[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17689-17692]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07349]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0689; FRL-9925-53-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve in part and disapprove in part, the August 20, 2012,
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) for inclusion into the
Alabama SIP. This final rulemaking pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that
each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance
and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP submission. ADEM certified
that the Alabama SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Alabama. With
the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport, and visibility
protection requirements for which EPA is taking no action in this
rulemaking, and provisions respecting state boards for which EPA is
taking action to disapprove, EPA is taking final action to approve
Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission provided to EPA on August 20,
2012, as satisfying the required infrastructure elements for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective May 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0689. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory
Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly
the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the
CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet
applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three
years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly
referred to

as ``infrastructure'' SIP submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the
obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to EPA
for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the
content of the submission. The contents of such infrastructure SIP
submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's
existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in
section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with
previous ozone NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a
newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements of section
110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to other provisions of the CAA
for submission of SIP revisions specifically applicable for
attainment planning purposes. These requirements are: (1)
Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that
subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I
of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I)
which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address
infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the
nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
     110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution
Transport
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict
of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
     110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions
     110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials,
Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Visibility Protection
     110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of
Modeling Data
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected
Local Entities
    On January 21, 2015, EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove
in part, Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of the PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
(II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J), which EPA will address in a separate action. EPA also
proposed to disapprove Alabama's infrastructure submission for section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining to state board requirements. See 80 FR
2851.

II. EPA's Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment on its January 21, 2015, proposed action.
    Comment: The commenter suggests that the EPA official who signed
the proposed SIP approval/disapproval, the Deputy Regional
Administrator for Region 4, was not delegated to sign SIP actions.
    EPA's Response: The commenter is incorrect. Under CAA section
110(k) the EPA Administrator is tasked with acting on SIP submittals by
approving or disapproving the submittal in whole or in part. It is the
EPA's policy that, in order for other Agency management officials to
act on behalf of the Administrator, the authority must be delegated
officially. These official delegations are recorded in the ``EPA
Delegations Manual.'' Under EPA Delegation 1-21. Federal Register (1200
TN 543, 4/22/2002), the EPA Administrator has delegated the authority
to sign and submit proposed actions on SIPs for publication in the
Federal Register to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
and to Regional Administrators. This delegation allows for this
authority to be redelegated to the Deputies of the authorized
officials. Based on the authority to redelegate provided in Delegation
1-21, EPA Region 4 redelegated the authority to sign and submit for
publication in the Federal Register proposed SIPs to the Deputy
Regional Administrator (See EPA Region 4 Delegation 1-21). Therefore,
an appropriate EPA official, the Region 4 Deputy Regional
Administrator, signed and submitted the proposal to approve in part and
disapprove in part Alabama's August 20, 2012, infrastructure SIP
submission. Of note, an earlier Delegation 7-10. Approval/Disapproval
of State Implementation Plans (1200 TN 441, 5/6/97) did not allow
redelegation of the authority to act on proposed SIP actions beyond the
Regional Administrator. Since Delegation 1-21 post-dates 7-10 and
specifically addresses the authority at issue, the authority to sign
and submit proposed actions on SIPs for publication in the Federal
Register, it is the applicable delegation. Delegation 1-21 does not
change the limitation on redelegation beyond the Regional Administrator
found in Delegation 7-10 for final actions on SIPs.

III. Final Action

    With the exceptions described below, EPA is taking final action to
approve ADEM's infrastructure SIP submission, submitted August 20,
2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because it meets the above
described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is disapproving in part
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Alabama's infrastructure submission because
Alabama's August 20, 2012, submission did not contain provisions to
comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA for state
boards. This final approval in part and disapproval in part, however,
does not include the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which are being
addressed by EPA in a separate action. With the exceptions noted above
Alabama has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP
requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Alabama.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP       geographic or       State
            provision               nonattainment  submittal date/  EPA approval date          Explanation
                                        area       effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure        7/17/2012        4/2/2015  [Insert citation of  With the exception of
 Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour                                   publication].        PSD permitting
 Ozone National Ambient Air                                                              requirements for major
 Quality Standards.                                                                      sources of sections
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C) and (J);
                                                                                interstate transport
                                                                                requirements of section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
                                                                                (II), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii),
                                                                                and the visibility
                                                                                requirements of section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.53 is amended by adding paragraph (a), and adding and
reserving paragraph (b), to read as follows:

Sec.  52.53  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (a) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Alabama, through the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on August 20,
2012, to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for
the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards concerning
state board requirements. EPA is disapproving section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
of ADEM's submittal because the Alabama SIP lacks provisions respecting
state

boards per section 128 of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2015-07349 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51114-51116]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18395]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830; FRL-9950-10-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS99

National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities Risk and Technology Review; Clarification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to amend the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities. In this action, we are clarifying the compliance date for
the handling and storage of waste.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 3, 2016 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives significant and relevant adverse
comment by September 2, 2016. If the EPA receives significant and
relevant adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0830, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0830. All documents in this docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this direct final
action, contact Ms. Kim Teal, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John
Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background information. On December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76152), the EPA
finalized amendments to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities NESHAP based on our Risk and Technology Review. In this
action, we are clarifying the intended compliance date for sources
subject to the recently finalized handling and storage of waste
requirements.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. What are the amendments in this direct final rule?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    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: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no
significant and relevant adverse comment.
    In the final rule published December 7, 2015, we inadvertently
failed to identify the compliance date for sources subject to the
requirements for handling and storage of waste. Therefore, in this
document we are correcting that oversight. In the ``Proposed Rules''
section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the National Emission
Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR
part 63, subpart GG). If significant and relevant adverse comments are
received on the proposal, we will withdraw this direct final rule.
However, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For
further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
    If the EPA receives significant and relevant adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that some or all of the amendments in this direct final rule
will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

      Table 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \1\
           Source category                     NESHAP             Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework    Aerospace Manufacturing     336411
 Facilities.                           and Rework Facilities.     336412
                                                                  336413
                                                                  336414
                                                                  336415
                                                                  336419
                                                                  481111
                                                                  481112
                                                                  481211
                                                                  481212
                                                                  481219
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, and Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0830.

II. What are the amendments in this direct final rule?

    This direct final rule provides a compliance date of December 7,
2018, for sources subject to the requirements for handling and storage
of waste in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG. In the final rule dated
December 7, 2015, we regulated specialty coating application operations
for the first time. The compliance date for these new requirements was
December 7, 2018. We also revised and clarified requirements for
handling and storage of waste, and our intent was to specify the same
December 7, 2018, compliance date for these revised requirements (80 FR
76172-74). However, we neglected to specify a compliance date for these
revised waste handling and storage requirements in the regulatory text.
Reading the regulatory text as now written would imply that the
compliance date for these revised waste handling and storage
requirements would be September 1, 1998. Therefore, we are correcting
the rule text at 40 CFR 63.749(a)(3) to make it clear that the December
7, 2018, compliance date also applies to sources subject to the waste
storage and handling requirements.
    The EPA is accepting comments only on the specific issue raised in
this direct final action and the accompanying proposed rule, the
compliance date for handling and storage of waste. The EPA is not
reopening or accepting comment on any other aspect of the NESHAP for
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
Control Number 2060-0314. This action does not impose any new
information collection burden because it serves only to provide a
compliance date for the handling and storage of waste requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. 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, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action will not impose any costs on
small entities. No facilities meeting the Small Business
Administration's definition of a small business will incur costs. We
have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the aerospace manufacturing or rework surface coating operations that
would be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it
does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This
action serves only to provide a compliance date for the previously
promulgated handling and storage of waste requirements.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 26, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart GG--National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities

0
2. Section 63.749 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.749  Compliance dates and determinations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Each owner or operator of a specialty coating application
operation or handling and storage of waste operation that begins
construction or reconstruction after February 17, 2015, shall be in
compliance with the requirements of this subpart on December 7, 2015,
or upon startup, whichever is later. Each owner or operator of a
specialty coating application operation or handling and storage of
waste operation that is existing on February 17, 2015, shall be in
compliance with the requirements of this subpart on or before December
7, 2018.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-18395 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58535-58536]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23170]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD13-9-000]

Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013; Supplemental Notice
of Workshop

    As announced in the Notice issued on September 3, 2013, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) staff will hold a
workshop on October 2, 2013, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern
daylight time (EDT). This workshop will solicit public comments and
recommendations on the feasibility of a two-year process for the
issuance of a license for hydropower development at non-powered dams
and closed-loop pumped storage projects in compliance with section 6 of
the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013. The workshop will be
held in the Commission Meeting Room at 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The workshop will be open to the public and all
interested parties are invited to participate. Commission members will
attend and may participate in the workshop. An agenda for the workshop
is attached to this notice.
    This workshop will be transcribed. Transcripts of the workshop will
be immediately available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. at
(202) 347-3700. A free webcast of this event will be available through
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with internet access who wants to view this event
can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and
locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to
its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for
webcasts and offers the option of listening to the workshop via phone-
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Those interested in attending the workshop or viewing the webcast
are encouraged to register at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/efficiency-act-10-02-13-form.asp by September 25, 2013. A
limited number of phone lines will be available on a first-come, first-
served basis for interested parties to participate via teleconference.
If you would like to participate via teleconference, please contact Ken
Wilcox at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by September 25,
2013.
    Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the
required accommodations.
    Those who wish to file written comments may do so by November 1,
2013. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number AD13-9-000.
    All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and
will be available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference
Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
using the eLibrary link. Enter AD13-9 in the docket number field to
access documents. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support.
    For more information about this workshop, please contact:

Brandon Cherry (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 18, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Two-Year Licensing Process Workshop

    Purpose: To solicit comments and recommendations on a two-year
process for licensing hydropower development at non-powered dams and
closed-loop pumped storage projects.

Workshop Agenda

1. Introduction--12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All times are eastern daylight time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1.1 Opening remarks from the Commissioners
    1.2 Introduction of FERC staff and panel members
    1.3--Workshop procedures
2. Background (FERC staff presentation)--12:30 p.m. to 12:45 p.m.
    2.1 Section 6 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013
    2.2 Licensing process steps
    2.3 Process times for recently authorized projects
    2.4 Actions implemented to shorten process times
    2.5 Common factors that lengthen process times
3. Investigating the feasibility of a two-year process (Input solicited
from panel and participants)--12:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    3.1 Is a two-year process feasible?
    3.2 What pre-filing process steps can be eliminated, shortened, or
combined?
    3.3 What post-filing process steps can be eliminated, shortened, or
combined?
    3.4 In a two-year process, how much time should be allotted to pre-
filing versus post-filing?
    3.5 What, if any, process modifications are needed to account for
mandatory conditions and other agency authorizations (e.g. sections
4(e) and 18 of the FPA, 401 certifications, ESA consultation)? What
about fish and wildlife recommendations made under section 10(j) of the
FPA?
    3.6 Could memorandums of understanding between FERC and federal or
state agencies help expedite processing?
    3.7 Are there economic factors that affect the practicality of a
two-year process?
    3.8 Does the type of project (i.e., non-powered dam versus closed-
loop pumped storage) affect the steps included in a two-year process?
    3.9 Should there be a single standard two-year process or should
developers be allowed to propose unique, project-specific processes?
    3.10 Is a two-year process needed for exemptions from licensing or
are existing procedures adequate for expedited processing of these
projects?

4. Factors and criteria for identifying pilot projects (Input solicited
from panel and participants)--3:00 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.
    4.1 What project design or siting criteria should be met to be
eligible to use a two-year process? Would the same criteria apply to
projects at non-powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects?
    4.2 What environmental criteria should be met to be eligible to use
a two-year process? Would the same criteria apply to projects at non-
powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects?
    4.3 In order for a project to qualify for a two-year process,
should there be agreement on, and limits to, the need to develop new
information?
    4.4 Are there certain types of issues that should preclude a
project from being eligible for a two-year process?
    4.5 Are there developers that will be ready to begin testing a two-
year process by February 5, 2014?
5. Closing comments and next steps--3:55 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

[FR Doc. 2013-23170 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


A list of meeting materials submitted by the United Steelworkers during a non-government stakeholder listening session with the OMB and various EOP offices held on 06/15/2022 for the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Program Under the Clean Air Act; Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention. A Proposed Rule.

Attachment 1.	UAW EPA Accidental Release Prevention Comments 7.27.21


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73631-73632]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29849]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC12-18-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-500 and FERC-
505); Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 USC 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information
collections Application for License/Relicense for Water Projects with
Greater than 5 Megawatt Capacity (FERC-500), and Application for
License/Relicense for Water Projects with 5 Megawatt or Less Capacity
(FERC-505) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of
the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in
the Federal Register (77 FR 56636, 09/13/2012) requesting public
comments. FERC received no comments on the FERC-500 and FERC-505 and is
making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due by January
10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control Nos.
1902-0058 (FERC-500) and/or 1902-0114 (FERC-505), should be sent via
email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at
202-395-4718.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-18-000, by one
of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles: FERC-500: Application for License/Relicense for Water
Projects with Greater than 5 Megawatt Capacity; FERC-505: Application
for License/Relicense for Water Projects with 5 Megawatt or Less
Capacity.
    OMB Control Nos.: FERC-500 (1902-0058); FERC-505 (1902-0114).
    Type of Request: 16 U.S.C. 797(e) authorizes the Commission to
issue licenses to citizens of the United States for the purpose of
constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, across, along, from, or
within waterways over which Congress has jurisdiction. The Electric
Consumers Protection Act amended the Federal Power Act to provide the
Commission with the responsibility of issuing licenses for non-federal
hydroelectric plants. 16 U.S.C. 797(e) also requires the Commission to
give equal consideration to preserving energy conservation, the
protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and
wildlife, the protection of recreational opportunities, and the
preservation of other aspects of environmental quality when approving
licenses. Finally, 16 U.S.C. 799 stipulates conditions upon which the
Commission issues hydroelectric licenses.
    The Commission requires all hydroelectric license applications to
address a variety of environmental concerns. Many of these concerns
address environmental requirements developed by other agencies. The
applicants must provide facts in order for the Commission to understand
and resolve potential environmental problems associated with the
application in the interests of the United States public.
    Types of Respondents: Non-federal hydroelectric plants greater than
5 megawatt capacity (FERC-500); non-federal hydroelectric plants less
than 5 megawatts capacity (FERC-505).
    Estimate of Annual Burden \1\: The Commission estimates the total
Public

Reporting Burden for each information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission defines burden as 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. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3. The estimated burden for these collections has
decreased significantly. For more explanation, see the supporting
statement submitted to OMB at reginfo.gov (available when this
notice publishes in the Federal Register).

                   FERC-500 (IC12-18-000): Application for License/Relicense for Water Projects With Greater than 5 Megawatt Capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       Average burden
                                                                        Number of      responses per   Total number of     hours per     Estimated total
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses         response      annual burden
                                                                                (A)              (B)        (A)*(B)=(C)            (D)                (C)*(D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-federal hydroelectric plants greater than 5 megawatt capacity..             219                1              219               87           19,053
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      FERC-505 (IC12-18-000): Application for License/Relicense for Water Projects with 5 Megawatt or Less Capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       Average burden
                                                                        Number of      responses per   Total number of     hours per     Estimated total
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses         response      annual burden
                                                                                (A)              (B)        (A)*(B)=(C)            (D)                (C)*(D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-federal hydroelectric plants less than 5 megawatts capacity....              16                1               16              273            4,368
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-500 total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is
$1,314,839.32 [(19,053 hours / 2080 hours/year \2\) * $143,540/year \3\
= $1,314,839.32]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 2080 hours = 52 weeks * 40 hours per week (i.e. 1 year of
full-time employment).
    \3\ Average salary plus benefits per full-time equivalent
employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-505: total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is
$301,502.90 [(4,368 hours / 2080 hours/year) * $143,540/year =
$301,434.00]
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: December 5, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29849 Filed 12-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43071-43072]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17827]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2252-000]

Public Power, LLC of Pennsylvania; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Public Power, LLC of Pennsylvania's application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a
motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is August 7, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17827 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Equivalency Assessment

Revisions to Currently Approved

ASTM Drinking Water Methods

in 40 CFR 141.25

for

Expedited EPA Method Approval Action

FINAL (01/21/2010)

Prepared by:

Larry Umbaugh

Environmental Scientist Leader - Senior Radiochemist

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC)

6101 Stevenson Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22304

Prepared in Support of

EPA Work Assignment 4-21 under EPA Contract No. EP-C-05-045

Activity Description

CSC was directed, on 12/7/09, to review six updated ASTM methods and
provide recommendations as to whether they are suitable for approval in
an Expedited Method Approval action.  The review was conducted as a
comparison of the updated versions to the versions that are cited in 40
CFR 141.25(a).  The review evaluated any changes in the methods that may
impact the performance of the method.

Evaluation Conclusions

Details of the evaluation of revisions to the six ASTM methods are
provided in the attached memo.  It was determined that the revisions, in
all six methods, did not change sample handling or the analytical
chemistry process.  It is recommended that Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) considers the new versions of the ASTM standards to be
“equally effective” as the approved ASTM methods cited in 40 CFR
141.25(a).  The following table lists the currently approved ASTM
methods under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the corresponding
method revisions that were reviewed for approval.

Currently Approved (40 CFR 141.25) ASTM Method 	Approved Method Title
ASTM Method Revision	Revised

Method Title	Recommended for Approval?

D 2460-97	Standard Test Method for Alpha-Particle-Emitting Isotopes of
Radium in Water	D 2460-07	Standard Test Method for
Alpha-Particle-Emitting Isotopes of Radium in Water	Yes

D 3454-97	Standard Test Method for Radium-226 in Water	D 3454-05
Standard Test Method for Radium-226 in Water	Yes

D 3649-98a	Standard Practice for High-Resolution Gamma-Ray Spectrometry
in Water	D 3649-06	Standard Practice for High-Resolution Gamma-Ray
Spectrometry in Water	Yes

D 4107-98

(Reapproved 2002)	Standard Test Method for Tritium in Drinking Water	D
4107-08	Standard Test Method for Tritium in Drinking Water	Yes

D 4785-00a	Standard Test Method for Low-Level Iodine-131 in Water	D
4785-08	Standard Test Method for Low-Level Analysis of Iodine
Radioisotopes in Water	Yes

D 5147-02	Standard Test Method for Trace Uranium in Water by
Pulsed-Laser Phosphorimetry	D 5174-07	Standard Test Method for Trace
Uranium in Water by Pulsed-Laser Phosphorimetry	Yes

 Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

January 4, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Basis for Expedited Approval of Methods from ASTM International

FROM:	Michella Karapondo, Chemist

TO:		The Record

	This memo documents the reviews that were conducted on new versions of
six methods issued by ASTM International.  It provides the background
information on why EPA is approving these methods using the expedited
method approval process.  Each method is discussed individually below:

1)  ASTM International Method D 2460-07:

Method D 2460-97 was used as the basis for comparison, because it is
currently promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR
141.25(a) for determining alpha particle-emitting isotopes of radium in
water.  The following changes are included in the newer version:

Section 2.1 was modified to update referenced ASTM standards; Standards
D 4448, D 5847, and D 6001 were added.

Section 6, concerning interferences, was modified to add additional
discussions on:

Interferences from the presence of suspended solids or insoluble
precipitates that will bias the chemical yield high and lead to falsely
low sample results (Section 6.2).

Radium progeny in-growth and decay that will interfere with the total
alpha particle emission rate over time (Section 6.3).

Precipitate mass that will interfere with alpha particle detection
efficiency (Section 6.4).

Self-absorption interference effects that may be addressed during the
calibration process (Section 6.5).

Section 8.6 was modified to add the molarity of the ammonium hydroxide.

Section 8.7 was modified to add standardization instructions (Section
8.7.1) for the barium nitrate carrier solution.

Section 8.13 was modified to add the molarity of the sulfuric acid.

Section 10.1 was modified to add additional ASTM reference Standards D
4448 and D 6001 for the collection of non-drinking water samples.

Section 11 was modified by splitting Section 11.1 into 3 separate
sections; the text remains the same.

Section 13.2 was modified to change the following concentration
calculation terms; the calculation remains the same:

D was changed to, AC226Ra = concentration of Ra-226, Bq/L

C = net count rate was changed to Rn

F was changed to, IF = correction for the ingrowth of descendants
between the time of separation and the time of counting.

Table 1 was updated to expand the correction factor range for in-growth
of alpha activity into initially pure radium-226, from 72 hours to 720
hours.

Figure 1 was updated to expand the range of the in-growth and decay
curves from the time of separation, to 30 days versus 7 days in D
2460-97.

Figure 2 was added to provide information on the typical alpha particle
efficiency as a function of time and precipitate mass.

Section 13.4 was modified to update the terminology for the calculation
of the analysis uncertainty from the older, total propagated uncertainty
(TPU), in D 2460-97, to the currently used combined standard uncertainty
(CSU).  This update is consistent with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols
Manual, NUREG-1576 EPA 402-B-04-001A, July 2004, (MARLAP).

Section 13.4.1 was modified to change the following one-sigma
uncertainty calculation terms; the calculation remains the same:

G was changed to Rs

B was changed to Rb

tG was changed to ts

Section 13.5 was modified to update the calculation of the a priori
minimum detectable concentration (MDC) to be consistent with MARLAP.

Section 15 has been rewritten to include detailed instructions:

Section 15.1 defines the quality control (QC) program for the instrument
and details the size of an analytical batch to be limited to 20 samples.

Section 15.2 details detector efficiency calibration verification.

Section 15.3 describes the steps necessary for initial demonstration of
the laboratory/instrument/analyst capability.

Section 15.4 details laboratory control sample requirements in
analytical batches.

Section 15.5 provides for method blank requirements in an analytical
batch.

Section 15.6 describes the requirements for analytical batch matrix
spikes.

Section 15.7 presents the requirements for duplicates in the batch
analysis.  It also delineates the duplicate error ratio calculation and
acceptance criteria.

Section 15.8 defines the requirements for quarterly verification of the
quantitative value produced by the test method by analyzing independent
reference material that has been submitted on at least a single-blind
basis.

The two methods are identical with respect to drinking water sample
collection/handling protocols and sample preparation, and are
analytically equivalent.  The calculation of radium-226 concentrations
has been updated to capture the uncertainty determinations outlined in
MARLAP; precision and bias are unchanged.  The QC requirements in D
2460-07 are far more detailed compared to those cited in D 2460-97.
Therefore, Method D 2460-07 is considered to be equally as effective as
D 2460-97 for determining radium-226 concentrations in drinking water.

2)  ASTM International Method D 3454-05:

Method D 3454-97 was used as the basis for comparison, because it is
currently promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR
141.25(a) for determining radium-226 in water.  The following changes
are included in the newer version:

Section 2.1 was modified to update referenced ASTM standards; Standard D
5847 was added.

Section 7.5 was modified, for the determination of acceptable background
counting rate, from 0.00 to 0.03 counts per minute (cpm) to 0.00 to
0.0005 counts per second (cps).

Sections 8.13 and 8.14 were updated to include the molarity of the
hydrochloric acid solution.

Section 8.16 was updated to include the weight percent of the hydrogen
peroxide.

Section 8.19 was modified to update known suppliers.

Section 8.20 was modified to update known suppliers.

Section 8.22 was updated to include the molarity of the sulfuric acid
solution.

Section 10.16 was modified to change the following term in the
calculation for the cell calibration constant:

C = net count rate was changed to Rn; the calculation remains the same.

Section 10.17 was expanded to provide additional calibration frequency
requirements.

Section 11.1.14 was modified to change the sample yield term from Y to
RY.

Section 11.12.10 was revised to eliminate repeated verbiage from Section
11.12.9.

Section 12.1 was modified to change the following concentration
calculation terms; the calculation remains the same:

D was changed to, AC226Ra = concentration of Ra-226, Bq/L

Rn was previously changed in Section 10.16

RY was previously changed in Section 11.1.14

V was changed to Va = volume of sample used, L

Section 12.2 was modified to update the terminology for the calculation
of the analysis uncertainty from the older, total propagated uncertainty
(TPU), in D 3454-97, to the currently used combined standard uncertainty
(CSU).  This update is consistent with MARLAP.

Section 14 has been rewritten as noted below:

Section 14.2 details calibration and calibration verification steps.

Section 14.3 details detector efficiency verification.

Section 14.4 describes the steps necessary for initial demonstration of
the laboratory and instrument capabilities.

Section 14.5 details laboratory control sample requirements for
analytical batches.

Section 14.6 provides for method blank requirements in an analytical
batch.

Section 14.7 describes the requirements for analytical batch matrix
spikes.

Section 14.8 presents the requirements for duplicates in the batch
analysis.  It also delineates the duplicate error ratio calculation and
acceptance criteria.

Section 14.9 defines the requirements for quarterly verification of the
quantitative value produced by the test method by analyzing independent
reference material that has been submitted on at least a single-blind
basis.

The two methods are identical with respect to drinking water sample
collection/handling protocols and sample preparation, and are
analytically equivalent.  The calculation of radium-226 concentration
has been updated to capture the uncertainty determinations outlined in
MARLAP.  The precision and bias are unchanged.  The QC requirements in D
3454-05 are far more detailed than those cited in D 3454-97.  Therefore,
Method D 3454-05 is considered to be equally as effective as D 3454-97
for determining radium-226 concentrations in drinking water.

3)  ASTM International Method D 3649-06:

Method D 3946-98a was used as the basis for comparison, because it is
currently promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR
141.25(a) for determining gamma emitters in water.  The following
changes are included in the newer version:

Section 1.1 was modified to change the applicability of the procedure to
nuclides emitting gamma-rays with energies greater than 45 keV versus
those with energies greater than 20 keV as stipulated in D 3946-98a.
The increase of the lower end energy is more appropriate to match
typical low energy calibration standards.  New technology (digital
signal processors) was also included to accommodate high count rate
samples.

Section 1.2 was modified to allow for relative determinations of samples
other than just tracers.  References have also been updated in this
section.

Section 2.1 was modified to update referenced ASTM standards; the
discontinued ASTM Standard D 3085 was deleted, and Standard D 4488 was
added.

Section 4.1 was expanded to include all the components in the gamma ray
spectrometer signal chain.

Section 4.2 was modified to remove antiquated lithium-drifted germanium,
Ge(Li), detectors.  New technology (electromechanical cooling) was added
as an alternative to liquid nitrogen cooling.

Section 4.4 was modified, because of newer computer technology, to
expand the system memory from 2000 channels to 4000 channels to fully
utilize a germanium detector’s energy resolution.

Section 4.6 was modified to remove cathode-ray tube (CRT).

Section 4.7 was modified to remove 1 keV per channel, which is
appropriate only if 2000 channels are used (see Section 4.4).

Section 5.3 was modified to lower the distance for high activity samples
from the detector to 10 centimeters instead of 1 meter.

Section 5.4 was modified to simplify the gross count rate determination
from 100,000 counts per minute to 2,000 counts per second, to eliminate
electronic problems,.

Section 6.1 was modified to remove reference to a method of predicting
the gamma-ray resolution of a detector.

Section 6.3 was modified to increase the acceptable counting rate from
1,000 counts per second to 2,000 counts per second, to minimize random
summing.

Section 6.4 was added to the method to discuss sample density as being a
factor that can affect quantitative results.

Section 7 apparatus was updated to reflect current technology upgrades
in gamma ray spectrometer system components.

Section 8.1 was revised to include the following updates:  D 1066
Practice for Sampling Steam and D 4448 Guide for Sampling Ground-Water
Monitoring Wells for additional sample collection criteria.

Section 10.1 was modified to raise the calibration source activity to a
range of 1 to 1000 k Becquerel (Bq), to reflect better electronics in
current gamma ray spectrometry systems.

Section <IP_ADDRESS> was modified to add a statement on cascade and random
summing interferences that should be considered during calibration.

Section 10.3.1 was modified to include a new Table 1 that lists some
commercially available nuclides suitable for energy calibrations.

Section <IP_ADDRESS> was revised to delete the following sentence:  “The
radionuclide purity of the standards should be verified periodically to
ensure against accidental contamination or the presence of long-lived
impurities by comparing the observed spectra published in the literature
(8).”  The deletion of this sentence is appropriate because routine QC
checks, using the calibration standards, will verify potential
contamination and/or impurity issues.

Section 10.3.2 has been modified, for the verification of the energy
calibration, from “During each day in which the spectrometry system is
being used to analyze samples, the above sequence of operation shall be
repeated using at least two different gamma-ray energies” to “The
energy calibration should be verified at a predetermined interval.”
The daily or before-use requirement has been moved to Section 14.2.

Efficiency calibration equation terms included in Section 10.4.2 have
been modified to those below; the calculations are the same:

Where:

εf 	=  full-energy peak efficiency (counts per gamma-ray emitted),

Rnet	=  net gamma-ray count in the full-energy peak of interest (counts
per second), and

Rγ	= gamma-ray emission rate (gamma rays per second).  If the standard
source is calibrated as to activity, the gamma-ray emission rate is
given by:

		Rγ = A × I

Where:

A = activity in becquerels (Bq), and

I = absolute gamma intensity for the specific gamma-ray emission.

Section 12.4 has been modified to remove the nuclear decay data table
and the user is referred to References 6, 7, and 8 for such data.

Section 12.5 has been revised to modify the calculation terms to those
below; the calculation is the same:

Where:

Rnet	= net count rate (s-1),

V	= test specimen volume (L),

ε 	= detector efficiency factor,

I	= absolute gamma intensity, and

DF	= radionuclide decay correction factor (correction for radioactive
decay).

Section 12.6 was added to update the terminology for calculation of the
analysis uncertainty from the older total propagated uncertainty (TPU,
in D 3649-98a), to the currently used combined standard uncertainty
(CSU).  This update is consistent with MARLAP.

Section 12.7 was added to provide clarification for calculation of the
net count rate  (Rnet) and the counting uncertainty [u(Rnet)].

Section 12.9 was added to reference ASTM D 3648, Standards for the
Measurement of Radioactivity, for detailed discussion on minimum
detectable concentration concepts.

The two methods are identical with respect to drinking water sample
collection/handling protocols and sample preparation, and are
analytically equivalent.  The calculation of gamma-ray emitting nuclide
concentrations has been updated to capture the uncertainty
determinations outlined in MARLAP.  The precision and bias are
unchanged.  Therefore, Method D 3649-06 is considered to be equally as
effective as D 3649-98a for determining gamma-ray emitting nuclide
concentrations in drinking water.

4)  ASTM International Method D 4107-08:

Method D 4107-98 (Reapproved 2002) was used as the basis for comparison,
because it is currently promulgated in the drinking water regulations at
40 CFR 141.25(a) for determining tritium in water.  The following
changes are included in the newer version:

Section 2.1 was modified to update referenced ASTM standards.

Section 8.6 was added to include the NIST traceable tritium standard as
a reagent and material.

Section 10.1.1 was modified to define that 17 disintegrations/second are
equal to 17 Becquerel.  The acronym RWTS was added for raw water tritium
standard.

Section 10.1.1 was modified by moving the last sentence in Section
10.1.1 to the first sentence in <IP_ADDRESS>.  The acronym DWTS was added
for distilled water tritium standard.

Section 10.1.2 was modified to add the acronym DRWTS for distilled raw
water tritium standard.

Section 11.1 was modified by taking the last 2 sentences in the Note and
making them Section 11.2.  The remaining sections (11.3 through 11.5)
were then incremented by one number, ending at Section 11.16.

Section 12.1 was modified to update the calculation for detection
efficiency to reflect the previously defined acronyms.  The detection
efficiency calculation was updated to add the standard uncertainty for
the activity of the DWTS.  This update is consistent with MARLAP.

Section 12.2 was updated to reflect the previously defined acronyms for
the recovery correction factor calculation.

Section 12.3 was updated to include the half-life correction in the
tritium activity calculation.

Section 12.3.1 was replaced with Section 12.4.  The update includes the
calculation of the combined standard uncertainty (CSU) of the tritium
concentration in the sample due to counting statistics.  This update is
consistent with MARLAP.

Section 12.4 was replaced with Section 12.5 which updates the
terminology for calculation of the analysis uncertainty from the older,
total propagated uncertainty (TPU, in D 4707-98), to the currently used
combined standard uncertainty (CSU).  This update is consistent with
MARLAP.

Section 12.6 was added to calculate the critical activity concentration
Lc.  This update is consistent with MARLAP.

Section 12.7 was added to provide the calculation of the a priori
minimum detectable activity concentration (MDC).  This addition is
consistent with MARLAP.

Section 13 has been rewritten as noted below:

Section 13.2 describes the steps necessary for initial demonstration of
laboratory and instrument quality.

Section 13.3 details laboratory control sample requirements in
analytical batches.

Section 13.4 provides for method blank requirements in an analytical
batch.

Section 13.5 describes the requirements for analytical batch matrix
spikes.

Section 13.6 presents the requirements for duplicates in the batch
analysis.  It also delineates the duplicate error ratio calculation and
acceptance criteria.

Section 13.7 defines the requirements for quarterly verification of the
quantitative value produced by the test method by analyzing independent
reference material that has been submitted on at least a single-blind
basis.

The two methods are identical with respect to drinking water sample
collection/handling protocols and sample preparation, and are
analytically equivalent.  The calculation of tritium concentration has
been updated to capture the uncertainty determinations outlined in
MARLAP.  The QC requirements in D 4107-08 are far more detailed than
those cited in D 4107-98.  Therefore, Method D 4107-08 is considered to
be equally as effective as D 4107-98 for determining tritium
concentrations in drinking water.

5)  ASTM International Method D 4785-08:

Method D 4785-00a was used as the basis for comparison, because it is
currently promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR
141.25(a) for determining radioactive iodine in water.  The following
changes are included in the newer version:

The method title was changed to Standard Test Method for Low-Level
Analysis of Iodine Radioisotopes in Water.

Section 1.1 was modified to remove specificity for iodine-131(131I) and
replace it with radioactive iodine in water.

Section 2.1 was modified to update referenced ASTM standards; Standard D
5847 was added.

Section 5.1 was modified to add the capability of analyzing additional
isotopes of iodine (in addition to 131I).  However, it also states that
other iodine isotopes have not been tested according to ASTM Standard D
2777 and that the user must determine the precision and bias for
radioactive isotopes of iodine other than 131I.

Section 5.2 was added to address the method’s applicability to
analysis of iodine radioisotopes with half-lives greater than 2 hours,
which include 121I, 123I, 124I, 125I, 126I, 129I, 130I, 131I, 132I,
133I, and 135I.

Section 6.2 was added to inform the user that, due to X-ray
interferences at and below 33.6 keV, only discreet gamma energy lines at
and above 35.5 keV should be used for identification and quantification
of iodine radioisotopes.

Section 8.20 was added to include calibration standards in the listing
of reagents and materials.

Section 11 was re-written to fully detail calibration and acceptance
criteria requirements for the high-resolution gamma-ray spectroscopy
system.  The re-write is very comprehensive in comparison to the
calibration section in D 4785-00a.

Section 13.3.6 was updated to include a new table (Table 1) for iodine
radioisotope nuclear decay data.  Table 1 provides the gamma energy,
gamma fraction, and half-life for the radioactive iodine isotopes (121I,
123I, 124I, 125I, 126I, 129I, 130I, 131I, 132I, 133I, and 135I)
applicable to the method.

Section 14 was re-written to incorporate MARLAP calculations as noted
below:

Section 14.1calculates the net count rate and standard uncertainty of
each photopeak.

γ for the iodine isotopes listed in Table 1.

Section 14.3 calculates the uncertainty due to counting statistics.

Section 14.4 calculates the CSU to include the standard counting
uncertainty, relative standard uncertainty of the measured quantity, and
the relative standard uncertainty due to other causes identified by the
user.

Section 14.4 was updated to replace the expanded uncertainty with
Section 14.5, which updates the calculation to MARLAP.

Section 14.6 was added to provide for the calculation of the critical
activity concentration (Lc).

Section 14.7 replaces Section 14.5 (in D 4785-00a) for the calculation
of minimum detectable concentration (MDC).  The new calculation is
consistent with MARLAP.

 Section 15 has been rewritten as noted below:

Section 15.1 defines the QC program for the instrument and details the
size of an analytical batch to be limited to 20 samples.

Section 15.2 describes the carrier recovery acceptance criteria for the
internal stable iodide standard used in the determination of radioiodine
in each sample.

Section 15.3 details calibration and calibration verification steps.

Section 15.4 describes the steps necessary for initial demonstration of
the laboratory/instrument/analyst capability.

Section 15.5 details laboratory control sample requirements in
analytical batches.

Section 15.6 provides for method blank requirements in an analytical
batch.

Section 15.7 describes the requirements for analytical batch matrix
spikes.

Section 15.8 presents the requirements for duplicates in the batch
analysis.  It also delineates the duplicate error ratio calculation and
acceptance criteria.

Section 15.9 defines the requirements for quarterly verification of the
quantitative value produced by the test method by analyzing independent
reference material that has been submitted on at least a single-blind
basis.

Section 16.4 was updated to reflect the addition of the new Table 1 in
Section 13.3.6; the table in Section 16.4 is now Table 2.

The two methods are identical with respect to drinking water sample
collection/handling protocols and sample preparation, and are
analytically equivalent.  The calculation of iodine concentrations has
been updated to capture the uncertainty determinations outlined in
MARLAP.  The precision and bias are unchanged for iodine-131.  The QC
requirements in D 4785-08 are far more detailed than those cited in D
4785-00a.  Therefore, Method D 4785-08 is considered to be equally as
effective as D 4785-00a for determining iodine concentrations in
drinking water.

6)  ASTM International Method D 5174-07:

Method D 5174-02 was used as the basis for comparison, because it is
currently promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR
141.25(a) for determining uranium in water.  The following changes are
included in the newer version:

Section 1.1 was modified to change the lower end of the calibration
range from 0.05 ppb or greater to 0.1µg/L (0.1 ppb) or greater.

Section 2.1 was modified to update referenced ASTM standards; Standards
D 4448 and D 6001 were added.

Section 6.4 was modified to remove Fluran as a complexation agent.
Uraplex is the only remaining polyphosphate.

Section 6.6 was modified to specify the molarity of the nitric acid used
(0.8 M) for diluting samples if they exceed the calibration range.

Section 6.7 was added to further explain how to minimize the effects of
interferences by diluting the sample with 0.8 M nitric acid.

Section 7.1.1 was changed to raise the method detection limit (MDL) from
0.05 µg/Liter to 0.1 µg/Liter.

Section 7.1.3 was modified, to change the precision statement,
from“The precision of repetitive measurements must be within 15%
relative standard deviation (R.S.D.).” to “The precision of
repetitive measurements sufficient to obtain a relative standard
deviation of less than 15% at the low points of the calibration
curve.”

Section 10.1 was modified to add reference to ASTM Standards D 4448 and
D 6001 for the collection of non-drinking water samples.

Section 11.6 was modified with the addition of Note 4, which elaborates
on how to minimize interference quenching effects by diluting the sample
with 0.8 M nitric acid when lifetime values are below 200 micro seconds.

Section 12 has been rewritten to add and expand details on the
following:

Performing and calculating the MDL on a periodic basis.

Determining the reporting limit (RL).

Reporting analytical results.

Section 14.2.2 was expanded to include delineation of the calibration
verification concentration ranges, which were not present in D 5174-02.

葞ǂ葠ﳖ摧㡓&	㜀$␸䠀$摧㡓&

%

F

I

T

_

`

o

y

z

}

Š

—

ž

Ÿ

¢

Å

æ

ç

ð

ó

r

€

—

š

±

²

³

Å

Õ

Ö

ã

ì

ù

ú

-²

³

ã

ù

h

h

h

&

&

&

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

&

&

&

&

h

h

h

h

h

h

ༀ炄ᄈや㟽$␸䠀$葞ࡰ葠ﴰ摧畑ï

萏ࡰ葞ࡰ摧畑ï

 h

 h

ༀ炄ᄈや㟽$␸䠀$葞ࡰ葠ﴰ摧畑ï

h

h

h

h

h’x

h

h

h’x

h

hÕ

&

&

hÕ

&

&

&

&

h

h

h

&

&

&

h

the matrix spike recovery calculation is in percent recovery.  The
calculation terms were changed, but the calculation remains the same.

Section 14.7.4 was modified to change the acceptance criteria for matrix
spike recovery from (50% of the expected value to a range of 50% to 150%
of the expected value.

The two methods are identical with respect to drinking water sample
collection/handling protocols and sample preparation, and are
analytically equivalent.  The calculation of uranium concentrations has
been updated to expand determination of the MDL and RL.  The precision
and bias are unchanged.  The QC requirements in D 5174-07 are more
detailed than those cited in D 5147-00a.  Therefore, Method D 5147-07 is
considered to be equally as effective as D 5147-02 for determining
uranium concentrations in drinking water.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2