77742 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 action 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 state, 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 6, 2011. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32059 Filed 12–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0822; FRL–9505–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Operating Permits Program revisions 

submitted by the state of Missouri 

which align the state’s rule entitled 

‘‘Submission of Emission Data, 

Emission Fees and Process Information’’ 

with the Federal Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements Rule (AERR). 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

January 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2011–0822, by mail to Amy 

Bhesania, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also 

be submitted electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier by following the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule located in 

the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Bhesania at (913) 551–7147, or by 

email at bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of the Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

revision amendment and anticipates no 

relevant adverse comments to this 

action. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: November 28, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31908 Filed 12–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 136 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0192; FRL–9504–2] 

Guidelines Establishing Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; 

Analysis and Sampling Procedures; 

Notice of Data Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability. 

SUMMARY: On September 23, 2010, EPA 

proposed to approve a number of new 

and revised test procedures (i.e., 

analytical methods) for measuring 

pollutants under the Clean Water Act. 

Today’s notice announces the 

availability of new data on an analytical 

method for the measurement of oil and 

grease that EPA described in the earlier 

notice but did not propose to approve it 

for use. This notice discusses how EPA 

is considering revising its proposed 

regulatory requirements for this method. 

EPA is soliciting comment only on 

EPA’s consideration of this method. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

2010–0192, by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: OW-docket@epamail.epa.gov 

Attention Docket ID No. OW–2010– 

0192. 

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Water Center, 

EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW–2010– 

0192. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0192. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 77743 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

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, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria Gomez-Taylor, Office of Science 

and Technology, Office of Water (4303– 

T), Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 566–1005; fax number: 

(202) 566–1053; email address: Gomeztaylor.maria@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

EPA Regions, as well as States, 

Territories and Tribes authorized to 

implement the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

program, issue permits with conditions 

designed to ensure compliance with the 

technology-based and water qualitybased requirements of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). These permits may include 

restrictions on the quantity of pollutants 

that may be discharged as well as 

pollutant measurement and reporting 

requirements. If EPA has approved a test 

procedure for analysis of a specific 

pollutant, the NPDES permittee must 

use an approved test procedure (or an 

approved alternate test procedure) for 

the specific pollutant when measuring 

the required waste constituent. 

Similarly, if EPA has established 

sampling requirements, measurements 

taken under an NPDES permit must 

comply with these requirements. 

Therefore, entities with NPDES permits 

will potentially be affected by the 

actions in this rulemaking. Categories 

and entities that may potentially be 

affected by the requirements of today’s 

rule include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

State, Territorial, and Indian Tribal Governments.States, Territories, and Tribes authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program; States, 

Territories, and Tribes providing certification under Clean Water Act section 401; 

State, Territorial, and Indian Tribal owned facilities that must conduct monitoring to comply 

with NPDES permits. 

Industry ............................................................... Facilities that must conduct monitoring to comply with NPDES permits. 

Municipalities ...................................................... POTWs or other municipality owned facilities that must conduct monitoring to comply with 

NPDES permits. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. This table lists 

types of entities that EPA is now aware 

of that could potentially be affected by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be affected. 

To determine whether your facility is 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

language at 40 CFR 122.1 (NPDES 

purpose and scope), 40 CFR 136.1 

(NPDES permits and CWA) and 40 CFR 

403.1 (Pretreatment standards purpose 

and applicability). If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

77744 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Summary of New Information and 

Request for Comment 

A. Background on Proposed Rule 

On September 23, 2010, EPA 

proposed to add new and revised EPA 

methods to its Part 136 test procedures 

(75 FR 58024). The regulated 

community and laboratories use these 

approved methods for determining 

compliance with National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits or other monitoring 

requirements under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). EPA periodically updates the 

list of approved methods to reflect 

advances in technology and provide 

entities more choices of approved 

compliance monitoring methods. 

Among other methods, in the September 

2010 proposal, EPA proposed to add 

two oil and grease methods published 

by the Standard Methods Committee 

that use the same solvent as the existing 

Part 136 oil and grease methods. In the 

Notice, EPA also described three oil and 

grease methods published by ASTM 

International or the Standard Methods 

Committee that require a different 

extractant and/or a different 

measurement (i.e., determinative) 

technique than the existing Part 136 oil 

and grease methods. As explained in the 

Notice, oil and grease is a methoddefined parameter. That is, the 

measurements obtained by the method 

are a specific artifact of the method and 

defined solely by the elements (solvent, 

determinative technique) used to 

measure the analyte. Because these 

three methods use a different extractant 

and/or a different determinative 

technique, how to translate 

measurements using these methods to 

those obtained under existing methods 

for purposes of comparison was not 

clear. Consequently, consistent with 

past practices, EPA did not propose to 

include these methods in Part 136. 

B. Method-Defined Analytes 

A method-defined analyte includes 

certain parameters where the 

measurement results obtained are solely 

dependent on the method used. As a 

consequence, the results obtained are 

not directly comparable to results 

obtained by another method (i.e., the 

data derived from method-defined 

protocols cannot be reliably verified 

outside the method itself). EPA has 

defined a method-defined analyte in 40 

CFR 136.6(a)(5) as ‘‘.* * * an analyte 

defined solely by the method used to 

determine the analyte. Such an analyte 

may be a physical parameter, a 

parameter that is not a specific 

chemical, or a parameter that may be 

comprised of a number of substances. 

Examples of such analytes include 

temperature, oil and grease, total 

suspended solids, total phenolics, 

turbidity, chemical oxygen demand, and 

biochemical oxygen demand.’’ 

C. Oil and Grease 

Unlike many parameters, oil and 

grease is not a unique chemical entity, 

but is a mixture of chemical species that 

varies from source to source. Common 

substances that may contribute to oil 

and grease include petroleum based 

compounds such as fuels, motor oil, 

lubricating oil, soaps, waxes, and 

hydraulic oil and vegetable based 

compounds such as cooking oil and 

other fats. Oil and grease is defined by 

the method used to measure it (i.e., a 

method-defined analyte). The CWA 

defines oil and grease as a conventional 

parameter and hundreds of thousands of 

NPDES permits and indirect discharging 

permits contain oil and grease 

numerical limits. Currently, Part 136 

lists three references to analytical 

methods for the measurement of oil in 

grease in such discharge permits. 

Overwhelmingly, the vast majority of 

discharges use EPA Method 1664A to 

measure compliance with such 

discharge limits. Method 1664A is a 

liquid/liquid extraction (LLE), 

gravimetric procedure that employs 

normal hexane (n-hexane) as the 

extraction solvent. This method also 

allows the use of solid-phase extraction 

(SPE) provided that the results obtained 

by SPE are equivalent to the results 

obtained by LLE. 

D. Public Comments Related to Oil and 

Grease 

In response to the September 2010 

proposal, EPA received several 

comments recommending that EPA 

approve recent methods that include 

new technologies, including alternative 

methods for oil and grease. One 

commenter stated that EPA’s reasoning 

for not approving alternative test 

methods for oil and grease is 

contradictory to the Agency’s 

‘‘Summary’’ statement that these 

regulations will ‘‘provide increased 

flexibility to the regulated community 

and laboratories in their selection of 

analytical methods (test procedures) for 

use in Clean Water Act programs.’’ This 

commenter added that approving the 

new technologies would be more 

consistent with EPA’s mission and 

purpose to ‘‘ensure that all Americans 

are protected from significant risks to 

human health and the environment 

where they live, learn and work.’’ 

Another commenter indicated that 

EPA should approve new technologies 

for oil and grease because n-hexane is a 

dangerous solvent. This commenter 

cited literature that describes n-hexane’s 

toxicity to humans and to the 

environment. Still another commenter 

stated that fats, oils and greases are not 

exclusively ‘‘hexane extractable’’ 

compounds and claimed that other 

technologies and methods may be better 

at measuring these compounds, and 

may be used to better quantify how 

much fat, oil or grease is toxic to aquatic 

life or interferes with wastewater 

treatment. This commenter also stated 

that EPA should not specifically and 

uniquely endorse a solvent-specific 

method for ‘‘oil and grease’’ and 

requested that EPA reverse its decision 

that only n-hexane extractable oil and 

grease methods are acceptable. 

III. ASTM Method D7575–10 for Oil 

and Grease 

Some of the comments focused 

exclusively on one particular oil and 

grease method EPA discussed in its 

proposal, ASTM D7575–10. Unlike EPA 

Method 1664A which uses n-hexane as 

the extractant and gravimetry for the 

measurement of the extracted materials, 

ASTM D7575–10 uses an extracting 

membrane followed by infrared 

measurement of the sample materials 

that can be retained on the membrane. 

This method was originally developed 

by Orono Spectral Solutions (OSS), and 

approved by ASTM on January 1, 2010 

(Standard Test Method for Solvent-Free 

Membrane Recoverable Oil and Grease 

by Infrared Determination, ASTM 

D7575–10). Certain commenters to 

EPA’s September 2010 proposal, 

including ASTM and OSS, requested 

that EPA re-consider ASTM D7575–10 

for the measurement of oil and grease 

under Clean Water Act programs. In 

particular, they cited that ASTM 

D7575–10 is solvent free and provides 

reliable and comparable results to EPA 

Method 1664A. As part of this reconsideration, these commenters 

submitted additional information on the 

health hazards associated with hexane 

as well as additional single laboratory 

comparability data between Method 

1664A and ASTM D7575–10 and on 

additional matrices tested after the 

initial comparability study and 

associated statistical analysis. These 

data, EPA’s analyses of these data, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 77745 

communications related to the 

alternative ASTM method between EPA, 

OSS and ASTM are included as part of 

the record for today’s notice. 

EPA’s consideration of ASTM D7575– 

10 is entirely novel. Because oil and 

grease is a method-defined parameter, 

with one exception, EPA has not 

considered promulgating multiple 

methods to measure oil and grease that 

are based on different extractants. 

Moreover, EPA has not considered 

multiple oil and grease methods that are 

based on different determinative 

techniques. The only exception to this 

was EPA’s promulgation of EPA Method 

1664A in 1999 to replace Method 413.1, 

a similar procedure that used Freon®

(1,1, 2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 

(CFC–113; Freon-113)) as the extraction 

solvent. EPA made this exception 

because Freon® was banned by an 

international treaty, and until the ban 

went into effect, EPA allowed either of 

these oil and grease methods for CWA 

compliance. In both methods, the 

determinative technique is gravimetry 

and the only change was the extraction 

solvent (n-hexane instead of Freon®). 

EPA is persuaded by commenters to 

its September 23, 2010 Notice that it 

should re-consider its position on 

ASTM D7575–10. Such a consideration 

represents a new path for EPA. As is 

always the case, EPA is proceeding 

carefully, with a particular focus on the 

underlying data. EPA’s consideration is 

specific to ASTM D7575–10 and should 

not be interpreted broadly to other oil 

and grease methods that use different 

extractants and/or determinative 

techniques, or more generally to other 

method-defined analytes. If EPA 

receives similar requests for other 

methods, it will evaluate each one 

individually. 

Although the September 2010 

proposal discussed the current use of 

EPA Method 1664A as a required testing 

method to determine the eligibility of 

materials for certain conditional 

exclusions for RCRA regulations under 

40 CFR260.20 and 260.22 (i.e., 

delistings), and additionally proposed to 

allow the revised version of this testing 

method (Method 1664, Rev. B) for future 

delistings, EPA is not considering 

ASTM D7575–10 for use under the 

RCRA program. Until ASTM D7575–10 

is validated for a full range of matrices 

covered by the RCRA program, EPA 

considers this new testing method to be 

limited to the Clean Water Act program. 

A. Technical Considerations Related to 

ASTM Method D7575–10 

1. EPA Evaluation of This New Method 

Based on the data and information 

available in EPA’s record, EPA 

concludes ASTM D7575–10 is a good 

stand-alone method for the 

measurement of oil and grease in 

wastewater. The method was single- and 

multi-lab tested following ASTM 

Standard Practice D2777 (Standard 

Practice for the Determination of 

Precision and Bias of Applicable Test 

methods of Committee D19 on Water) 

and produces similar recoveries and 

precision to EPA Method 1664A for 

those matrices tested and in the range of 

method applicability (5–200 mg/L). 

In reviewing the method, EPA 

requested that ASTM revise its new 

standard to provide additional details 

on the underlying procedural steps— 

specifically in regard to sample 

homogenization and calibration 

verification—and to clarify the 

applicability (or lack thereof) of the 

method to non-wastewater matrices. 

ASTM revised the method write-up 

accordingly. See DCN xxx for additional 

information. 

2. Comparability of Results Between 

ASTM D7575–10 and EPA Method 

1664A 

As explained above, with the 

exception of EPA’s promulgation of 

Method 1664A to replace Method 413.1, 

EPA has not considered promulgating 

multiple methods to measure oil and 

grease that are based on different 

extractants nor has EPA considered 

promulgating oil and grease methods 

with different determinative techniques. 

As a result, EPA does not have a defined 

‘‘process’’ for such considerations. For 

non-method-defined parameters where 

the analyte being measured is a single 

compound (e.g., copper, benzene), EPA 

often promulgates multiple methods 

that may be based on different 

determinative techniques for 

nationwide use. In such cases, EPA has 

a well-defined process for ensuring that 

the performance of a proposed method 

is acceptable (i.e., the proposed test 

procedure must demonstrate an 

improvement over current EPAapproved methods such as fewer matrix 

interferences, and better sensitivity, 

precision and recovery). For a new 

candidate test method employing a 

determinative technique that is different 

from those techniques used in existing 

approved methods, the applicant must 

develop quality control (QC) acceptance 

criteria based on the validation protocol 

for nationwide use applications (9 

laboratories, each analyzing a different 

matrix). The QC acceptance criteria for 

the candidate method must then be 

compared to the QC acceptance criteria 

specifications for methods in Part 136 

and the performance of the candidate 

method must be as good or better than 

that of an approved method. This 

process is described in the ‘‘Protocol for 

EPA Approval of New Methods for 

Organic and Inorganic Analytes in 

Wastewater and Drinking Water,’’ 

March 1999. 

In contrast, there is no well-defined 

process for the evaluation of a proposed 

test method for method-defined 

parameters. In addition to ensuring that 

the performance of the proposed 

method is acceptable as described above 

for non-method-defined parameters, 

EPA wants to ensure that results 

produced by the proposed method are 

comparable to results produced with the 

approved method. When EPA 

promulgated EPA Method 1664A to 

replace EPA Method 413.1, a similar 

procedure that used Freon® (1,1, 2- 

trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC– 

113; Freon-113)) as the extraction 

solvent, EPA evaluated a variety of 

possible replacement extracting solvents 

in addition to n-hexane. EPA selected nhexane and promulgated Method 1664A 

after conducting extensive side-by-side 

studies of several extracting solvents on 

a variety of samples representing a wide 

range of matrices (see ‘‘Preliminary 

Report of EPA Efforts to Replace Freon 

for the Determination of Oil and 

Grease,’’ EPA–821–R–93–011, 

September 1993, and Report of EPA 

Efforts to Replace Freon for the 

Determination of Oil and Grease and 

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, EPA– 

820–R–95003, April 1995). In 

considering which solvent produced 

results most comparable to results 

obtained with Freon®, EPA conducted a 

Root Mean Squared Deviation (RMSD) 

evaluation of the data collected in the 

side-by-side studies. None of the 

alternative solvents produced results 

statistically comparable to results 

produced by Freon®. However, EPA 

concluded at the time that n-hexane was 

appropriate as an alternative solvent, 

based on overall extraction results (96% 

versus 100% for Freon) and analytical 

practical considerations (e.g., boiling 

point). 

In considering ASTM D7575–10, EPA 

reviewed the available single laboratory 

comparability data between ASTM 

D7575–10 and EPA Method 1664A. 

Initially, these data included triplicate 

analyses of samples from seven different 

wastewater matrices (eight POTWs, 

dairy, machine shop, gunsmith, auto 

garage, auto salvage yard, and fish 

processor). Later, OSS submitted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

77746 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1OSS also submitted data for several other 

matrices that EPA did not include in the analysis 

because these data were based on only one sample 

result per matrix and thus lacked the required 

replicates for a statistical analysis. Additionally, 

ASTM recently submitted triplicate data for three 

other matrices. Because EPA received this data after 

conducting its statistical analysis, this data is not 

included in the RMSD assessment described in this 

paragraph, but is included in the record for today’s 

notice. 

2Note that in absence of statistical comparability, 

EPA ultimately determined that EPA Method 1664A 

could be used as a direct replacement for EPA 

Method 413.1. 

additional data for three matrices (bilge 

water, peanut processor, and lunchmeat 

processor) that were collected after the 

single laboratory study.1 EPA conducted 

a Root Mean Squared Deviation (RMSD) 

comparability assessment with these 

data, following the methodology set 

forth in ‘‘Analytical Method Guidance 

for EPA Method 1664A Implementation 

and Use (40 CFR part 136), EPA/821–R– 

00–003, February 2000.’’ For this 

assessment, EPA first used the original 

data set and subsequently included the 

additional data for three matrices and 

determined the results were not 

statistically comparable, with or without 

the data for the additional matrices. 

This outcome was not unexpected 

because of the intrinsic differences in 

the two methods and the nature of 

method-defined parameters. Similarly, 

when EPA performed an RMSD 

comparability assessment before 

promulgating EPA Method 1664A in 

place of EPA Method 413.1, EPA did not 

find the results to be statistically 

comparable.2

As explained in Section II.B, the 

comparability of results is a significant 

issue with method-defined analytes 

such as oil and grease because the 

results depend on the method used. For 

oil and grease, the amount of oil and 

grease material extracted depends on 

the solvent or membrane used for the 

extraction of oil and grease. As such, it 

may not be possible for results from 

methods that use different extraction 

techniques to be compared statistically. 

For example, EPA Method 1664A 

employs distillation at 85°C, and as 

such, petroleum materials from gasoline 

through #2 fuel oil and non-petroleum 

materials including carboxylic and other 

organic acids may be partially lost 

during this solvent removal operation. 

Similarly, some crude oils and heavy 

fuel oils contain a significant percentage 

of materials that are not soluble in the 

n-hexane solvent of EPA Method 1664A 

resulting in low recoveries for these 

materials. ASTM D7575–10 has no such 

solvent removal step which could 

increase or decrease the amount of 

petroleum and non-petroleum materials 

measured by ASTM D7575–10 relative 

to Method 1664A. 

For the reason identified above, in the 

case of ASTM D7575–10, EPA 

concludes it is not appropriate to apply 

the same statistical assessment as is 

done for non-method-defined 

parameters. As a result, EPA applied 

similar comparison techniques as those 

performed in replacing EPA Method 

413.1 with EPA Method 1664A. As 

mentioned above, during that 

replacement analysis, n-hexane was 

found to extract 96% of the oil and 

grease that could be extracted by Freon. 

This 4% difference was deemed 

insignificant based on the variability of 

oil and grease measurements (around 

the order of 10% relative standard 

deviation) and the confidence intervals 

about the 96% extraction (plus or minus 

20% extracted). When comparing the 

results of ASTM D7575–10 to EPA 

Method 1664A, the non-solvent method 

removes an average of 99.6% of the oil 

and grease that was removed by nhexane under the same conditions. The 

variability of the situational 

comparisons along with the 10% 

relative standard deviation for oil and 

grease measurements once again allow 

us to conclude that the 0.4% difference 

is not significant. Using this approach, 

for the range of the ASTM D7575–10 

applicability (5–200 mg/L), ASTM 

D7575–10 could serve as a substitute for 

Method 1664A in the same fashion as nhexane served as a replacement for 

Freon. 

B. Summary of EPA’s Reconsideration 

of ASTM D7575–10 

Based on the information presented in 

today’s Notice, EPA is re-considering its 

decision not to include ASTM D7575– 

10 in 40 CFR Part 136 as an alternative 

to EPA Method 1664A for measuring oil 

and grease. EPA has three main reasons 

for this reconsideration. First, EPA’s 

analysis demonstrates ASTM D7575–10 

is an acceptable stand-alone method for 

the measurement of oil in grease in 

wastewater for the applicable reporting 

range (5–200 mg/L) and it produces 

results that are generally very close to 

those obtained using EPA Method 

1664A for the matrices tested. Second, 

this method has certain advantages over 

the currently approved method. EPA 

supports pollution prevention, and is 

particularly persuaded by the 

substantial advantages associated with 

the green aspects of this membrane 

technology (e.g., it uses a solventless 

extraction, there is no solvent waste, 

and no analyst exposure to solvent). 

Finally, ASTM D7575–10 may offer 

other advantages such as ease of 

analysis, reduced analysis time, and 

lower analytical costs. 

C. Implementation Considerations 

Related to Multiple Oil and Grease 

Methods 

EPA recognizes that if it promulgates 

ASTM D7575–10 in 40 CFR Part 136 as 

an alternative to EPA method 1664A, 

permittees and control authorities may 

still have concerns related to the results 

obtained from ASTM D7575–10 relative 

to EPA Method 1664A, particularly for 

matrices not evaluated to date. While 

EPA has determined that the results of 

the two methods are comparable over 

the applicable range where the two 

methods overlap (5–200 mg/L), because 

of the wide variety and type of 

individual compounds that may be 

measured by oil and grease and because 

oil and grease are extensively 

incorporated in permits covering a wide 

variety of wastewater matrices, 

permittees or control authorities may 

continue to have compliance concerns 

(i.e., a permittee could be in or out of 

compliance) simply due to a change in 

the test method used to evaluate 

samples. 

When EPA promulgated EPA Method 

1664A to replace EPA Method 413.1, 

EPA and other stakeholders had similar 

concerns. These concerns were 

magnified because Method 1664A was a 

replacement, rather than an alternative, 

to the existing method at that time. To 

accommodate concerns about 

differences in results, EPA allowed 

permitting authorities to establish a 

conversion factor by having the 

discharger perform a side-by-side 

comparison of Method 1664 and the 

Freon® extraction method and then 

adjusting the discharge limits, if 

necessary, to account for differences in 

the permit. EPA further recommended a 

specific process to follow for the sideby-side comparison in the guidance 

document mentioned earlier [Analytical 

Method Guidance for EPA Method 

1664A Implementation and Use (40 CFR 

part 136), EPA/821–R–00–003, February 

2000]. 

In contrast to EPA’s replacement of 

Freon with n-hexane, if EPA were to 

promulgate ASTM D7575–10, it would 

not lead to any requirement on permit 

holders. In this case, unless ASTM 

D7575–10 is specified in the permit, 

promulgating ASTM D7575–10 would 

simply provide additional flexibility to 

permit holders in analyzing for oil and 

grease. Because this would be optional 

and because of the burden that would be 

placed on the permitting authorities in 

reviewing side-by-side data, EPA is not 

currently persuaded that it should 

include a provision providing the same 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 77747 

ability to adjust discharge limits based 

on side-by side-comparison of EPA 

Method 1664A to ASTM D7575–10 as it 

did when it replaced Freon with nhexane. However, to the extent that 

permittees would elect to use ASTM 

D7575–10 and permitting authorities 

would accept the use of ASTM D–7575– 

10 rather than EPA Method 1664A, 

nothing would prevent them from 

conducting a side-by-side comparison of 

the two methods. EPA would 

recommend such a side-by-side 

comparison if permittees and/or 

permitting authorities have concerns 

about a specific matrix, particularly 

when the measured oil and grease 

values when switching to ASTM 

D7575–10 are more than 20% lower 

from values routinely measured by EPA 

Method 1664A (the 20% variability 

around oil and grease measurements is 

discussed in section III.A.2 of today’s 

Notice). 

IV. Request for Comments 

Based on the new information and 

EPA’s analysis of this information as 

described in this Notice, EPA is 

reconsidering whether to promulgate 

ASTM D7575–10 in 40 CFR Part 136 as 

an alternative method for oil and grease 

where the applicable ranges overlap (5– 

200 mg/L) and requests public 

comments on this reconsideration, the 

supporting data, and the resulting 

analysis. While ASTM D7575–10 has 

significant pollution prevention 

advantages over the currently approved 

method, EPA recognizes the potential 

impact that this new method could have 

on the hundreds of thousands of oil and 

grease determinations in regulatory 

Clean Water Act programs and desires 

to obtain additional input from 

stakeholders. Specifically, EPA requests 

comments on the following: 

1. Whether EPA should reconsider 

promulgating this additional method for 

oil and grease based on different 

extractants and determinative 

techniques than EPA Method 1664A. 

2. EPA’s current view, based on the 

data it has reviewed to date, that ASTM 

D7575–10 is an acceptable choice for 

the determination of oil and grease for 

the range (5 to 200 mg/L) evaluated. 

3. EPA’s current conclusion that 

permit limit adjustment based on sideby-side comparisons of EPA Method 

1664A and ASTM D7575–10 is not 

appropriate. EPA is particularly 

interested in obtaining comments from 

permitting authorities on this issue and 

estimates of the burden associated with 

reviewing such requests. 

4. If EPA were to allow a side-by-side 

comparison with limit adjustment as 

necessary, should EPA look to the 

approach used for n-hexane in place of 

Freon (see section III.C above) or should 

EPA consider a different approach? 

V. Referenced New Docket Materials 

1. January 16, 2009 Memorandum from 

Richard Reding on Modifications to 

Method 1664A. 

2. May 14, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 

26315). 

3. Preliminary Report of EPA Efforts to 

Replace Freon for the Determination of 

Oil and Grease, EPA–821–R–93–011, 

September 1993. 

4. Report of EPA Efforts to Replace Freon for 

the Determination of Oil and Grease and 

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Phase II, 

EPA–820–R–95–003, April 1995. 

5. October 15, 2010 email from Tyler Martin 

containing the following data files: 

a. Multi-Lab Validation Raw Data 

b. Expanded ASTM D7575 Validation 

Report 

c. Single-Lab Validation Raw Data 

d. Comparability Analysis from Single-Lab 

Validation Results 

6. October 19, 2010 email from Tyler Martin 

containing additional comparability data 

between Method 1664 and ASTM D7575. 

7. October 21, 2010 email from Tyler Martin 

with clarification on data submitted. 

8. June 28, 2011 letter from James A. Thomas, 

ASTM President to Mary Smith, EPA, 

with ASTM International D19 Water 

Response to US EPA Questions 

Concerning ASTM Standard D7575. 

9. Analytical Method Guidance for EPA 

Method 1664A Implementation and Use 

(40 CFR part 136), EPA/821–R–00–003, 

February 2000. 

10. Protocol for EPA Approval of New 

Methods for Organic and Inorganic 

Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking 

Water, March 1999. 

11. Study Report from the Testing of 

Additional Industrial Wastewater 

Matrices in Support of ASTM D7575 for 

USEPA’s Reconsideration of this Method 

in the Forthcoming Method Update Rule, 

November 2011. 

Dated: December 2, 2011. 

Nancy K. Stoner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32063 Filed 12–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[WT Docket No. 07–250; DA 11–1707] 

Amendment of the Commission’s 

Rules Governing Hearing AidCompatible Mobile Handsets 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document the 

Commission seeks comment on 

revisions to the Commission’s wireless 

hearing aid compatibility rules. The 

Commission’s rules define hearing aid 

compatibility by reference to a third 

party technical standard. Recently, a 

new version of that technical standard 

was developed to test the hearing aid 

compatibility of the newest generation 

of digital wireless handsets. The 

proposed rules would adopt the revised 

version of the technical standard into 

the Commission’s rules. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before January 13, 

2012, and reply comments on or before 

January 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 07–250, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although the Commission continues to 

experience delays in receiving U.S. 

Postal Service mail). All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of the document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Rowan, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

1883, email Michael.Rowan@fcc.gov, or 

Saurbh Chhabra, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

2266, email Saurbh.Chhabra@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(SFNPRM) in WT Docket No. 07–250, 

adopted November 1, 2010, and released 

on November 1, 2010. The full text of 

the SFNPRM is available for public 

inspection and copying during business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

It also may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS