency release notification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) Any release to the air of a hazardous substance from animal
waste at farms.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-25231 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P