[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14560-14567]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05402]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 414

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0582; FRL 10019-06-OW]
RIN 2040-AG10

Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source
Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
initiating further data collection and analysis to support potential
future rulemaking, under the Clean Water Act (CWA), relating to the
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source
performance standards applicable to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) point source category to address discharges
from manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and is
considering revising the same for formulators of PFAS. PFAS are a group
of man-made organic chemicals. Some PFAS compounds are persistent in
the environment and in the human body. Analysis of animal studies and
human epidemiological research suggest that exposure above certain
levels to some PFAS may be associated with adverse human health
effects. The Agency has identified several industries with facilities
that are likely to be discharging PFAS in their wastewater, including
OCPSF manufacturers and formulators. This advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) provides for public review and comment on the
information and data regarding PFAS manufacturers and formulators that
EPA has collected to date. EPA is requesting public comment on the
information and data presented in this ANPRM. EPA is also soliciting
additional information and data regarding discharges of PFAS from these
facilities to inform future revisions to the wastewater discharge
requirements that apply to the OCPSF point source category.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 17, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2020-0582, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology Docket, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a
delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Samantha Lewis, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-
0582, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's
docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. If you wish to submit such
information, consult the person listed for additional information in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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. 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room
for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers
will be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information
and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

B. Supporting Information

    This notice is supported by documents that are contained in the
public docket. EPA has prepared an index of these materials to aid in
the public's review and comment. The index can be identified by
searching the docket for DCN OCPSF00116.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by any rulemaking following this
notice include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                   Example of  regulated entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  PFAS Manufacturers.
                                            PFAS Formulators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by any future
rulemaking activities following this notice. Other types of entities
that are not included in the examples above could also be regulated.
PFAS manufacturers are facilities that produce PFAS compounds or
precursors through processes including, but not limited to,
electrochemical fluorination (ECF) and telomerization. Facilities that
manufacture PFAS are currently regulated under EPA's national Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for the OCPSF category (40
CFR part 414). EPA has also gathered more limited information about
PFAS formulators. PFAS formulators are facilities that are the primary
customers of the PFAS manufacturers, and that use raw PFAS feedstock to
(a) produce commercial or consumer goods (e.g., weather-proof
caulking), or (b) as intermediary products for use in the manufacture
of commercial goods (e.g., a grease-proof coating for a pizza box).
    If you still have questions regarding the applicability of any
future rulemaking activities following this notice to a particular
entity, please consult the person listed for additional information in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What is the purpose of this notice?

    As part of EPA's statutorily required Effluent Guidelines planning
process, EPA has reviewed readily available information about PFAS
surface water discharges to identify industrial sources that may
warrant further study for potential regulation through national ELGs.
Based on the limited data available at the time, in February of 2019,
EPA published the PFAS Action Plan, in which it identified several
industries with facilities that are likely to be discharging PFAS
compounds in their wastewater and EPA began a more detailed study to
evaluate the potential for PFAS presence in their wastewater
discharges. Through the PFAS Multi-Industry Study, described in EPA's
Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14, EPA gathered a range
of information about PFAS manufacturers and formulators, as well as the
potential discharges of PFAS from these facilities (further details on
these efforts are provided in Section V below). PFAS manufacturers are
facilities that produce PFAS compounds or precursors through processes
including, but not limited to, ECF and telomerization. Facilities that
manufacture PFAS are currently regulated under EPA's national ELGs for
the OCPSF category (40 CFR part 414). EPA has also gathered some
information about PFAS formulators. PFAS formulators are facilities
that are the primary customers of PFAS manufacturers, and that use raw
PFAS feedstock to (a) produce commercial or consumer goods (e.g.,
weather-proof caulking), or (b) as intermediary products for use in the
manufacture of commercial goods (e.g., a grease-proof coating for a
pizza box). EPA's data set for formulators is more limited than for
manufacturers, as the Agency has identified little publicly available
information on these facilities and their potential discharges.
    This notice provides for public review and comment on the
information that EPA has collected to date on PFAS discharges from both
PFAS manufacturers and formulators. In addition, as detailed in Section
V below, EPA is soliciting additional information and data regarding
PFAS manufacturers and formulators, including wastewater
characteristics and treatability. EPA will use any information and data
received to inform potential next steps, which could include developing
new or revised ELGs for these categories of dischargers. Because
formulators may be subject to national ELGs outside of the OCPSF
category, future EPA actions to address PFAS discharges from these
facilities may include revisions to ELGs other than the ELGs that apply
to the OCPSF category or proposal of a new ELG.

III. Background

A. Clean Water Act

    Among its core provisions, the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the
discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United
States, except as authorized under the CWA. Under CWA Section 402, 33
U.S.C. 1342, discharges may be authorized through a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The CWA outlines a dual
approach for establishing discharge limits for these permits: (1)
Technology-based effluent limitations that establish a floor of
performance for categories of dischargers, and (2) water quality-based
effluent limitations that are established where technology-based
effluent limitations are insufficient to meet applicable state water
quality standards (WQS) or site specific water quality goals. The CWA
authorizes EPA to establish national technology-based ELGs and new
source performance standards for discharges to waters of the United
States from categories of point sources (such as industrial,
commercial, and public sources). These national ELGs are used by state
permitting authorities to establish technology-based effluent
limitations for NPDES permits.
    The CWA also authorizes EPA to promulgate nationally applicable
pretreatment standards that control pollutant discharges from sources
that discharge wastewater indirectly to waters of the United States
through Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), as outlined in Sections
307(b) and (c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). EPA establishes
national pretreatment standards for pollutants in wastewater from such
indirect dischargers shown to pass through, to interfere with, or to be
otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Pretreatment standards are
designed to ensure that wastewaters from indirect industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment as direct
dischargers in the same industrial category. See CWA Section 301(b), 33
U.S.C. 1311(b).
    Technology-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits are derived
from effluent limitations guidelines (CWA Sections 301 and 304, 33
U.S.C. 1311 and 1314) and new source performance standards (CWA Section
306, 33 U.S.C. 1316) promulgated by EPA. Where EPA has not promulgated
an applicable ELG or new source performance standard, technology-based
effluent limitations are based on the best professional judgment (BPJ)
of the permitting authority. Additional limitations are also required
in a permit where necessary to meet WQS. CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C), 33
U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C). The ELGs are established by EPA regulation for
categories of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of
control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control
technology, as specified in the CWA (e.g., Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT), Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT); see below).
    The EPA promulgates national ELGs for industrial categories for
three classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants (total
suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5), fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in CWA Section
304(a)(4), 33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(4), and 40 CFR 401.16; (2) toxic
pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, selenium, and

chromium; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene,
phenol, and naphthalene), as outlined in CWA Section 307(a), 33 U.S.C.
1317(a); 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 CFR part 423, appendix A; and (3)
nonconventional pollutants, which are those pollutants that are not
categorized as conventional or toxic (e.g., ammonia-N, phosphorus, and
total dissolved solids (TDS)). PFAS compounds fall into the category of
nonconventional pollutant, as they are not defined as a toxic or
conventional pollutant in the CWA or the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR).

B. Effluent Guidelines Program

    EPA establishes ELGs based on the performance of well-designed and
well-operated control and treatment technologies. EPA is not to base
technology-based requirements on their effects on the receiving water.
See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 599 F.2d 1011, 1028, 1042 (D.C. Cir.
1978).
    There are four levels of technology-based controls applicable to
direct dischargers and two levels of controls applicable to indirect
dischargers. These are described in detail below as general background
information:
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    Consistent with the CWA, EPA establishes effluent limitations based
on BPT by reference to the average of the best performances of
facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes,
processes, or other common characteristics. EPA promulgates BPT
effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional
pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA
first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age
of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering
aspects of the control technologies, any required process changes, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA
Section 304(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B).
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA require EPA to identify additional
levels of effluent reduction for conventional pollutants associated
with Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for
discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to other
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(4)(B), the
CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of
a two-part ``cost reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology
for the development of BCT limitations on July 9, 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants:
BOD5, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants
defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator
designated oil and grease as a conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979
(44 FR 44501; 40 CFR 401.16).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    BAT represents the second level of control for direct discharges of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants. As the statutory phrase intends,
EPA considers technological availability and the economic achievability
in determining what level of control represents BAT. CWA Section
301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A). Other statutory factors that EPA
must consider in assessing BAT are the cost of achieving BAT effluent
reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process
employed, potential process changes, non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate. CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C.
1314(b)(2)(B); Texas Oil & Gas Ass'n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 928 (5th
Cir. 1998). The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the
weight to be accorded each of these factors. Weyerhaeuser Co., 590 F.2d
at 1045. Generally, EPA determines economic achievability based on the
effect of the cost of compliance with BAT limitations on overall
industry and subcategory (if applicable) financial conditions. BAT is
intended to reflect the highest performance in the industry, and it may
reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved
based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or
category, bench scale or pilot studies, or foreign facilities. Am.
Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen
Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976). BAT may be
based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these
technologies are not common industry practice. See Am. Frozen Food
Inst., 539 F.2d at 132, 140; Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 549,
562 (4th Cir. 1985); Cal. & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 280,
285-88 (2nd Cir. 1977).
    One way that EPA may consider differences within an industry when
establishing BAT limitations is through subcategorization. The Supreme
Court has recognized that the substantive test for subcategorizing an
industry is the same as that which applies to establishing
fundamentally different factor variances--i.e., whether the plants are
different with respect to relevant statutory factors. See Chem. Mfrs.
Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 214 n.134 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Chem.
Mfrs. Ass'n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. 116, 119-22, 129-34 (1985)). Courts have
stated that there need only be a rough basis for subcategorization. See
Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n, 870 F.2d at 215 n.137 (summarizing cases).
4. Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology/New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS)
    NSPS reflect ``the greatest degree of effluent reduction'' that is
achievable based on the ``best available demonstrated control
technology'' (BADCT), ``including, where practicable, a standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants.'' CWA Section 306(a)(1), 33
U.S.C. 1316(a)(1). Owners of new facilities have the opportunity to
install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater
treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS generally represent the most
stringent controls attainable through the application of BADCT for all
pollutants (that is, conventional, nonconventional, and toxic
pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. CWA
Section 306(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1316(b)(1)(B).
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    Section 307(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1317(b), authorizes EPA to
promulgate pretreatment standards for discharges of pollutants to
POTWs. PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that
pass through, interfere with, or otherwise are incompatible with the
operation of POTWs. Categorical pretreatment standards are technology-
based and are analogous to BPT and BAT effluent limitations guidelines,
and thus the Agency typically considers the same factors in
promulgating PSES as it considers in promulgating BPT and BAT. The
General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for the
implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40
CFR part 403. These regulations establish pretreatment standards that
apply to all non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (January 14,
1987).

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    Section 307(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1317(c), authorizes EPA to
promulgate PSNS at the same time it promulgates NSPS. As is the case
for PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharge of any pollutant
into a POTW that interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is
incompatible with the POTW. In selecting the PSNS technology basis, the
Agency generally considers the same factors it considers in
establishing NSPS, along with the results of a pass-through analysis.
Like new sources of direct discharges, new sources of indirect
discharges have the opportunity to incorporate into their operations
the best available demonstrated technologies. As a result, EPA
promulgates pretreatment standards for new sources based on best
available demonstrated control technology for new sources. See Nat'l
Ass'n of Metal Finishers v. EPA, 719 F.2d 624, 634 (3rd Cir. 1983).

C. Summary of the Existing OCPSF ELGs

    The OCPSF ELGs (40 CFR part 414) were originally promulgated in
1987, and then amended in 1989, 1990, 1992, and 1993. The OCPSF
category includes more than 1,000 chemical facilities producing over
25,000 end products. These include such products as benzene, toluene,
polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, chlorinated solvents, rubber
precursors, rayon, nylon, and polyester. The OCPSF industry is large
and diverse with complex operations and processes. Some plants produce
chemicals in large volumes through continuous chemical processes, while
others produce only small volumes of ``specialty'' chemicals through
batch chemical processes.
    Only a small subset of the facilities that are currently regulated
under the OCPSF ELGs manufacture or formulate PFAS. Although the OCPSF
ELGs may apply to PFAS manufacturers and formulators, the OCPSF ELGs do
not establish effluent limitations or pretreatment standards for any
PFAS compounds. Rather, the revision to the OCPSF ELGs would address
PFAS discharges from PFAS manufacturers and formulators.

IV. The EPA's PFAS Multi-Industry Study and Identification of PFAS
Manufacturers and Formulators for Potential Regulation

    As described in the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14
(Preliminary Plan 14), published in October 2019, EPA conducted an
initial examination of readily available public information about PFAS
surface water discharges to identify industrial sources that may
warrant further study. The Preliminary Plan 14 docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2018-
0618) includes a summary of the information EPA reviewed and a report
with a more thorough description of our review activities. Based on
this initial review, EPA decided to conduct further studies to better
understand and document facilities discharging PFAS compounds to
surface waters and to POTWs. This was introduced in the Preliminary
Plan 14 as the PFAS Multi-Industry Study.
    The goals of the PFAS Multi-Industry Study are to identify
industries and specific facilities producing or using PFAS compounds;
quantify--to the best of EPA's ability--the amounts of PFAS being
discharged; identify PFAS control practices and treatment technologies;
document PFAS removal efficiency in wastewater; and estimate costs
associated with PFAS treatment systems. EPA identified the following
industrial point source categories as the primary focus of this study:
OCPSF manufacturers; pulp and paper manufacturers; textiles and carpet
manufacturers; and commercial airports.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Military bases and airports are not included in the scope of
this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the OCPSF manufacturers, EPA reviewed numerous data sources and
identified six PFAS manufacturers and ten likely PFAS formulators. EPA
is not sure that the ten facilities that it identified as ``likely''
PFAS formulators are actually PFAS formulators due to limited data
available at this time. We discuss each of these data sources in
greater detail below.
    EPA reviewed 2019 Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and obtained
PFAS data for six PFAS manufacturers and three likely PFAS formulators
(the other seven facilities do not report PFAS compounds in their DMRs
or they do not have DMRs because they are indirect dischargers). These
nine facilities combined reported a total of 17 PFAS compounds in their
discharges. Based on the DMRs, effluent data detected a total of 15
PFAS compounds, and concentrations ranged from non-detect to 777 parts
per billion (ppb). The ``2019 Monitoring Period Level DMR PFAS Data''
(DCN OCPSF00030) includes additional information on the compounds that
were monitored, and the concentration ranges reported in DMRs.
    EPA reviewed NPDES permits for these PFAS manufacturers and
formulators to evaluate whether their permits contain effluent
limitations or monitoring requirements for PFAS compounds. One current
NPDES permit in West Virginia contains effluent limitations for two
PFAS compounds (Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Hexafluoropropylene
oxide dimer acid (HFPODA) that go into effect on September 1, 2021.
Another facility in North Carolina is under a consent decree with
requirements for no discharge of PFAS process wastewater. See DCN
OCPSF00079 for consent decree. The North Carolina facility is currently
hauling all PFAS process wastewater off-site for disposal. The consent
decree went into effect on February 25, 2019 and ends on January 31,
2023. This North Carolina facility reported detections of PFOA for 9 of
12 reporting periods in 2019 DMRs, including periods after February
2019. Four of the other PFAS manufacturers and formulators have PFAS
monitoring requirements, and no effluent limitations, in their NPDES
permits. Two Alabama facilities and one Illinois facility are operating
under expired, administratively continued NPDES permits. The NPDES
permit materials collected and reviewed are available as DCNs
OCPSF000008 to OCPSF00025.
    EPA also reviewed the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which is
managed by EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) and tracks annual environmental waste management, including
releases, of 767 individually listed chemicals and 33 chemical
categories from industrial facilities that manufacture, process, or
otherwise use these chemicals in amounts above their applicable
reporting thresholds. Release of a TRI chemical refers to an emission
to air, discharge to water, or placement in some type of land disposal.
EPA has not yet received any information or data pertaining to the
release of PFAS compounds through TRI reporting. However, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 added 172 PFAS compounds
to the TRI. TRI reporting for these PFAS will be due to EPA by July 1,
2021, for calendar year 2020 data. For additional information on the
addition of 172 PFAS to TRI, see https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/list-pfas-added-tri-ndaa.
    EPA reviewed data from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Inventory, which lists chemicals manufactured (including imported) or
processed in the United States. The TSCA Inventory, managed by the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) within OCSPP,
currently lists more than 86,000 chemicals, of which approximately half
are currently in

commerce or ``active.'' For PFAS specifically, the TSCA Inventory lists
over one thousand compounds, of which approximately half are known to
be commercially active within the last decade. The TSCA Inventory by
itself cannot be used to identify dischargers.
    EPA also reviewed the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) database, which
compiles information collected under a TSCA Section 8(a) rule that
requires chemical manufacturers (including importers) to provide EPA
with production, import, and customer use information about chemicals
in commerce. Manufacturers and importers must report to the CDR
database if they meet certain annual volume thresholds, typically
25,000 pounds, but 2,500 pounds for chemicals subject to certain TSCA
actions. EPA matched the chemicals in the 2016 CDR data (the most
recent year available) \2\ against EPA's Cross-Agency Research List \3\
and identified 118 PFAS compounds in the CDR database. See DCN
OCPSF00032 for ``2016 nonCBI CDR Data for PFAS Compounds'' and DCN
OCPSF00003 for ``EPA's CompTox Cross Agency PFAS List.'' Using this
list of CDR PFAS compounds, EPA summed the reported production volumes
to calculate a total PFAS production and importation volume of
approximately 608 million pounds for 2015. See DCN OCPSF00033 for
``Review of 2015 non-CBI CDR Data for PFAS Compounds.'' The CDR
database contains data identifying which facilities produced PFAS
compounds, but does not have any information on PFAS discharges. The
six PFAS manufacturing facilities that reported 2019 DMR data also
appear in the CDR data as domestic manufacturers of 76 separate PFAS
compounds. An additional 55 facilities appear in the CDR dataset;
however, EPA has no corresponding data on their potential PFAS
discharges. The deadline for the CDR data for the 2020 reporting cycle
is in January 2021. Additional PFAS-related data submitted by CDR sites
can be assessed shortly thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The information for the CDR is collected every four years
from manufacturers (including importers). The 2016 CDR data contains
information reported in 2016 and covering 2012 to 2015. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/basic-information-about-chemical-data-reporting#what.
    \3\ EPA's Cross-Agency Research PFAS list, from the CompTox
Chemicals Dashboard, is a manually curated listing of mainly
straight-chain and branched PFAS compiled from various internal,
literature and public sources by EPA researchers and program office
representative (https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA collected and reviewed 15 treatment technology technical
articles from a range of sources including EPA publications, federal,
state, and local government publications, PFAS manufacturers, and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs). Through these articles, EPA
identified eight potential technologies that can remove PFAS from
wastewater. These include granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis
filtration, and ion exchange. A full list of available technologies
that EPA has identified to date is included in DCN OCPSF00096.
    EPA began stakeholder outreach in July 2019 by meeting with
stakeholders to collect, on a voluntary basis, additional information
such as supplementary effluent data, information on PFAS compounds
being produced/used and discharged, and any information about treatment
technologies being used, along with their effectiveness and costs, to
augment the available information EPA reviewed. This information
gathering effort was performed under the Multi-Industry Study noted
above. The information provided by stakeholders is included in DCN
OCPSF00042-OCPSF00078.
    EPA met with the FluoroCouncil of the American Chemistry
Council,\4\ the primary trade association that represents PFAS
manufacturers and formulators, and its members. See DCN OCPSF00054 for
meeting notes. They provided EPA with technical literature concerning
PFAS terminology and classification, a list of short chain
fluorotelomers studies, an economic assessment of the U.S.
fluoropolymer industry, and the names of contacts at entities that they
identified as the sole three PFAS manufacturing companies in the United
States. These three manufacturers (with a total of six facilities)
mirrored the six facilities for which EPA found DMR data and an
additional facility for which EPA received internal monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The FluoroCouncil of the American Chemistry Council has
disbanded since EPA last spoke to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA met with representatives of one company that operates multiple
facilities that manufacture PFAS in West Virginia, New Jersey and North
Carolina. They provided EPA with a copy of the presentation they gave
during their meeting with the Agency, a copy of a New Jersey facility's
NPDES permit, data for an internal outfall at that facility, a document
addressing PFAS concerns at a North Carolina facility, and technical
literature on fluoropolymers of low concern. See DCN OCPSF00061 for
meeting notes and DCNs OCPSF00062 to OCPSF00064 for materials provided.
    EPA met with representatives of one company that operates multiple
facilities that manufacture PFAS in Alabama, Illinois and Minnesota.
Representatives of this company provided EPA with a PFAS production
history in addition to current PFAS product categories, wastewater
process flow diagrams, copies of their NPDES permits, documentation for
a direct injection analytical method, sampling data for both PFAS
manufacturing facilities and a formulating facility, and related
published literature. See DCN OCPSF00042 for meeting notes and DCNs
OCPSF00043 to OCPSF00052 for materials provided.
    EPA met with representatives of another PFAS manufacturing facility
in Alabama. See DCN OCPSF00065 for meeting notes.
    EPA spoke to a representative of another company who stated that
the company does not produce PFAS compounds in the United States. EPA
learned that this company imports products from international
manufacturing facilities and other manufacturers both inside and
outside of the United States. Those materials are further processed at
a domestic facility in Pennsylvania. See DCN OCPSF00060 for meeting
notes. EPA is not aware of any PFAS discharge data from this facility,
but EPA is requesting additional information regarding these and
similar operations through this notice.
    EPA made attempts to contact the other PFOA/PFOS Stewardship
Program https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program) companies but did
not receive any additional information. EPA continues to coordinate
with manufacturers to obtain additional information, including a list
of PFAS compounds they manufacture, documentation for the analytical
methods they use to analyze PFAS in waste streams, and PFAS analytical
data collected from source water, process water, and effluent at their
facilities.
    EPA spoke with representatives of the Michigan Department of
Environment, Great Lakes, & Energy (MI EGLE). Michigan EGLE provided
EPA with sampling data for 30 direct discharging facilities and 633
indirect discharging facilities across 44 industrial categories, mostly
for PFOA and PFOS. See DCN OCPSF00067 for direct discharging data and
DCN OCPSF00068 for indirect discharging data provided by MI EGLE.
    Four of these facilities were likely PFAS formulators based on the
concentrations of PFAS in discharges and the operations of the
facilities. EPA also reviewed an investigation report

from EPA's Region 3, looking for potential PFAS sources in Goose Creek,
Pennsylvania. From this report, EPA was able to identify another likely
PFAS formulator. See DCN OCPSF00038 for report and communications.

V. Request for Further Information on PFAS Manufacturers and
Formulators

A. PFAS Manufacturers

    EPA has identified six facilities (Alabama, North Carolina, West
Virginia, New Jersey, Illinois) in the United States that currently
manufacture PFAS compounds and have an associated wastewater discharge.
    Throughout the course of EPA's PFAS Multi-Industry Study, the
Agency worked collaboratively with stakeholders to obtain information
regarding facilities that manufacture and formulate fluorochemicals in
the United States. EPA appreciates the information that these entities
have provided to the Agency to date.\5\ This information has greatly
increased the Agency's understanding of current manufacturing
facilities, their operations, their production of fluorochemicals,
their wastewater generation activities, and their wastewater treatment
activities. After reviewing the information received to date, EPA is
inviting stakeholders to review this information and provide comment
and is seeking additional information and data to inform EPA's next
steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These data and information are contained in the docket
supporting this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, EPA is requesting the following information and data
regarding PFAS manufacturers:
    1. The identity of or suggestions for how to identify any other
facilities in the United States currently manufacturing PFAS.
    2. Descriptions of the manufacturing processes being employed at
PFAS manufacturing facilities, including process flow diagrams.
    3. Information and data on the specific PFAS compounds that are
currently being produced (including as byproducts) at these facilities
(including the product name, CAS number and class of each compound),
the quantities that are being produced, the customers or industries
that are purchasing these materials, and the quantities of materials
sold to various customers. For sales, EPA is also interested in knowing
the quantities of PFAS compounds that are exported outside of the
United States.
    4. Identification of the wastewater streams at manufacturing
facilities that contain PFAS (e.g., process wastewater, cooling water,
contaminated stormwater, wastewater from aqueous scrubbers or air
pollution control equipment, off-specification products, equipment
cleaning wastewater, spills and leaks), their volumes, characteristics,
the identity (including CAS Number), and concentrations of PFAS
compounds in those individual waste streams.
    5. Information and data on the current wastewater treatment and
management practices (including pollution prevention and product
recovery practices) being utilized at existing PFAS manufacturers.
Specific information requested includes descriptions of the treatment
technologies, their size and flow rate, process flow diagrams, capital
and operation and maintenance costs, treatment chemical utilization,
and residuals generation and management. If wastewater storage ponds
are used to hold PFAS wastewater, EPA also requests a description of
the ponds, including purpose, age, capacity, design, wastewater
characteristics, whether they are lined or unlined, and whether they
have discharge outfalls.
    6. If manufacturers are not treating PFAS containing wastewater
onsite, EPA is requesting information on the management or disposal
practices being utilized (e.g., zero liquid discharge, disposal wells,
transfer to off-site centralized waste treatment facilities or transfer
to POTWs), the volumes of wastewaters being managed via different
practices, the name and location of the facilities receiving
wastewaters, and their associated costs.
    7. Information and data on future planned process changes at
existing PFAS manufacturing facilities, any plans to change or phase-
out manufacture of specific fluorinated compounds or to increase or
decrease production of specific compounds, and any planned major
upgrades to existing manufacturing facilities or construction of new
PFAS manufacturing facilities in the United States. EPA is also
requesting information regarding any potential changes in PFAS
manufacturing processes, pollution prevention practices or chemicals
used as PFAS substitution, or use and cost of specific technologies
that can reduce the quantity of PFAS in wastewater from PFAS
manufacturing operations.
    8. EPA has collected existing publicly available DMR data and
monitoring data from known manufacturers, as well as data from TRI and
CDR databases, as indicated in the docket. These DMRs contain data on
only a subset of the total PFAS that are potentially present in
discharges from these facilities. EPA requests additional monitoring
data (see DCN OCPSF00115 for suggested data format and fields) on PFAS
compounds in wastewater discharges from PFAS manufacturing facilities.
Since there is currently no CWA-approved analytical method promulgated
for analysis of PFAS compounds in wastewater, EPA requests that
monitoring data that is submitted include information on the analytical
methods used as well as associated information and data that can be
used by EPA to determine the quality of the data. EPA also requests
comment on whether additional PFAS compounds or precursors that are not
reported in DMRs are found in wastewater discharges from these
facilities, and the quantities of such PFAS compounds, precursors, and
other organofluoride compounds found in untreated and treated
wastewaters from these facilities. In addition to data on individual
compounds, EPA is also particularly interested in data that would
provide the total quantity of organofluorides present, such as would be
provided by a Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) analysis or other assays.
    9. In addition to treatment technologies being used at the six
known PFAS manufacturing facilities, EPA is requesting additional
information and data regarding treatment and destruction technologies
for PFAS in industrial wastewater, including data on their performance,
costs (both capital and operation and maintenance), and the types,
quantities and management practices for any treatment residuals that
are generated. Data from laboratory, bench, pilot, and full-scale
facilities are requested. EPA also requests comment on the 15 treatment
technology articles included in the docket.
    10. Analytical methodologies used to monitor wastewater at PFAS
manufacturing facilities, including in house SOPs and method
performance data, including lists of specific PFAS compounds being
monitored, and any aggregate procedures (e.g., adsorbable or
extractable organic fluorine by combustion ion chromatography).
    11. Any studies that have been conducted concerning environmental
or human health impacts (e.g., toxicity, risk, fate and transfer, cross
media) of PFAS discharges from PFAS manufacturers.

B. PFAS Formulators

    EPA has identified limited publicly available information regarding
the universe of PFAS formulators. To date, EPA has identified ten
facilities (in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey) that are

potential formulators, but requests additional details regarding
formulator facilities.
    As with manufacturers, EPA is interested in obtaining additional
information and data regarding discharges of PFAS from formulators in
order to inform the Agency's decision-making regarding the need for new
or revised ELGs for these types of facilities. EPA is requesting the
following information and data from PFAS formulators:
    1. Identification of all known PFAS formulators in the United
States.
    2. Descriptions of the manufacturing processes occurring at
formulating facilities, including descriptions of how PFAS compounds
are utilized at these facilities.
    3. The SIC or NAICS codes of formulating facilities.
    4. Information and data on the PFAS compounds that are currently
being used at these facilities (including the product name, CAS number
and class of each compound), the quantities that are being used, the
quantities that are being sold or transferred for further processing or
as materials for incorporation into finished products, and the
customers or industries that are purchasing these materials and
products.
    5. Information on whether PFAS is being imported by formulators
from outside the United States, and if any formulators are exclusively
utilizing imported PFAS.
    6. The locations and number of formulating facilities, as well as
whether process wastewater associated with PFAS formulating is being
discharged at these facilities.
    7. Whether facilities have current monitoring requirements for PFAS
or other fluorocarbons.
    8. Information and data on the current wastewater treatment and
management practices (including pollution prevention and product
recovery practices) being utilized at existing PFAS formulators.
Specific information requested includes descriptions of the treatment
technologies, their size and flow rate, process flow diagrams, capital
and operation and maintenance costs, treatment chemical utilization,
and residuals generation and management. If wastewater storage ponds
are used to hold PFAS wastewater, provide a description of the ponds
including purpose, age, capacity, design, wastewater characteristics,
whether they are lined or unlined, and whether they have discharge
outfalls.
    9. For facilities that discharge process wastewater, whether
facilities are subject to national ELGs, and if so, identification of
the applicable part(s) and subpart(s) (e.g., 40 CFR 414 Subpart H) and
the wastewater discharge permit identification numbers. EPA is also
requesting copies of NPDES permits and fact sheets (or statement of
basis) for direct discharging facilities, and copies of control
agreements for indirect discharging facilities.
    10. Process flow diagrams showing where wastewater is generated.
    11. Identification of the wastewater streams at formulating
facilities that contain PFAS (e.g., process wastewater, cooling water,
contaminated stormwater, wastewater from aqueous scrubbers or air
pollution control equipment, off-specification products, equipment
cleaning wastewater, spills and leaks), their volumes, characteristics,
and concentrations of PFAS compounds in those individual waste streams.
    12. If formulators are not treating PFAS containing wastewater
onsite, EPA is requesting information on the management or disposal
practices being utilized (e.g., zero liquid discharge, disposal wells,
transfer to off-site centralized waste treatment facilities or transfer
to POTWs), the volumes of wastes being managed via different practices,
and their associated costs.
    13. Information and data on future planned process changes at
formulators, any plans to change or phase-out use of specific
fluorinated compounds or to increase or decrease production of specific
compounds, and any planned major upgrades to existing formulating
facilities or construction of new formulating facilities in the United
States.
    14. EPA has collected existing publicly available DMR data and
monitoring data from potential PFAS formulators, as well as data from
TRI and CDR databases, as indicated in the docket. These DMRs contain
data on only a subset of the total PFAS that are potentially present in
discharges from these facilities. EPA requests additional monitoring
data (see DCN OCPSF00115 for suggested data format and fields) on PFAS
compounds in wastewater discharges from PFAS formulating facilities.
Since there is currently no CWA-approved analytical method promulgated
for analysis of PFAS compounds in wastewater, EPA requests that
monitoring data that is submitted include information on the analytical
methods used as well as associated information and data that can be
used by EPA to determine the quality of the data. EPA also requests
comment on whether additional PFAS compounds or precursors that are not
reported in DMRs are found in wastewater discharges from these
facilities, and the quantities of such PFAS compounds, precursors and
other organofluoride compounds found in untreated and treated
wastewaters from these facilities. In addition to data on individual
compounds, EPA is also particularly interested in data that would
provide the total quantity of organofluorides present, such as would be
provided by a Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) analysis or other assays.
    15. EPA is interested in information regarding any potential
changes in PFAS formulating processes, pollution prevention practices
or product substitution, or use and cost of specific technologies that
can reduce the quantity of PFAS in wastewater from PFAS formulating
operations.
    16. Analytical methodologies used to monitor wastewater at PFAS
formulating facilities, including in house SOPs and method performance
data, including lists of specific PFAS compounds being monitored, and
any aggregate procedures (e.g., adsorbable or extractable organic
fluorine by combustion ion chromatography).
    17. Any studies that have been conducted concerning environmental
or human health impacts (e.g., toxicity, risk, fate and transfer, cross
media) of PFAS discharges from formulators.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is a ``significant regulatory
action'' ``because the action raises novel legal or policy issues.''
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866, and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action. Because this action does not propose or impose
any requirements, other statutory and Executive Order reviews that
apply to rulemaking do not apply. Should EPA subsequently determine to
pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address the statutes and Executive Orders
that apply to that rulemaking.
    EPA welcomes comments and/or information that would help the Agency
to assess any of the following: The potential impact of a rule on small
entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.); potential impacts on federal, state, or local governments
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538); federalism implications pursuant to Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, November 2,

1999); availability of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113; tribal implications pursuant to
Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000);
environmental health or safety effects on children pursuant to
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997); energy effects pursuant to Executive Order 13211, entitled
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Paperwork burdens
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501); or
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The Agency will consider
such comments during the development of any subsequent rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 414

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Plastics materials and
synthetics, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-05402 Filed 3-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2166]
[DOCID:fr14ja10-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice

    Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 75 FR 1425,
January 11, 2010.

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Thursday, January 14,
2010 at 2 p.m.

Change in the Meeting: Additional Item.
    The following item has been added to the Thursday, January 14, 2010
Closed Meeting agenda: Post argument discussion.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, determined that Commission
business required the above change.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 11, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-649 Filed 1-12-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 33138]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10951]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1862-000]

Roundhouse Renewable Energy II, LLC; 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
Roundhouse Renewable Energy II, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, 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 June 6, 2023.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 17, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10951 Filed 5-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


RobertJ Wayland/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 04/ 05/ 2006 04: 57 PM To etoy@ omb. eop. gov cc Walt Stevenson/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Cathy Coats/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Brian Shrager/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Penny Lassiter/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject Materials for Large MWC Meeting Edmond

As we discussed earlier today by phone, I've enclosed several items for your review in preparation for next week's discussion on the 5 Year Technical Review for Large MWCs:

( 1) Short Briefing Package ( 2) Redline Version Comparing the Informal OMB version vs. the current version of the package ( 3) Current Draft Version of the Package  formal version to follow on April 12 ( 4) Technical Information to Support the Changes in the Emission Limits I think this will provide us enough information to discuss next Wednesday. Please let me know if you need any addition information.

thanx! bob ************************************************************ Dr. Robert J. Wayland Leader, Energy Strategies Group U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243 01 RTP, NC 27711 ************************************************************ Phone: ( 919) 541 1045 Cell: ( 919) 306 2290 Fax: ( 919) 541 5450 ************************************************************ e mail: wayland. robertj@ epa. gov ************************************************************


[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78936-78939]
[DOCID:fr24de08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0123; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-056-AD;
Amendment 39-15763; AD 2008-25-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-
12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43
Airplanes; Model DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, and DC-8-55 Airplanes;
Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; Model DC-8-61, DC-8-62, and DC-
8-63 Airplanes; Model DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, and DC-8-63F Airplanes; Model
DC-8-71, DC-8-72, and DC-8-73 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F,
and DC-8-73F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 airplanes. That
AD currently requires, among other things, revision of an existing
program of structural inspections. This new AD requires implementation
of a revised program of structural inspections of baseline structure to
detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's
original fatigue design life goal. This new AD also reduces the
inspection threshold for certain principal structural elements. This AD
results from a significant number of these airplanes approaching or
exceeding the design service goal on which the initial type
certification approval was predicated. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise the structural
integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 28, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 28,
2009.
    On February 26, 1993 (58 FR 5576, January 22, 1993), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
certain other publications.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 93-01-15,
amendment 39-8469 (58 FR 5576, January 22, 1993). The existing AD
applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 airplanes. That
supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 29,
2008 (73 FR 50906). That supplemental NPRM proposed to continue to
require, among other things, revision of an existing program of
structural inspections. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require
implementation of a revised program of structural inspections of
baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes as they approach
the manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal. That supplemental
NPRM also proposed to reduce the inspection threshold for certain
principal structural elements.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 194 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                         Average                           U.S.-
             Action                    Work hours       labor rate   Cost per operator   registered   Fleet cost
                                                         per hour                        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision of maintenance           544 per operator             $80  $43,520, per                131     $739,840
 inspection program (required by   (17 U.S.                          operator.
 AD 93-01-15.                      operators).
Revision of maintenance program   250 per operator              80  $20,000...........          131      340,000
 and inspections (new actions).    (17 U.S.
                                   operators).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII,

Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, ``General requirements.'' Under
that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-8469 (58 FR 5576, January 22, 1993) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2008-25-05 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-15763. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0123; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-056-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective January 28, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 93-01-15.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas airplanes
identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category.

                         Table 1--Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Model
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-
 42, and DC-8-43 airplanes.
(2) DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, and DC-8-55 airplanes.
(3) DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 airplanes.
(4) DC-8-61, DC-8-62, and DC-8-63 airplanes.
(5) DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, and DC-8-63F airplanes.
(6) DC-8-71, DC-8-72, and DC-8-73 airplanes.
(7) DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a significant number of these airplanes
approaching or exceeding the design service goal on which the
initial type certification approval was predicated. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise
the structural integrity of these airplanes.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Certain Requirements of AD 93-01-15

Revise the FAA-Approved Maintenance Inspection Program

    (f) Within 6 months after February 26, 1993 (the effective date
of AD 93-01-15), incorporate a revision of the FAA-approved
maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the
required inspection of the Principal Structural Elements (PSEs)
defined in sections 2 and 3 of Volume I of McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-011, ``DC-8 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Revision 3, dated March 1991, in accordance with section 2 of Volume
III-91, dated April 1991, of that document. The non-destructive
inspection techniques set forth in sections 2 and 3 of Volume II,
Revision 5, dated March 1991, of that SID provide acceptable methods
for accomplishing the inspections required by this AD. All
inspection results, negative or positive, must be reported to
McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions of section 2
of Volume III-91 of the SID. Information collection requirements
contained in this regulation have been approved by the OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Corrective Action

    (g) Cracked structure detected during the inspections required
by paragraph (f) of this AD must be repaired before further flight,
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.

New Requirements of This AD

Revision of the Maintenance Inspection Program

    (h) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate a revision of the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program that provides for inspection(s) of the PSEs, in accordance
with Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008.
Incorporation of this revision ends the requirements of paragraphs
(f) and (g) of this AD.

Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs)

    (i) For all PSEs listed in Section 2 of Boeing Report No. L26-
011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008, perform an NDI for fatigue
cracking of each PSE, in accordance with the NDI procedures
specified in Section 2 of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-011,
``DC-8 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume II, Revision
8, dated January 2005, at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1),
(i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that have less than three quarters of the
fatigue life threshold (\3/4\NTH) as of the effective
date of this AD: Perform the NDI for fatigue cracking at the times
specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD. After
reaching the threshold (NTH), repeat the inspection for
that PSE at intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
    (i) Perform an initial NDI no earlier than one-half of the
threshold (\1/2\NTH) but before reaching three-quarters
of the threshold (\3/4\NTH), or within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Repeat the NDI no earlier than \3/4\NTH but
before reaching the threshold (NTH), or within 18 months
after the inspection required by paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

    Note 1: The DC-8 SID and this AD refer to the repetitive
inspection interval as [Delta]NDI/2. However, the headings of the
tables in section 4 of Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008, of
the DC-8 SID refer to the repetitive inspection interval of NDI/2.
The values listed under NDI/2 in the tables in section 4 of Volume
I, Revision 7, dated March 2008, of the DC-8 SID are the repetitive
inspection intervals, [Delta]NDI/2.

    (2) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded three-quarters
of the fatigue life threshold (\3/4\NTH), but less than
the threshold (NTH), as of the effective date of this AD:
Perform an NDI before reaching the threshold

(NTH), or within 18 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later. Thereafter, after passing the
threshold (NTH), repeat the inspection for that PSE at
intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
    (3) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (NTH) as of the effective date of this AD:
Perform an NDI within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals not to
exceed [Delta]NDI/2.

Discrepant Findings

    (j) If any discrepancy (e.g., differences on the airplane from
the NDI reference standard, such as PSEs that cannot be inspected as
specified in McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume II, Revision 8,
dated January 2005, or do not match rework, repair, or modification
descriptions in Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 7,
dated March 2008) is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (i) of this AD, do the action specified in paragraph
(j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection done
before \3/4\NTH or NTH: The area of the PSE
affected by the discrepancy must be inspected before NTH
or within 18 months after the discovery of the discrepancy,
whichever occurs later, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (2) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection done
after NTH: The area of the PSE affected by the
discrepancy must be inspected before the accumulation of an
additional [Delta]NDI/2 or within 18 months after the discovery of
the discrepancy, whichever occurs later, in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Reporting Requirements

    (k) All negative or positive findings of the inspections done in
accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD must be reported to Boeing
at the times specified in, and in accordance with, the instructions
contained in section 4 of Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All
Series Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision
7, dated March 2008. Information collection requirements contained
in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control
Number 2120-0056.

Corrective Actions

    (l) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Accomplish the
actions described in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this
AD, at the times specified.
    (1) Within 18 months after repair, do a damage tolerance
assessment (DTA) that defines the threshold for inspection of the
repair and submit the assessment for approval.
    (2) Before reaching 75 percent of the repair threshold as
determined in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, submit the inspection
methods and repetitive inspection intervals for the repair for
approval.
    (3) Before the repair threshold, as determined in paragraph
(l)(1) of this AD, incorporate the inspection method and repetitive
inspection intervals into the FAA-approved structural maintenance or
inspection program for the airplane.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, we anticipate that
submissions of the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, should be
approved within 6 months after submission.

    Note 3: FAA Order 8110.54, ``Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness, Responsibilities, Requirements, and Contents'' dated
July 1, 2005, provides additional guidance about the approval of
repairs to PSEs.

Inspection for Transferred Airplanes

    (m) Before any airplane that has exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (NTH) can be added to an air carrier's
operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the
inspections required by this AD must be established as specified in
paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with
this AD: The inspection of each PSE must be done by the new operator
in accordance with the previous operator's schedule and inspection
method, or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at
whichever time would result in the earlier accomplishment date for
that PSE inspection. The compliance time for accomplishing this
inspection must be measured from the last inspection done by the
previous operator. After each inspection has been done once, each
subsequent inspection must be done in accordance with the new
operator's schedule and inspection method.
    (2) For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance
with this AD: The inspection of each PSE required by this AD must be
done either before adding the airplane to the air carrier's
operations specification, or in accordance with a schedule and an
inspection method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. After
each inspection has been done once, each subsequent inspection must
be done in accordance with the new operator's schedule.

Acceptable for Compliance

    (n) McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 91K0262, ``DC-8 Aging
Aircraft Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1, dated
October 2000, provides inspection/replacement programs for certain
repairs to the fuselage pressure shell. Accomplishing these repairs
and inspection/replacement programs before the effective date of
this AD is considered acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (l) of this AD for repairs
subject to that document.
    (o) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6,
dated July 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (p)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, ATTN: Dara Albouyeh,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 93-01-15 are
approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (q) You must use the service information identified in Table 2
of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, as
applicable, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

               Table 2--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Service information         Revision level             Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Report No. L26-011,    7...................  March 2008.
 ``DC-8 All Series
 Supplemental Inspection
 Document (SID),'' Volume I.
McDonnell Douglas Report No.  3...................  March 1991.
 L26-011, ``DC-8
 Supplemental Inspection
 Document (SID),'' Volume I.
McDonnell Douglas Report No.  8...................  January 2005.
 L26-011, ``DC-8
 Supplemental Inspection
 Document (SID),'' Volume II.

McDonnell Douglas Report No.  Original............  April 1991.
 L26-011, ``DC-8
 Supplemental Inspection
 Document (SID),'' Volume
 III-91.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008,
contains the following effective pages:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pages                   Revision           Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Effective Pages, Pages A               7  March 2008.
 through C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume II, Revision 8, dated January
2005, contains the following effective pages:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pages                   Revision           Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Effective Pages, Pages A               8  March 2008.
 through L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All
Series Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision
7, dated March 2008; and McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-011, ``DC-
8 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume II, Revision 8,
dated January 2005; in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
    (2) On February 26, 1993 (58 FR 5576, January 22, 1993), the
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 3,
dated March 1991; and McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume III-91, dated April
1991.
    (3) Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data &
Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long
Beach, California 90846-0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information that is
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221 or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 26, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-29233 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P