[Federal Register: July 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 146)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44920-44924]
[DOCID:fr30jy10-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9183-2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the SMS Instruments, Inc.
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, announces
the deletion of the SMS Instruments, Inc. Superfund Site (Site),
located in Deer Park, Suffolk County, New York, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the
State of New York, through the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), because EPA has determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 13, 2010
unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by August 30, 2010. If
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public
that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: to the attention of Mark Dannenberg at (212) 637-
3966.
     Mail: Mark Dannenberg, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway,
18th Floor, and New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Record Center's normal hours of
operation (Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
being CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or
via e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comments. If you
send e-mail comments to EPA, your e-mail address will be included as
part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made
available on the Web site. If you submit electronic comments, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comments and with any disks or CD-ROMs that you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comments due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comments. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
     Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New
York, NY 10007-1866. Hours: Monday to Friday

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Region 1, SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, New York
11790, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Dannenberg, Remedial Project
Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the SMS Instruments Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is
the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that
present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in
Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains
eligible for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such
action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective September 13, 2010 unless EPA
receives significant adverse comments by August 30, 2010. Along with
this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of
Intent to Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period of this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective
date of the deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will,
if appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the
comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to
comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the SMS Instruments, Inc.
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; or
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release of
hazardous substances poses no significant threat to public health or
the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not
appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the state of New York prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the state, through the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, has concurred on the deletion of the Site
from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in The South Bay News, a major
local newspaper. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following summary provides EPA's rationale for deleting SMS
Instruments Superfund Site (EPA ID: NYD001533165) from the NPL:

Background

    The Site is a 1.5-acre facility located at 120 Marcus Boulevard in
Deer Park, New York. The facility was in operation from 1967 to 1990.
The Site is in a light industrial and residential area and includes a
34,000 square-foot building. About 90% of the lot is covered by either
the building or asphalt pavement. Primary operations at the SMS
Instruments facility consisted of overhauling of military aircraft
components which included the following operations: Cleaning, painting,
degreasing, refurbishing, metal machining, and testing of components.
Industrial wastes generated from degreasing and other refurbishing
operations were discharged to a leaching pool on Site. Other sources of
contamination included a 6,000 gallon Underground Storage Tank (UST)
used for jet fuel storage and corroded and leaking drums stored
outdoors in an unprotected area.
    The site is located on the outwash plain of Long Island. The site
elevation is approximately 75 feet above mean sea level. Topography is
generally flat with the exception of a steep embankment leading to a
large basin 50 feet from the eastern property line. The basin is within
a major recharge zone for both

the Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers, which supply water to the
entire island. The uppermost aquifer, the Upper Glacial, underlies the
site. The depth to the water table is approximately 20 feet below
grade. The saturated portion of the Upper Glacial aquifer, with a
thickness of 100 feet, begins at the water table and extends down to
120 feet below grade. The Upper Glacial aquifer is underlain by the
Magothy aquifer which is approximately 900 feet thick in the vicinity
of the site. The groundwater flow direction is southerly for the Upper
Glacial aquifer. Land use within the immediate vicinity of the site is
light industrial, but predominant land use in the surrounding area is
commercial and residential. Approximately 5,000 residences are within 1
mile of the site.
    A preliminary assessment of the Site was performed by EPA in 1982
to determine its hazard ranking. Based upon the analytical results,
which indicated that the groundwater in the vicinity of the Site
contained various volatile organic compounds, the Site was listed on
the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites
as a ``Class 2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Site'' in 1985.
    The Site was added to the NPL on June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The first Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for
the site was initiated in April 1987 and completed in June 1989.
Through the site investigations, EPA determined that the contaminants
of concern present in soils, and in the groundwater were volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Contaminants of concern at the site included
benzene, toluene, chlorobenzene and xylene in both soils and
groundwater. The site-related VOC groundwater contaminant plume was
determined to have a cross-width of less than 70 feet and to extend
vertically into the shallow portion (upper 40 saturated feet) of the
Upper Glacial aquifer. In addition, EPA determined from the risk
assessment that the contaminants in the groundwater in the shallow
portion of the Upper Glacial aquifer at the site, if not addressed,
pose an unacceptable cancer risk and noncancer hazard. Groundwater
contamination was also identified in the groundwater upgradient of the
site which was attributed to upgradient sources other than those at the
SMS Instruments site. Groundwater remediation addressed both site-
related and upgradient contaminant to State and Federal drinking water
standards.

Selected Remedy

    A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on September 29, 1989 for
Operable Unit 1 (OU-1), which addressed contaminated soil and
groundwater related to the Site. The ROD selected two media-specific
remediation actions, one for soil and one for groundwater. The
following are the Remedial Action Objectives: (1) Remove the site-
related sources of contamination into the groundwater to expedite
compliance with Federal and State groundwater standards; (2) prevent
potential future ingestion of site-related contaminated groundwater;
(3) restore the quality of groundwater contaminated from the site-
related activities to levels consistent with the Federal and State
drinking water and groundwater quality standards; and (4) mitigate
migration from the site of the site-related contaminated groundwater.
The ROD specified the following remedial action components: (1) In-situ
air stripping (soil vapor extraction), of the contaminated soil in the
southeastern portion of the property in the area of high VOC
contamination; (2) extraction of the site-related groundwater
contaminant plume present in the upper 50 feet of the saturated Upper
Glacial aquifer; (3) treatment of contaminated groundwater to drinking
water standards; (4) reinjection of the treated groundwater into the
Upper Glacial aquifer; and (5) disposal of treatment residuals, as
appropriate.
    As a requirement of the first ROD for the Site a second RI/FS was
performed (as Operable Unit 2 (OU-2)) to determine the presence/
existence of offsite, upgradient sources of contamination. No
upgradient sources of contamination were found and a ROD for OU-2 was
signed on September 27, 1993 which selected a ``no-action'' remedy.

Response Actions

    The owner of the property negotiated a settlement with EPA in 1988
and the EPA took over all work associated with OU-1 and OU-2 Remedial
Design and Remedial Action activities. The Remedial Design of the
remedies was performed by CDM Federal, Inc. on behalf of EPA. The
Remedial Action was implemented in two phases: Soil remediation and
groundwater remediation.

Soil Remediation

    Based on data from the RI and knowledge of the locations of the two
primary source areas, namely, the underground cesspool and former UST,
EPA's contractor (CDM Federal, Inc.) prepared a remedial design for a
Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVE) to remediate these source areas. CDM
Federal, Inc. initiated the construction of the SVE system in October
1991; the construction was completed in April 1992 and operation of the
SVE system began shortly thereafter. Soil contamination in the soil
vadose zone, within each of the two source areas, was remediated of
VOCs (predominantly benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX))
down to the water table depth approximately 20 feet below ground
surface. Operation of the SVE system continued until November 1993,
when it was determined (and confirmed by soil sampling) that all soil
cleanup levels had been achieved. During the soil remedial action
activities, CDM collected groundwater samples to monitor the
contaminant levels at the site. In addition, CDM's subcontractor
continuously monitored the influent and effluent air streams to, and
from, the SVE system to assure treatment was being performed in
accordance with the performance requirements of the site-specific
Monitoring Plan. Demobilization of soil remediation equipment occurred
in March 1994. A Remedial Action Report, documenting the completion of
the remedial action, was approved by EPA on September 22, 1994.

Groundwater Remediation

    On-site construction activities were initiated in August 1993.
Construction of the groundwater treatment system was completed in June
1994. The system began full operation in September 1994. The
groundwater remedy consisted of pumping contaminated groundwater out of
the aquifer, treating it through air stripping and carbon adsorption,
and reinjecting it into the aquifer. The Remedial Action Report
documenting the completion of the construction of the groundwater
remediation system at the site was signed on March 31, 1995. The total
flow rate through the treatment plant was approximately 90 gallons per
minute (gpm), pumped from two extraction wells. The system was in
almost continuous operation from September 1994 through September 2005,
treating a total of approximately 500 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater. It should be noted that, due to frequent clogging of the
injection wells, permission was granted (from the Town of Babylon) to
discontinue use of the injection wells and discharge the treated
groundwater directly into the recharge basin located adjacent to the
site. The requirements for this discharge

are the same as those for reinjection back into the aquifer. The
groundwater treatment plant was decommissioned in 2007. The final
building demolition and concrete foundation removal was completed in
December 2007. In May 2008, NYSDEC issued the Final Pump and Treat
System Dismantlement Report.
    In 2005, EPA secured a REAC Contract with EarthTech, Inc. to pilot
an alternative technology in order to decrease the time frame and the
cost required to remediation groundwater contamination at the Site.
EarthTech, Inc. built a transportable air-sparging system, installed
the system on Site, attached the system to sparging wells, and began
operating the system in May 2005. The air-sparging system successfully
remediated the residual contamination that was the source of ongoing
groundwater contamination. The air-sparging system was turned off in
January 2010.

Cleanup Goals

    The table below summarizes the cleanup goals for the soils and
groundwater:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Cleanup        Chemical specific
                                     objectives for        ARAR for
           Contaminant              subsurface soil       groundwater
                                       ([mu]g/kg)          ([mu]g/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trans-1,2 dichloroethane.........                500                 5
Tetrachloroethene................              1,500                 0.7
Trichloroethene..................              1,000                 5
Total Xylenes....................              1,200                 5
Ethylbenzene.....................              5,500                 5
Chlorobenzene....................              1,600                 5
1,1-dichloroethane...............  .................                 5
1,4-dichlorobenzene..............              1,000                 4.7
1,3-dichlorobenzene..............              1,500                 5
1,2-dichlorobenzene..............              1,000                 4.7
Naphthalene......................              1,000                 5
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene...........              3,600                 5
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene...........              8,400                 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Groundwater monitoring was performed quarterly from 1994 to 2002
and at least semi-annually from 2003 to 2005. From 2005 to 2010,
groundwater monitoring was conducted on an annual basis. When the
groundwater pump and treat system was shut down in 2005, groundwater
monitoring results indicated excursions of contaminant concentrations
above cleanup goals localized in the vicinity of monitoring well MW-6S.
Once the air-sparging unit began operation, groundwater monitoring data
in 2008 and 2009 indicated three slight excursions above drinking water
standards at the same monitoring well. The last groundwater monitoring
event, in January 2010, indicated compliance with NYS Class GA drinking
water standards for all site-related and upgradient contaminants in all
site-related monitoring wells, including monitoring well MW-6S.

Five-Year Review

    Hazardous substances at the Site are at levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Pursuant to Section 121(c) of
CERCLA, EPA reviews site remedies where such hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain no less often than every five years
after the initiation of a remedy at a site. EPA conducted a five-year
review of the Site in July 2006. The five-year review led EPA to
conclude that human health and the environment are being protected by
the remedial action implemented at the Site. As hazardous substances at
the Site are at levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, no future five-year reviews are necessary.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied
as required in CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117. As part of the remedy
selection process, the public was invited to comment on EPA's proposed
remedies. All other documents and information which EPA relied on or
considered in recommending this deletion are available for the public
to review at the information repositories identified above.

Applicable Deletion Criteria/Statute Concurrence

    All of the completion requirements for this Site have been met, as
described in EPA's July 2010 Final Close Out Report. The State of New
York, in a July 7, 2010 letter concurred on the proposed deletion of
this Site from the NPL.
    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented,
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.''
40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New
York, through NYSDEC, believes that this criterion for deletion has
been met. Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL.
Documents supporting this action are available in the Site files.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, through
NYSDEC, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have
been completed and that no further response actions under CERCLA are
necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective September 13, 2010 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
August 30, 2010. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period of this action, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective
date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will,
if appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the
comments received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 20, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, USEPA, Region 2.

0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR Part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``SMS
Instruments, Inc,'' ``Deer Park'', ``NY.''

[FR Doc. 2010-18774 Filed 7-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for Metallic Mineral processing Plants ( Subpart LL)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for the regulations published at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL, Metallic Mineral Processing Plants were proposed on August 24, 1982 and promulgated on February 21, 1984. These regulations apply to the following facilities at metallic mineral processing plants: each crusher and screen in open pit mines; each crusher, screen, bucket elevator, conveyor belt transfer point, thermal dryer, product packaging station, storage bin, enclosed storage area, truck loading and unloading station at the mill or concentrator, commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. The NSPS does not apply to facilities located in underground mines, or to facilities performing the beneficiation of uranium ore at uranium ore processing plants, commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Agency ( EPA) Regional Office.

Approximately 22 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no additional sources per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. The total industry burden hours associated with this subpart is estimated to be 1,760. The industry cost associated with this subpart is estimated to be $ 97,398.40.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), as amended, to 2 establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

... application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section 111( a)( l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter from metallic mineral processing plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of particulate matter from metallic mineral processing plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulate matter from metallic mineral processing plants are the result of operation of the affected facilities. The subject standards are achieved by the capture of particulate matter emissions using a baghouse or wet scrubber. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions, i. e., temperature, pressure, flow rate, under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL.

3( a) Nonduplication 3 If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or local agency. If a State or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2001,( 66FR54514). No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.5.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions. 4 5 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are metallic mineral processing plants. The SIC codes ( U. S. Standard Industrial Classification) and corresponding NAICS codes ( The North American Industry Classification System) for the respondents affected by the standards can be found in the table below.

Regulation SIC Codes NAICS Codes 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL 1001 21221 1021 212234 1031 212231 1041 212221 1044 212222 1061 212234, 212299 1099 212299 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL.

A source must make the following reports:

Reports for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL Construction/ reconstruction 60.7( a)( 1)

Anticipated startup 60.7( a)( 2)

Actual startup 60.7( a)( 3)

Initial performance test results 60.8 ( a)

Initial performance test 60.8( d)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system 60.7( a)( 5)

Physical or operational change 60.7( a)( 4) 6 Reports for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL Semi annual reports of scrubber pressure loss and scrubbing liquid flow rate 60.385( c)

A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative. 60.7( b)

Measurements of both the change in pressure of the gas stream across the scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate. 60.385( b)

Records are required to be retained for two years. 60.7( f)

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity, or for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for wet scrubber.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 9 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information. 7 5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS ( Aerometric Information Retrieval System) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) database.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory agencies, EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years. 8 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility There are no small businesses affected by this regulation.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 2: Industry Burden.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the Subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 1,760 ( Total Labor Hours from Table 2). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a Technical Labor Rate of $ 55.34 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2000, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rate is from column 1, " Total compensation." The wage rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are the continuous monitoring devices associated with the wet scrubber. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The 9 annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuou s Monitoring Device ( B) Startup Cost ($) for One Affected Facility ( C) Number of New Affected Facilities to Startup ( D) Total Startup ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs ($) for One Affected Facility ( F) Number of Affected Facilities with O& M ( G) Total O& M ( E X F)

Wet Scrubber n/ a 0 0 $ 650 22 $ 14,300 Since there are no new sources anticipated over the next three years, there are no capital costs associated with this information collection. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs, on the OMB 83 I form. It should be noted that the numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 14,300. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M), on the OMB 83 I form.

The total respondent non labor costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 14,300. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 ( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Agency cost during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be 10 $ 6,740.80. [ See Table 1 in Section 6( e)]. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 38.30.

These rates are from the Office of Planning and Management's ( OPM) " 2002 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1, below.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Respondent Universe Regulation Citation ( A) Number of New Sources/ Year ( B) Number of Initial Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Sources ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Sources ( E) Total Annual Responses ( AxB)+( CxD)

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL 0 0 22 2 44 The number of total respondents is 22. This number is the sum of Column A and Column C of the Respondent Universe table. This represents the number of existing sources plus the number of new sources averaged over the three year period. It is shown in block 13 ( a), Number of respondents, on the OMB 83 I form.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 44. This is the number in column E of the Respondent Universe table. It is shown in block 13 ( b), Total annual responses, on the OMB 83 I form. The total annual labor costs are $ 97,398.40. This number is not shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c), Total hours requested. Only the burden hours are reflected in block 13( c). Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost.

The total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 14,300. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 ( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents appear in Tables 1 and 2.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden Although there have been changes in ownership and consolidation within the industry, the estimated number of facilities subject to this subpart has not changed from the previous ICR. In addition, we do not expect any growth in the industry over the next three years. Therefore, the estimated number of burden hours on industry for the next three years will not change from the 11 previous ICR.

When estimating labor costs, the previous ICR did not include the costs associated with benefit packages available to private industry employees. To account for these benefits in estimating labor costs, the estimated hourly rate increased from $ 23.80 to $ 55.34. This resulted in an overall increase in the annual industry cost burden from $ 41,888.00 to $ 97,398.40. A slight increase in the federal employee pay scale also increased the annual cost burden on the federal government from $ 6,582.40 to $ 6,740.80.

6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's standards are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T), Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 0982.07 and OMB Control Number 2060 0016 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register: January 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 7)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1289-1291]
[DOCID:fr11ja07-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0638; FRL-8267-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Control of Volatile Organic Compounds From Medical Device
Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment. This revision
pertains to the control of volatile organic compounds from medical
device manufacturing. EPA is approving this revision in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on February 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0638. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic

docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (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 for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment,
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Miller,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 31, 2006 and July 5, 2006, the State of Maryland submitted a
revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision
(06-04) establishes the Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirement for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) for
medical device manufacturing. Medical Device manufacturing includes the
manufacturing of hypodermic products, syringes, catheters, blood
handling and other medical devices. EPA proposed approval of the SIP
revision on October 10, 2006 (71 FR 59413).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The revision establishes the Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirement for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) for
medical device manufacturing installations that emit or have the
potential to emit, 100 pounds or more per day of VOC emissions.
    Other specific requirements of the provisions of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>
and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR
and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the
NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the VOC RACT requirements for medical device
manufacturing including the manufacture of hypodermic products,
syringes, catheters, blood handling and other medical devices as a
revision to the Maryland SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves

state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 rule 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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 12, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 to approve VOC RACT requirements for
medical device manufacturing 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, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 4, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                      EPA--Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Maryland administrative                                  State                                              Additional explanation/ citation at
  regulations (COMAR) citation         Title/subject        effective date            EPA approval date                        40 CFR 52.1100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Control of Volatile                6/5/06  1/11/07 [Insert page number where the
                                  Organic Compounds from                     document begins]
                                  Medical Device
                                  Manufacturing.

                                                                       * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-250 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P