[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42007-42008]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16915]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0502; FRL-9912-84]

Ace Info Solutions, Inc. and Adventure Solutions, Prospect
Infosystems, Camber Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC,
Peridot Solutions and KForce; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Ace Info Solutions, Inc. and
its subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect Infosystems, Camber
Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC, Peridot Solutions and
KForce, in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Ace Info
Solutions, Inc. and its subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect
Infosystems, Camber Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC,
Peridot Solutions and KForce, have been awarded a contract to perform
work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Ace Info
Solutions, Inc. and its subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect
Infosystems, Camber Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC,
Peridot Solutions and KForce, to fulfill the obligations of the
contract.

DATES: Ace Info Solutions, Inc. and its subcontractor, Adventure
Solutions, Prospect Infosystems, Camber Government Solutions, Inc, EMT
Technologies, LLC, Peridot Solutions and KForce, will be given access
to this information on or before July 23, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mario Steadman, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0502. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. GS-06F-0667Z, Ace Info Solutions, Inc. and its
subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect Infosystems, Camber
Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC, Peridot Solutions and
KForce, will perform Information Systems Infrastructure Operations,
Software Maintenance and Development, and Website Management Services.
The contractor shall provide such support for all project-related
issues associated with all OPP information systems residing on Windows
servers, Linux servers, VMware servers, the OPP SAN, the Oracle Real
Application Cluster, and all other platforms as required that are
currently written for Oracle, Java/J2EE, Documentum, Business Objects,
Cold Fusion, Dreamweaver, Adobe, Macromedia, and other application
development platforms, as necessary. Support is needed to ensure that
OPPIN/PRISM information systems remain readily available to OPP
personnel via the LAN and OPP external customers via the Intranet/
Internet and other mechanisms (Citrix, remote access via RSA tokens,
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) sites).
    OPP has determined that access by Ace Info Solutions, Inc. and its
subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect Infosystems, Camber
Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC, Peridot Solutions and
KForce, to information on all pesticide chemicals is necessary for the
performance of this contract.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the
contract with Ace Info Solutions, Inc. and its subcontractor, Adventure
Solutions, Prospect Infosystems, Camber Government Solutions, Inc, EMT
Technologies, LLC, Peridot Solutions and KForce, prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits
disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written
approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee
of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Ace Info Solutions, Inc. and
its subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect Infosystems, Camber
Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC, Peridot Solutions and
KForce, are required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under
which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized
release or compromise. No information will be provided to Ace Info
Solutions, Inc. and its subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect
Infosystems, Camber Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC,
Peridot Solutions and KForce, until the requirements in this document
have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to Ace Info
Solutions, Inc. and its subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect
Infosystems, Camber Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC,
Peridot Solutions and KForce, will be maintained by EPA Project
Officers for this contract. All information supplied to Ace Info
Solutions, Inc. and its subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect
Infosystems, Camber Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC,
Peridot Solutions and KForce, by EPA for use in connection with this
contract will be returned to EPA when Ace Info Solutions, Inc. and its
subcontractor, Adventure Solutions, Prospect Infosystems, Camber
Government Solutions, Inc, EMT Technologies, LLC, Peridot Solutions and
KForce, have completed their work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: July 1, 2014.
Michael Hardy,
Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-16915 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8926-8927]
[DOCID:fr15fe08-129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Temporary Suspension of Amateur-Built Aircraft Kit
Evaluations Previously Conducted by the Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the temporary suspension of courtesy
amateur-built aircraft kit evaluations that have been provided by the
FAA. The purpose of these evaluations was to indicate if a
prefabricated amateur-built aircraft kit could be eligible for
certification as an amateur-built aircraft. Although kit evaluations
have been suspended, amateur-built kit manufacturers may continue to
develop, manufacture, market and sell their aircraft kits.
Airworthiness certifications conducted by the FAA in response to
requests from amateur-builders for their individually fabricated and
constructed aircraft will continue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank P. Paskiewicz, Manager,
Production and Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service,
AIR-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, Certification
Procedures for Products and Parts, Sec.  21.191 (Experimental
Certificates) form the regulatory basis for fabricating, assembling,
and operating amateur-built aircraft. Specifically, Sec.  21.191(g)
defines an amateur-built aircraft as ``an aircraft the major portion of
which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the
construction project solely for their own education or recreation.''
    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aircraft Certification
Service established an Amateur-Built Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) on July 26, 2006.\1\ The ARC was made up of representatives from
the FAA, aircraft kit manufacturers, commercial assistance center
owners, and associations. The purpose of the ARC was to make
recommendations regarding the use of builder or commercial assistance
when fabricating and assembling amateur-built aircraft under Sec.
21.191(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAA Order 1110.143, dated July 26, 2006, established the
Amateur-Built Aviation Rulemaking Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ARC concluded that the current FAA Directives and Advisory
Circulars are no longer adequate. Current technologies that allow for
the fabrication and assembly of sophisticated amateur-built aircraft
were not envisioned at the time Sec.  21.191(g) was promulgated or when
the current forms and methodology were developed. Most amateur-built
aircraft kits were generally simple to fabricate and assemble and did
not require commercial builder assistance.
    FAA has provided the aforementioned amateur-built kit evaluations
in response to manufacturer's requests to determine if the percentage
of the kit completed by the manufacturer would leave the major portion
(51%) of the work to be completed by the amateur-builder. These
evaluations are not a regulatory requirement. Rather, these evaluations
have been a courtesy that FAA has provided for the convenience of the
kit manufacturers, their customers, and FAA Inspectors. These
evaluations have allowed the FAA to pre-evaluate amateur-built kits to
determine (when built according to the manufacturer's instructions) if
the kits could be eligible for an Experimental Airworthiness
Certificate under 14 CFR Part 21 Sec.  21.191, Experimental
Certificates. When a kit has been found to be eligible, it is added to
the FAA's

kit listing, which is available via the internet to prospective buyers.
These kit evaluations inform prospective applicants that they could be
eligible for an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate if
they completed their aircraft in compliance with the FAA-evaluated
assembly and instruction manuals and fabricated and constructed the
aircraft in compliance with 14 CFR part 21, Sec.  21.191(g).
    The method of determining what constitutes the major portion of
construction has undergone several changes since the rule was first
codified. When FAA staff developed the commonly used form 8000-38,
``Fabrication and Assembly Operation Checklist'', to calculate major
portion, the intent was that a single check mark in a column on the
form would identify who did the task. Some manufacturers and FAA
representatives calculate major portion by using a ``task-based''
accounting mechanism that incorporates a ``dual-check'' system whereby
an amateur-builder may be given shared credit even if that person does
not complete 50% of the task. When this is used in practice, the kit
manufacturer and amateur-builder share credit on the Form 8000-38. It
was not envisioned that credit for a task would be offered to an
amateur-builder simply assisting in the fabrication and assembly, as is
happening today in some cases.
    The FAA will resume amateur-built kit evaluations after issuing
final policy changes. Prior to publishing the final policy, FAA will
solicit comments on draft policy, internal orders and advisory
circulars through a notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: February 11, 2008.
Frank Paskiewicz,
Manager, Production and Airworthiness Division.
[FR Doc. 08-704 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30237-30243]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11341]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2021-0142; FRL-10023-45-Region 10]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (also, ``the
Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is proposing technical amendments
to an existing exclusion from the list of federal hazardous waste
(delisting) issued to the United States Department of Energy (Energy)
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These modifications
address changes to the 200-Area Effluent Treatment System associated
with the delisting necessary to accept liquid effluents expected to be
generated from vitrification of certain low-activity mixed wastes at
the Hanford Federal Facility, or Hanford Site, in Richland, Washington.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2021. Requests
for an informal hearing must reach the EPA by June 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2021-0142 via www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Due to restrictions related to COVID-19,
submission of comments via mail or hand delivery is not feasible at
this time.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-
2021-0142. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless

the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any physical media you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Any person may request an informal hearing on this proposed
decision by filing a request with Timothy Hamlin, Director, Land,
Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Ave.,
Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 98101. The request must
contain the information prescribed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
CFR 260.20(d).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through www.regulations.gov. Due to restrictions related
to COVID-19, docket materials are not available in hard copy form at
this time. If you have further questions concerning docket materials,
we recommend you telephone Dr. David Bartus at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 98101; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    As discussed in Section V of this document, the Washington State
Department of Ecology is evaluating the Petitioner's request for this
modification under state authority. Information on Ecology's action may
be found at https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Public-comment-periods.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:

I. Overview Information
II. Background
    A. Hanford's 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility
    B. Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
    C. Changes to 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility Capability
III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Proposed Technical Amendments
    A. Addition of Steam Stripping as a New Unit Operation
    B. Changes to Treatability Envelope Demonstration Test
Requirements
    C. Miscellaneous Changes and Updates
IV. When Would the EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting Modification?
V. How Will This Action Affect States?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

    The EPA is proposing technical amendments to an existing exclusion
from the list of federally-listed wastes set forth in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 261.33 previously issued to the United States
Department of Energy (Energy) for the Hanford Federal Facility, or
Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. See 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX,
Table 2. This existing exclusion applies to treated effluent generated
by Hanford's 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). As described
below, these amendments relate to the planned startup of the Hanford
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
    Based on our review described in Section III of this document, we
propose to approve the requested amendments.

II. Background

A. Hanford's 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility

    The 200 Area ETF is a radioactive aqueous wastewater treatment
system located in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site that provides
treatment for a variety of aqueous mixed waste. This aqueous waste
includes process condensate from the 242-A Evaporator, Hanford landfill
leachates, and other aqueous waste generated from onsite remediation
and waste management activities, potentially carrying a range of listed
and characteristic dangerous waste numbers.\1\ The 200 Area ETF
consists of a primary and a secondary treatment train. The primary
train includes treatment processes to treat both organic and inorganic
waste constituents, including ultraviolet oxidation (UV/OX), reverse
osmosis, ion exchange, pH adjustment and filtration. The secondary
treatment train manages backwash from the primary treatment train
filters, ion exchange regeneration, and the stream from the reverse
osmosis system that is retained by the reverse osmosis membrane, also
known as retentate. Construction of the 200 Area ETF began in 1992 with
waste management operations beginning in November of 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Washington State Department of Ecology is authorized to
implement their dangerous waste regulations at Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303 in lieu of the federal hazardous
waste system, except for certain requirements, such as the state
counterparts to the federal delisting regulations at 40 CFR 260.20
and 22. Under the dangerous waste program, dangerous wastes are a
superset of federal hazardous wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Treated effluent from the 200 Area ETF is discharged to the State
Approved Land Disposal Site, or SALDS, located north of the 200 West
Area of the Hanford Site. This disposal unit allows tritium remaining
in the treated effluent to naturally decay in the subsurface--it is not
authorized to accept dangerous waste. To this end, the EPA issued an
exclusion from the list of hazardous wastes to Energy in 1995. See 60
FR 6054, February 1, 1995. This exclusion was amended by the EPA in
2005. See 70 FR 44496, August 3, 2005.

B. Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

    The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) is intended to
process and stabilize much of the 56 million gallons of radioactive and
chemical waste currently stored at the Hanford Site. As originally
envisioned, the WTP would treat high-level and low-activity radioactive
waste simultaneously. To begin treating waste as soon as practicable,
Energy developed an approach to treat low-activity waste prior to the
start-up of the WTP pre-treatment and the high-level waste facilities.
This approach is called direct-feed low-activity waste, or DFLAW, and
is focused on sending low-activity waste from the tank farms directly
to the WTP Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility. A new Effluent Management
Facility (EMF) has been constructed at the WTP to manage effluents
generated from the WTP LAW Facility during DFLAW. The EMF is needed to
evaporate the liquid secondary waste generated by the off-gas

treatment system associated with the two WTP LAW Facility vitrification
melters. Evaporator process condensate from the EMF, combined with WTP
LAW Facility caustic scrubber effluents, will receive treatment at the
200 Area ETF, with the resulting treated effluent disposed of at the
SALDS. The waste stream transferred from WTP to the 200 Area ETF is
referred to as the WTP DFLAW effluent waste stream.

C. Changes to 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility Capability

    Through the design and permitting of the WTP complex, Energy
identified several additional constituents it expected to be present in
WTP DFLAW effluent waste stream which are not typically found in wastes
managed by the 200 Area ETF, or are present at levels above the current
capabilities of the 200 Area ETF. Most of these additional constituents
are within the existing treatment capabilities of the 200 Area ETF, and
do not require special consideration. One constituent, acetonitrile,
which is formed in the WTP LAW Facility vitrification melters, is
predicted to be present at levels in excess of the current capability
of the 200 Area ETF, as reflected in the current organic treatability
envelope documented in Table C-2 of the delisting petition dated
November 29, 2001. Within the 200 Area ETF, the UV/OX system treats
organic compounds, including but not limited to acetonitrile. However,
acetonitrile is not easily degraded through UV/OX. Table C-2 in the
November 29, 2001 petition shows an electrical energy per order (EE/O)
of magnitude destruction of 50. EE/O reflects the relative difficulty
for destruction of the organic constituent in the UV/OX unit.
Constituents in Table C-2 with an EE/O of 40 or higher are considered
hard to treat organics. After examining various options for addressing
this issue, Energy determined that the addition of supplemental organic
treatment in the form of a steam stripper to the 200-ETF to separate
acetonitrile from treated effluents would be the preferred approach to
ensuring additional constituents associated with the WTP DFLAW effluent
waste stream can be effectively managed at the 200 Area ETF.
    To accommodate the addition of the proposed steam stripper unit to
the 200 Area ETF, two technical amendments are necessary to the current
delisting. First, the list of unit operations in Condition (1)(d)(iv)
of the current delisting must be amended to include steam stripping.
Second, a new condition is necessary to establish a mechanism whereby
Energy can operate the 200 Area ETF outside of the existing
treatability envelope to gather demonstration test data to increase the
treatability envelope concentration for acetonitrile to accommodate the
predicted level in the WTP DFLAW effluent waste stream.

III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Proposed Technical Amendments

A. Addition of Steam Stripping as a New Unit Operation

    In support of its request to modify the existing 200 Area ETF
delisting, Energy has provided the EPA with an engineering report
documenting the design and expected level of performance of the
proposed steam stripper (docket entries EPA-R10-RCRA-2021-0142-DRAFT-
0003 and EPA-R10-RCRA-2021-0142-DRAFT-0005). These reports include both
a detailed process flow diagram for, and results of process simulation
of the proposed steam stripper. This information provides assurance
that, if the steam stripper is added to the 200 Area ETF primary
treatment train, the overall treatment system can effectively treat the
expected WTP DFLAW effluent waste stream and allow for successful
verification of all existing delisting criteria, including but not
limited to acetonitrile. Energy must also receive authorization to
construct and operate the proposed supplemental organic treatment
system from the Washington State Department of Ecology through their
authorized dangerous waste permitting program, as well as other
applicable state permits.

B. Changes to Treatability Envelope Demonstration Test Requirements

    The existing 200 Area ETF delisting rule includes a mechanism,
documented in Condition (1)(b), that allows Energy to modify the 200
Area ETF treatability envelope specified in Tables C-1 and C-2 of the
November 29, 2001 delisting petition to reflect changes in treatment
technology or operating practices upon written approval of the Regional
Administrator. As stated in the rule, ``Data supporting modified
envelopes must be based on at least four influent waste stream
characterization data points and corresponding treated effluent
verification sample data points for wastes managed under a particular
waste processing strategy.'' This mechanism will be used to expand the
existing treatability envelope for acetonitrile but will require
operation of the 200 Area ETF outside the existing approved
treatability envelope, which is otherwise not provided for in the
delisting rule. To address this issue, the EPA is proposing to include
a new condition (1)(c) that establishes a mechanism that will allow
operation outside of the approved treatability envelope for purposes of
gathering demonstration test data to amend the treatability envelope at
a later time.
    The purpose of this new mechanism is to allow the EPA an
opportunity to perform a forward-looking technical evaluation of how
the 200 Area ETF will be operated during the demonstration test in
order to support a finding that, to a reasonable degree of certainty,
delisting exclusion limits can be satisfied during the demonstration
test. This mechanism requires Energy to provide the EPA with an
engineering report and a demonstration test plan. The engineering
report must document that the 200 Area ETF can be reasonably expected
to produce treated effluent during the period of interim approval which
satisfies the delisting levels in Condition (5).\2\ The engineering
report shall include, but is not limited to, engineering calculations,
process modelling results, or performance data provided by equipment
manufacturers. The demonstration test plan will complement the
engineering report by documenting the composition of the waste feed to
be used during the demonstration test, how the demonstration test will
be conducted, how demonstration test sampling and analysis will be
conducted, and a schedule for conducting the demonstration test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In practice, the engineering report expected to be submitted
in connection with a proposed demonstration treatment plan is likely
to be similar, if not identical to the engineering report included
in the docket supporting this proposed modification of the existing
200 Area ETF delisting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA will review these submittals to determine whether the
demonstration test will yield data suitable for establishing an
expanded treatability envelope for the target constituents, and that
delisting exclusion limits will be satisfied during the demonstration
test. Provided that this review demonstrates that these criteria can be
met to a reasonable degree of certainty, the EPA will provide written
interim approval to Energy to proceed with the demonstration test
according to the approved demonstration test plan. The effect of
interim approval shall be limited to relief from the requirement of
operating within the treatability envelope specified in Tables C-1 and
C-2 of the November 29, 2001 delisting petition, as amended, during the
period of demonstration testing. Once demonstration test data are
available, Energy will then submit a completion

report. The EPA's written approval of the completion report shall be
considered approval of the modified treatability envelope pursuant to
Condition (1)(b).

C. Miscellaneous Changes and Updates

    The EPA is also proposing to make several minor changes to address
typographical errors, amend section numbering to reflect addition of a
new condition, and to amend selected references to treatability
envelopes in Tables C-1 and C-2 that may be updated to accommodate WTP
DFLAW effluent waste stream to include the phrase ``as amended.'' The
EPA is also correcting certain references to Tables C-1 and C-2 to
properly characterize their function as defining inorganic and organic
treatability envelope data.

IV. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting modification?

    40 CFR 260.20(c) requires the EPA to provide notice and an
opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion.
Thus, the EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion
until it has addressed all timely public comments on today's proposal,
including any at public hearings.
    Since this proposed rule is limited to technical amendments that
apply to future activities, and is limited to a specific process and
waste stream at the Hanford Site, the regulated community does not need
a six-month period to come into compliance in accordance with section
3010(b) of RCRA, as amended by the Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984.

V. How will this Action affect states?

    Because the EPA is proposing to issue this exclusion under the
federal RCRA delisting regulations, only states subject to federal RCRA
delisting provisions will be affected. This exclusion may not be
effective in states which have received authorization from the EPA to
make their own delisting decisions.
    The EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than the EPA's, under section 3009
of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.
We urge petitioners to contact their state regulatory authorities to
establish the status of their wastes under their respective state laws.
    The EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized states. If the Petitioner manages the waste in any state
with delisting authorization, the Petitioner must obtain delisting
authorization or other determination from the receiving state before it
can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that state.
    While Washington State has received final authorization to
implement most of its dangerous waste program regulations in lieu of
the federal program, including the listing and identification of listed
waste codes associated with the petitioned wastes, it has not been
authorized to implement its delisting regulations program in lieu of
the federal program. The EPA notes that Washington State has provisions
in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-910(3) similar to
the federal provisions upon which this delisting is based. These
provisions are in effect as a matter of state law. Thus, the Petitioner
must seek approval from Washington State at the state level in addition
to this proposed delisting.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This proposed action is exempt from review by the Office of
Management and Budget because it is a proposed rule of particular
applicability, not general applicability. The proposed action addresses
modifications to an existing delisting petition under RCRA for the
petitioned waste at a particular facility.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it only applies to a particular facility.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this proposed rule is of particular applicability relating
to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action applies only to a
particular facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

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

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed action does not involve technical standards as
described by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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

    The EPA has determined that this proposed action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples. The EPA has determined that this proposed action
will not have

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This proposed action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) because it is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

Timothy Hamlin,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 261 as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.

0
2. In Appendix IX to Part 261, amend Table 2, under the entry ``United
States Department of Energy (Energy)'' by:
0
a. Revising Conditions (1)(a)(i) and (ii), and (1)(b);
0
b. Redesignating Conditions (1)(c) and (d) as Conditions (1)(d) and(e);
0
c. Adding a new Conditions (1)(c);
0
d. Revising the newly designated Conditions (1)(e)(iv); and
0
e. In Conditions (5) under the entry for ``Organic Constituents'' by:
0
i. Removing the entry ``Dichloroisopropyl ether'' and adding an entry
``Dichloroisopropyl ether--6.0 x 10-2'' in its place; and
0
ii. Removing the entry ``[Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) either]--6.0 x
10-2; and
0
ii. Removing the entry ``Arochlor [total of Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232,
1242, 1248, 1254, 1260]--5.0 x 10-4'' and adding an entry
``Aroclor [total of Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254,
1260]--5.0 x 10-4 in its place.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and
260.22

* * * * *

             Table 2--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                  Address         Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
United States Department of     Richland,          * * *
 Energy (Energy).                Washington.
                                .................  Conditions:
                                                   (1) * * *
                                                   (a) * * *
                                                   (i) Complete
                                                    sufficient
                                                    characterization of
                                                    the waste stream to
                                                    demonstrate that the
                                                    waste stream is
                                                    within the
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope of 200 Area
                                                    ETF as specified in
                                                    Tables C-1 and C-2
                                                    of the delisting
                                                    petition dated
                                                    November 29, 2001,
                                                    as amended. Results
                                                    of the waste stream
                                                    characterization and
                                                    the treatability
                                                    evaluation must be
                                                    in writing and
                                                    placed in the
                                                    facility operating
                                                    record, along with a
                                                    copy of Tables C-1
                                                    and C-2 of the
                                                    November 29, 2001
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended. Waste
                                                    stream
                                                    characterization may
                                                    be carried out in
                                                    whole or in part
                                                    using the waste
                                                    analysis procedures
                                                    in the Hanford
                                                    Facility RCRA
                                                    Permit, WA7 89000
                                                    8967;
                                                   (ii) Prepare a
                                                    written waste
                                                    processing strategy
                                                    specific to the
                                                    waste stream, based
                                                    on the ETF process
                                                    model documented in
                                                    the November 29,
                                                    2001 petition, the
                                                    March 31, 2021
                                                    modification
                                                    request, and Tables
                                                    C-1 and C-2 of the
                                                    November 29, 2001
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended. For waste
                                                    processing
                                                    strategies
                                                    applicable to waste
                                                    streams for which
                                                    organic envelope
                                                    data is provided in
                                                    Table C-2 of the
                                                    November 29, 2001
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended, Energy
                                                    shall use envelope
                                                    data specific to
                                                    that waste stream,
                                                    if available.
                                                    Otherwise, Energy
                                                    shall use the
                                                    minimum envelope in
                                                    Table C-2.
                                                   (b) Energy may modify
                                                    the 200 Area ETF
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope specified
                                                    in Tables C-1 and C-
                                                    2 of the November
                                                    29, 2001 delisting
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended, to reflect
                                                    changes in treatment
                                                    technology or
                                                    operating practices
                                                    upon written
                                                    approval of the
                                                    Regional
                                                    Administrator.
                                                    Requests for
                                                    modification shall
                                                    be accompanied by an
                                                    engineering report
                                                    detailing the basis
                                                    for a modified
                                                    treatment envelope.
                                                    Data supporting
                                                    modified envelopes
                                                    must be based on at
                                                    least four influent
                                                    waste stream
                                                    characterization
                                                    data points and
                                                    corresponding
                                                    treated effluent
                                                    verification sample
                                                    data points for
                                                    wastes managed under
                                                    a particular waste
                                                    processing strategy.
                                                    Treatment
                                                    efficiencies must be
                                                    calculated based on
                                                    a comparison of
                                                    upper 95 percent
                                                    confidence level
                                                    constituent
                                                    concentrations. Upon
                                                    written EPA approval
                                                    of the engineering
                                                    report, the
                                                    associated inorganic
                                                    and organic
                                                    treatment efficiency
                                                    data may be used in
                                                    lieu of those in
                                                    Tables C-1 and C-2
                                                    for purposes of
                                                    condition (1)(a)(i).

                                                   (c) Where operation
                                                    of the 200 Area ETF
                                                    for purposes of
                                                    gathering data
                                                    supporting a
                                                    modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope pursuant to
                                                    Condition (1)(b)
                                                    requires operation
                                                    outside of an
                                                    existing
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope or where a
                                                    new treatability
                                                    envelope is to be
                                                    proposed, Energy may
                                                    request interim
                                                    approval to conduct
                                                    such demonstration
                                                    testing for purposes
                                                    of developing a new
                                                    or modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope. Such a
                                                    request must include
                                                    the following
                                                    documentation:
                                                   (i) An Engineering
                                                    Report documenting
                                                    the basis for a
                                                    modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope. The
                                                    Engineering Report
                                                    shall, based on best
                                                    available
                                                    information,
                                                    document that
                                                    operation of the 200
                                                    Area ETF during the
                                                    period of interim
                                                    approval can be
                                                    reasonably expected
                                                    to produce treated
                                                    effluent satisfying
                                                    the delisting levels
                                                    in Condition (5).
                                                    The Engineering
                                                    Report shall
                                                    include, but is not
                                                    limited to,
                                                    engineering
                                                    calculations,
                                                    process modelling
                                                    results, or
                                                    performance data
                                                    provided by
                                                    equipment
                                                    manufacturers;
                                                   (ii) A demonstration
                                                    test plan
                                                    documenting the
                                                    following:
                                                   (A) The quantity and
                                                    characterization of
                                                    the waste stream to
                                                    be used in
                                                    conducting
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing, and
                                                    information that
                                                    will be included in
                                                    the waste processing
                                                    strategy required by
                                                    Condition (1)(a)(ii)
                                                    for the
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing. The test
                                                    plan shall document,
                                                    to a reasonable
                                                    degree of certainty,
                                                    that data gathered
                                                    from the
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing will be
                                                    suitable for use in
                                                    modifying the
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope pursuant to
                                                    Condition (1)(b).
                                                    The test plan may
                                                    include provisions
                                                    for ``spiking'' the
                                                    demonstration test
                                                    waste feed to ensure
                                                    that a waste feed
                                                    meeting the
                                                    requirements of the
                                                    test plan is
                                                    available;
                                                   (B) A sampling and
                                                    analysis plan with
                                                    supporting
                                                    systematic planning
                                                    documentation (e.g.,
                                                    Data Quality
                                                    Objectives) and with
                                                    an associated
                                                    Quality Assurance
                                                    Project Plan, for
                                                    all sampling and
                                                    analysis specific to
                                                    the demonstration
                                                    testing. A minimum
                                                    of four independent
                                                    sample sets over the
                                                    course of the
                                                    demonstration test
                                                    are required from
                                                    both the influent to
                                                    the 200 Area ETF and
                                                    the effluent to the
                                                    verification tanks;
                                                   (C) A schedule for
                                                    conducting the
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing. The
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing schedule may
                                                    be based on
                                                    functional criteria
                                                    in addition to or in
                                                    lieu of fixed
                                                    calendar dates. The
                                                    testing schedule may
                                                    contain
                                                    contingencies for
                                                    revising the test
                                                    plan should
                                                    additional testing
                                                    be required to
                                                    obtain the required
                                                    performance data
                                                    points.
                                                   Energy may not
                                                    commence
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing until
                                                    written interim
                                                    approval is obtained
                                                    from the Regional
                                                    Administrator. The
                                                    effect of interim
                                                    approval shall be
                                                    limited to relief
                                                    from the requirement
                                                    of operating within
                                                    the treatability
                                                    envelope specified
                                                    in Tables C-1 and C-
                                                    2 of the November
                                                    29, 2001 delisting
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended, during the
                                                    period of
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing. Interim
                                                    approval shall
                                                    remain in effect
                                                    only for the
                                                    duration of the
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing as
                                                    documented in the
                                                    required testing
                                                    schedule. Within 60
                                                    days following
                                                    completion of
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing, or such
                                                    other time as may be
                                                    approved in writing
                                                    by the EPA, Energy
                                                    shall submit a
                                                    written completion
                                                    report documenting
                                                    analysis of data
                                                    gathered during the
                                                    demonstration test.
                                                    Energy may request
                                                    an extension of
                                                    interim approval for
                                                    the period of time
                                                    between completion
                                                    of the demonstration
                                                    testing and final
                                                    approval of the
                                                    modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope. The EPA
                                                    may approve
                                                    amendments to the
                                                    demonstration test
                                                    plan, including the
                                                    associated schedule,
                                                    as necessary to
                                                    successfully
                                                    complete
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing. The EPA's
                                                    written approval of
                                                    the completion
                                                    report shall be
                                                    considered approval
                                                    of the modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope pursuant to
                                                    Condition (1)(b).

                              * * * * * * *
                                                   (e) * * *
                                                   (iv) Key unit
                                                    operations are
                                                    defined as
                                                    filtration, UV/OX,
                                                    reverse osmosis, ion
                                                    exchange, steam
                                                    stripping, and
                                                    secondary waste
                                                    treatment.

                              * * * * * * *
                                                   (5) * * *
                                                   Dichloroisopropyl
                                                    ether--6.0 x 10-2

                              * * * * * * *
                                                   Aroclor [total of
                                                    Aroclors 1016, 1221,
                                                    1232, 1242, 1248,
                                                    1254, 1260]--5.0 x
                                                    10-4

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-11341 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6688-6691]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01973]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0987; FRL-10615-01-R3]

Clean Data Determination; District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia; Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Clean Data Determination

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Washington, District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia
(the Washington Area or the Area) nonattainment area has clean data for
the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (2015 ozone
NAAQS). This proposed clean data determination (CDD) under EPA's Clean
Data Policy is based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air quality monitoring data showing that the area has
attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on 2019 to 2021 data available in
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. If finalized, this proposed
CDD would suspend the obligations of the District of Columbia (DC), the
State of Maryland (MD) and the Commonwealth of Virginia (VA) to submit
certain attainment planning requirements for the nonattainment area for
as long as the Area continues to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0987 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keila M. Pag[aacute]n-Incle, Planning
& Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600
John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2852. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Pag[aacute]n-Incle can also be
reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA Clean Data Policy and Clean Data Determinations
III. Analysis of Air Quality Data
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291), EPA promulgated a revised
primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to provide requisite increased
protection of public health and welfare, respectively. In that action,
EPA strengthened both standards from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to
0.070 ppm, and retained the indicator (O3), averaging time
(8-hour) and form (annual fourth-highest daily maximum, averaged over
three years) of the existing standards. Effective August 3, 2018 (83 FR
25776), EPA designated 52 areas throughout the country as nonattainment
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including the Washington Area,\1\ which was
classified as a Marginal nonattainment area. This designation was based
on certified air quality monitoring data from calendar years 2014 to
2016. In that action, EPA established the attainment date for Marginal
nonattainment areas as three years from the effective date of the final
designations. Thus, the attainment date for Marginal nonattainment
areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS was August 3, 2021.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Washington Area consists of the following counties/
cities: Calvert County, Charles County, Frederick County, Montgomery
County, and Prince George's County in Maryland; Alexandria city,
Arlington County, Fairfax County, Fairfax city, Falls Church city,
Loudoun County, Manassas Park city, Manassas city, Prince William
County in Virginia; and all of the District of Columbia. See 40 CFR
81.309, 81.321, and 81.347.
    \2\ See 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 13, 2022 (87 FR 21842), EPA proposed to determine that 24
Marginal areas, including the Washington Area, failed to attain the
2015 ozone NAAQS by their applicable attainment date and the areas were
therefore going to be reclassified by operation of law as Moderate
nonattainment upon the effective date of the final reclassification
notice. On October 7, 2022 (87 FR 60897), EPA published the final
action in the Federal Register stating that 22 Marginal areas or
portions of areas failed to attain the standard by the applicable
attainment date, including the Washington Area. In that action, EPA
reclassified the Washington Area as Moderate nonattainment for the 2015
ozone NAAQS because it failed to attain the standard by the attainment
date of August 3, 2021. This designation was based on quality-assured,
quality-controlled, and certified ozone air quality monitoring data
from calendar years 2018 to 2020. More recent air quality data from
2019 to 2021 indicates that the Washington Area is now attaining the
2015 ozone standard--the basis for EPA's proposed CDD.

II. EPA Clean Data Policy and Clean Data Determinations

    Following enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990,
EPA discussed its interpretation of the requirements for implementing
the NAAQS in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of title I
of the CAA Amendments of 1990'' (General Preamble).\3\ In 1995, based
on the interpretation of CAA sections 171, 172, and 182 in the General
Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its ``Clean Data
Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ Under the Clean Data Policy,
for a nonattainment area that can demonstrate attainment of the
standard before implementing CAA nonattainment measures, EPA interprets
the requirements of the CAA that are specifically designed to help an
area achieve attainment, including attainment demonstrations,
implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonable
further progress (RFP) demonstrations, emissions limitations and
control measures as necessary to provide for attainment, and
contingency measures, to be suspended for so long as air quality
continues to meet the standard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
    \4\ See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, entitled, ``Reasonable Further
Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for
Ozone Nonattainment areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard,'' dated May 10, 1995. (1995 John S. Seitz Memo).
Further description of EPA's Clean Data Policy can be found in the
``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (referred to as the Phase 2 Final Rule),
(70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005). The Tenth, Seventh, and Ninth
Circuit U.S. District Courts have upheld EPA rulemakings applying
the Clean Data Policy. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th
Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our
Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir., June 28,
2005) memorandum opinion.
    \5\ 1995 John S. Seitz memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA may issue a CDD under our Clean Data Policy when a
nonattainment area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on the most
recent available data. EPA will determine whether the area has attained
the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on available information, including air
quality monitoring data for the affected area. If the CDD is made
final, then certain attainment plan requirements for the area are
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the NAAQS.
    Furthermore, the suspension of the obligation to submit an
attainment plan is only appropriate where the area remains in
attainment of the NAAQS. A CDD under the Clean Data Policy does not
serve to alter the area's nonattainment designation. CDDs are not
redesignations to attainment. For EPA to redesignate an area to
attainment the state must submit, and EPA must approve, a redesignation
request for the area that meets the requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3).

III. Analysis of Air Quality Data

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone,
consistent with the requirements contained in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 50 and recorded in EPA's AQS database for the
Washington Area from 2019 through 2022. On the basis of that review,
EPA has concluded that this Area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the
end of the 2021 ozone season, based on certified 2019 to 2021 ozone
data. In addition, preliminary ozone data for 2022 that are available
in AQS, but not yet certified, is consistent with continued attainment
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Under EPA regulations, the 2015 ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.070
ppm.\6\ This 3-year average is referred to as the design value (DV).
When calculating the DV, digits to the right of the third decimal place
are truncated.\7\ When the DV is less than or equal to 0.070 ppm at
each monitor within the area, then the area is meeting the NAAQS. In
addition, the 2015 ozone DVs are based solely on ozone season data.\8\
Ozone season is defined for each state or portion of a state.\9\ The
ozone season for DC, MD and VA runs from March 1st to October 31st each
year.\10\ There is also a data completeness requirement that is met
when the average percentage of days with valid ambient monitoring data
is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The
Washington Area has complete data for the years 2018 to 2021, as shown
in Table 1 in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR 50.19(b).
    \7\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix P.
    \8\ See 40 CFR 51.1300(b), which refers to 40 CFR part 50,
appendix U.
    \9\ See 40 CFR 51.1300(j), which refers to 40 CFR part 58,
appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3.
    \10\ Id.

               Table 1--Completeness Data Percentage (%) From 2018 to 2021 for the Washington Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Location                          AQS Site ID      2018       2019       2020       2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia................................       110010041         98        100         96         90
District of Columbia................................       110010043         98         98         96         98
District of Columbia................................       110010050        100        100         94         98
Calvert, MD.........................................       240090011         98         93         97         98
Charles, MD.........................................       240170010         95         90         97         96
Frederick, MD.......................................       240210037        100         99         95         98
Montgomery, MD......................................       240313001         99         96         92         96
Prince George's, MD.................................       240330030         99         96         99        100
Prince George's, MD.................................       240338003         99         95         98         99
Prince George's, MD.................................       240339991         93         93         98         99
Arlington, VA.......................................       510130020         99         99         98         96
Fairfax, VA.........................................       510590030         96         98         96         99
Fauquier, VA........................................       510610002         99         95         99        100
Loudoun, VA.........................................       511071005         99         90         99         96
Prince William, VA..................................       511530009         99        100         98         99
Stafford, VA........................................       511790001         97         97         96         90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 in this document shows the fourth-highest maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations for the Washington Area monitors for the
years 2018 to 2022. Table 3 in this document shows the ozone design
values for these same monitors based on the following 3-year periods:
2018-2020, 2019-2021 and 2020-2022.

   Table 2--Fourth-Highest 8-Hour Ozone Average Concentrations (ppm) in the Washington Area From 2018 to 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Location                    AQS Site ID      2018       2019       2020       2021      2022 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia.....................       110010041      0.050      0.062      0.054      0.064      0.059
District of Columbia.....................       110010043      0.073      0.071      0.063      0.072      0.066
District of Columbia.....................       110010050      0.073      0.067      0.063      0.069      0.051
Calvert, MD..............................       240090011      0.067      0.058      0.054      0.062      0.058
Charles, MD..............................       240170010      0.068      0.061      0.052      0.066      0.061
Frederick, MD............................       240210037      0.067      0.065      0.063      0.067      0.061
Montgomery, MD...........................       240313001      0.069      0.062      0.059      0.068      0.063
Prince George's, MD......................       240330030      0.070      0.071      0.064      0.066      0.061
Prince George's, MD......................       240338003      0.070      0.065      0.060      0.070      0.064
Prince George's, MD......................       240339991      0.073      0.075      0.065      0.071      0.065
Arlington, VA............................       510130020      0.070      0.068      0.062      0.070      0.061
Fairfax, VA..............................       510590030      0.066      0.070      0.057      0.068      0.062
Fauquier, VA.............................       510610002      0.060      0.055      0.049      0.060      0.056
Loudoun, VA..............................       511071005      0.065      0.060      0.060      0.066      0.061
Prince William, VA.......................       511530009      0.065      0.060      0.057      0.062      0.058
Stafford, VA.............................       511790001      0.064      0.059      0.056      0.062      0.058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 2022 data in this column is preliminary and has yet to be certified.

                           Table 3--Ozone Design Values (ppm) for the Washington Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Location                        AQS Site ID      2018-2020       2019-2021      2020-2022 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia............................       110010041           0.055           0.060           0.059
District of Columbia............................       110010043           0.069           0.068           0.067
District of Columbia............................       110010050           0.067           0.066           0.061
Calvert, MD.....................................       240090011           0.059           0.058           0.058
Charles, MD.....................................       240170010           0.060           0.059           0.060
Frederick, MD...................................       240210037           0.065           0.065           0.064
Montgomery, MD..................................       240313001           0.063           0.063           0.063
Prince George's, MD.............................       240330030           0.068           0.067           0.064
Prince George's, MD.............................       240338003           0.065           0.065           0.065
Prince George's, MD.............................       240339991           0.071           0.070           0.067
Arlington, VA...................................       510130020           0.066           0.066           0.064
Fairfax, VA.....................................       510590030           0.064           0.065           0.062
Fauquier, VA....................................       510610002           0.054           0.054           0.055
Loudoun, VA.....................................       511071005           0.061           0.062           0.062
Prince William, VA..............................       511530009           0.060           0.059           0.059
Stafford, VA....................................       511790001           0.059           0.059           0.059
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 2022 data in this column is preliminary and has yet to be certified.

    EPA's review of these data indicate that the Washington Area met
the attainment standard in 2019-2021 and the preliminary data from 2022
indicates that the DV for the period of 2020-2022 is consistent with
continued attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Washington Moderate ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 2015 NAAQS for ozone. This
determination is based upon certified ambient air monitoring data that
show the area has monitored attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on
2019 to 2021 data. In addition, preliminary \11\ ozone data for 2022
that are available in EPA's AQS database, but not yet certified, is
consistent with continued attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As
provided in 40 CFR 51.1318, if EPA finalizes this CDD, it would suspend
the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations,
associated RACM, including RACT, RFP plans, and contingency measures
under CAA section 172(c)(9), and any other planning State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision related to attainment of the 2015
ozone NAAQS for this Area, for so long as the area continues to attain
the standard. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this document or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES sections of this Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The data in AQS is quality-assured data from the states.
States have until May 1st of the calendar year following the year in
which the data was collected to make any changes without prior
notification to EPA. For the 2022 ozone data, States can make
changes until the data is ``certified'' by the state on or before
May 1st, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rulemaking action makes a clean data determination for
attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on air quality and does not
impose additional requirements. For that reason, this clean data
determination:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed clean data determination for the
Washington Area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the multi-state area, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2023-01973 Filed 1-31-23; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26019]
[DOCID:fr08my08-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG 2008-0275]

Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Monterey,
Monterey, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Fourth of July Fireworks
Display safety zone for the city of Monterey from 8 a.m. to 9:45 p.m.
on July 4, 2008. This action is necessary to control vessel traffic and
to ensure the safety of event participants and spectators. During the
enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone,
unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced from 8 a.m.
to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral
Richardson, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks Display for the city of
Monterey in 33 CFR 165.1191 on July 4, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 9:45 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order of direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The
PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels
through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not
be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may
use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter
the regulated area.

    Dated: April 15, 2008.
D.J. Swatland,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Sector San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. E8-10276 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P