Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 14457 

[FR Doc. 2013–05112 Filed 3–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708, FRL–9756–4] 

RIN 2060–AQ58 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines; New Source Performance 

Standards for Stationary Internal 

Combustion Engines 

Correction 

In rule document 2013–01288, 

appearing on pages 6674–6724 in the 

issue of Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 

make the following corrections: 

§ 63.6655 [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 6708, the heading in Table 

2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is 

corrected read as follows: 

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Requirements for Existing Compression 

Ignition Stationary RICE Located at a 

Major Source of HAP Emissions and 

Existing Spark Ignition Stationary RICE 

≤500 HP Located at a Major Source of 

HAP Emissions 

■ 2. On page 6708, in the first column 

of Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, 

the entry reading ‘‘4. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI stationary RICE 

300>HP≤500.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘4. 

Non-Emergency, non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 300<HP≤500.’’ 

■ 3. On page 6709, the heading in Table 

2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is 

corrected read as follows: 

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Requirements for Existing Compression 

Ignition Stationary RICE Located at a 

Major Source of HAP Emissions and 

Existing Spark Ignition Stationary RICE 

≤500 HP Located at a Major Source of 

HAP Emissions—Continued 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–01288 Filed 3–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 136 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0192; FRL–9787–7] 

Guidelines Establishing Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; 

Analysis and Sampling Procedures; 

Notice 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final decision. 

SUMMARY: EPA discussed, but did not 

propose, a new method, ASTM D7575, 

for oil and grease in the 2010 proposed 

Methods Update Rule (MUR). Oil and 

grease is a method-defined parameter. 

That is, the nature and amount of 

material determined by the method is 

defined in terms of the method. EPA 

subsequently published a Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) on this method 

that provided new data and requested 

comment on whether and how EPA 

should approve the method in Part 136 

as an alternative oil and grease method. 

This document provides EPA’s final 

decision on its reconsideration of this 

method. 

DATES: March 6, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan 

Matuszko, Office of Science and 

Technology, Office of Water (4303–T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566– 

1035; fax number: 202–566–1053; email 

address: matuszko.jan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. CWA Analytical Methods and 

Limited Use Alternate Test Procedures 

(ATP) Program 

EPA establishes test procedures (also 

referred to as analytical methods) 

codified in 40 CFR Part 136 under its 

authority in section 304(h) of the CWA 

to promulgate guidelines establishing 

test procedures for the analysis of 

pollutants. EPA’s regulations provide 

that, when EPA has promulgated a test 

procedure for analysis of a specific 

pollutant in 40 CFR Part 136, an NPDES 

permittee must use an approved test 

procedure for the specific pollutant 

when measuring the pollutant for an 

application submitted to EPA or to a 

State with an approved NPDES program 

and for reports required to be submitted 

by dischargers under the NPDES 

program. See 40 CFR § 136.1(a). This 

approach simplifies the permitting 

process for hundreds of thousands of 

NPDES and indirect discharging 

permittees and permitting authorities. In 

the absence of an approved test 

procedure for a specific pollutant (or 

when an approved test procedure does 

not work in a specific matrix, e.g., 

because of a matrix interference), 

generally, a permit applicant may use 

any suitable method but must provide 

the permitting authority a description of 

the method for evaluation of its 

suitability. See 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7). 

However, 40 CFR Part 136 also 

recognizes that new technologies and 

approaches are constantly being 

developed, including methods for 

pollutants for which EPA already has an 

approved test procedure. As such, Part 

136.5 allows for use of an alternate 

method for a specific pollutant or 

parameter in a regulated CWA matrix 

that is different from the approved test 

procedure (i.e., limited use approval). 

Requests for such uses, along with 

supporting data, are made to the 

applicable Regional Alternate Test 

Procedure (ATP) Coordinator for 

consideration and approval. 

B. 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., it is 

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 two analytical methodologies for 

the measurement of oil and grease in 

such discharge permits. Permittees have 

been using 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 that is applicable for 

measuring oil and grease in 

concentrations from 5 mg/L to 1,000 

mg/L. 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. 

C. Method-Defined Analytes 

The measurement results obtained for 

a method-defined analyte are both 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
14458 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Similar to the approach it used when it replaced 

Freon with hexane, EPA performed a RMSD 

evaluation of the ASTM D–7575 results and EPA 

Method 1664A results for the available matrices 

evaluated. See 76 FR 77745. 

specific to that method and solely 

dependent on the method used. As a 

consequence, the results obtained for a 

parameter defined by one particular 

method are not necessarily 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 methoddefined 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.’’ 

D. EPA’s Past Consideration of 

Alternative Oil and Grease Methods for 

Adoption in 40 CFR Part 136 

Because oil and grease is a methoddefined parameter, 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 EPA Method 

413.1 (64 FR 26315), 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 (the Montreal 

Protocol on Substances That Deplete the 

Ozone Layer), 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®). 

When EPA promulgated EPA Method 

1664A to replace EPA Method 413.1, 

EPA evaluated a variety of possible 

replacement extracting solvents in 

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

after conducting multi-year, extensive 

side-by-side studies on a variety of 

samples representing a wide range of 

matrices/discharges (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: Phase 

II,’’ EPA–820–R–95–003, 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). 

To accommodate concerns about 

possible differences in results, EPA 

allowed permitting authorities to 

establish a conversion factor by having 

the discharger perform a side-by-side 

comparison of Method 1664A 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 for Method 1664A (see 

‘‘Analytical Method Guidance for EPA 

Method 1664A Implementation and Use 

(40 CFR part 136),’’ EPA/821–R–00–003, 

February 2000). 

E. Proposed 2010 Methods Update Rule 

(MUR) 

On September 23, 2010, EPA 

proposed to add new and revised EPA 

methods to its Part 136 test procedures 

(75 FR 58024). Among other methods, in 

the September 2010 proposal, EPA 

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. These methods were ASTM 

D7575, ASTM D7066 and Standard 

Methods 5520. Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. As such, when requested by 

ASTM and Standard Methods to include 

their methods in 40 CFR Part 136, EPA 

may propose to approve a method or 

explain why it should or should not do 

so. The proposal explained the issues 

surrounding method-defined 

parameters, and explained that, 

consistent with past practices, EPA was 

not proposing to include any of the 

three oil and grease methods in Part 

136, including ASTM D7575. 

F. December 2011 Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) 

In response to the September 2010 

proposal, EPA received comments 

recommending that it reconsider 

alternative methods for oil and grease. 

Some of the comments focused 

exclusively on the oil and grease 

method ASTM D7575. Unlike EPA 

Method 1664A which uses n-hexane as 

the extractant and gravimetry for the 

measurement of the extracted materials, 

ASTM D7575 uses an extracting 

membrane followed by infrared 

measurement of the sample materials 

that can be retained on the membrane. 

In particular, commenters cited that 

ASTM D7575 is solvent free and 

provides reliable and comparable results 

to EPA Method 1664A. 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 and on 

additional matrices tested after the 

initial comparability study and 

associated statistical analysis. 

Because EPA is interested in 

promoting the use of solvent-free 

methods and this new information, EPA 

re-evaluated the ASTM D7575 method 

for the measurement of oil and grease 

and published a Notice of Data 

Availability on December 14, 2011 (76 

FR 77742). The notice provided the 

additional data and EPA’s analysis of 

that data. Further, it explained that, 

after evaluating the new information, 

EPA was re-considering its decision not 

to include ASTM D7575 in 40 CFR Part 

136 as an alternative to EPA Method 

1664A for measuring oil and grease. The 

notice explained that EPA had three 

primary reasons for this reconsideration. First, EPA’s analysis 

demonstrates ASTM D7575 is an 

acceptable stand alone method for the 

measurement of oil and grease in 

wastewater for its applicable reporting 

range (5–200 mg/L). Second, it produces 

results that, while not statistically 

comparable across all matrices tested,1

are generally very close to those 

obtained using EPA Method 1664A for 

the matrices tested. Third, 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 14459 

solvent waste, and no exposure of the 

analyst to solvent). 

However, the notice also discussed 

implementation considerations 

associated with promulgating an 

alternative method based on a different 

determinative step for a method-defined 

parameter. EPA recognized 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, as such, 

was keenly interested in obtaining 

additional input from stakeholders. 

Therefore, the notice explained that, 

while EPA determined that the results 

of the EPA 1664A and ASTM D7575 are 

comparable over the applicable range 

where the two methods overlap (5–200 

mg/L) for the set of the 13 wastewater 

matrices evaluated, it continued to have 

compliance concerns with promulgating 

the ASTM method for nationwide use as 

an alternative to EPA Method 1664A. 

More specifically, because oil and 

grease measures a wide variety and type 

of individual compounds and because 

oil and grease is extensively 

incorporated in permits covering a wide 

variety of wastewater matrices, the 

result of promulgating the ASTM D7575 

method as an alternative to EPA Method 

1664A is that a permittee could be in or 

out of compliance simply due to a 

change in the test method used to 

evaluate samples. 

Finally, through the notice, EPA 

requested comment on its conclusion 

that ASTM D7575 is an acceptable 

choice for the determination of oil and 

grease, and whether it should reconsider 

its policy towards method-defined 

parameters for this particular method. In 

particular, the notice requested 

comment on whether or not EPA should 

reconsider promulgating this specific 

additional method for oil and grease 

based on different extractants and 

determinative techniques than EPA 

Method 1664A. Further, in the event 

that EPA were to promulgate this 

specific alternative method, the notice 

requested comment on some approaches 

that could ensure comparability for 

individual permittees (e.g., EPA 

requested comment on the need for a 

permit adjustment based on side-by-side 

comparison of Methods 1664A and 

ASTM D7575). 

G. Summary of NODA Comments 

EPA received comments from 106 

stakeholders. Approximately, a third 

expressed support for nationwide 

approval of the ASTM D7575 method as 

an alternative oil and grease method. In 

general, these comments were similar to 

those received on EPA’s proposal: 

ASTM D7575 is ‘‘green’’ (e.g., less 

hazardous waste, no exposure to toxic 

chemicals), it is easier, faster, less 

expensive and potentially portable in 

comparison to EPA 1664A, and it 

produces results substantially in 

agreement with Method 1664A. About 

two-thirds of the comments 

recommended EPA not approve it for 

use as an alternative oil and grease 

method. Some comments were specific 

to the sampling requirements and 

sample preparation procedures of the 

method, raising technical concerns such 

as the representativeness of the 10 mL 

aliquot and concerns over the drying 

procedures. Some comments were more 

overarching such as comments that 

ASTM D7575 had not been tested in a 

sufficient number of matrices. Others 

were specific to the consideration of the 

ASTM D7575 method as an alternative 

to EPA method 1664A, such as the 

applicable range of the ASTM D7575 

method (5 to 200 mg/L) was limited in 

comparison to EPA Method 1664A. 

Some noted that the ASTM method did 

not produce statistically comparable 

results to EPA Method 1664A and EPA 

should retain its policy not to approve 

alternative methods for method-defined 

parameters that are not based on the 

same determinative step. Finally, many 

shared the concerns raised in the notice 

about implementing ASTM D7575 on a 

nationwide basis as an alternative oil 

and grease method and the possibility 

that a discharger could be in or out of 

compliance simply by changing the 

method. 

III. Final Determination on ASTM 

D7575 as an Alternative to Existing Part 

136 Oil and Grease Methods 

As explained in the NODA, EPA’s 

consideration of ASTM D7575 

represents a unique situation. Because 

oil and grease is a method-defined 

parameter, 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 to 

replace Method 413.1, a similar 

procedure that used (the internationally 

banned extraction solvent) Freon®. 

Thus, EPA’s consideration of ASTM 

D7575 as an alternative oil and grease 

method represents a new path for EPA. 

As is always the case, EPA proceeded 

carefully, with a particular focus on the 

underlying data. This consideration is 

specific to ASTM D7575 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. 

A. ASTM D7575 Is a Good Stand Alone 

Method for the Measurement of Oil and 

Grease in Aqueous Matrices 

After careful consideration of all the 

comments received on the NODA, EPA 

continues to conclude that ASTM 

D7575 is a good stand alone method for 

the measurement of oil and grease as 

defined by the method. 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 produced recoveries and precision 

as good as or better than EPA Method 

1664A for those matrices tested and in 

the range of ASTM D7575 applicability 

(5–200 mg/L). Further, EPA is not 

persuaded by the technical comments it 

received on the method itself. For 

example, the representativeness of a 

well homogenized sample used was 

adequately demonstrated by the 

replicate studies in the validation tests. 

See docket number EPA–HQ–OW– 

2010–0192 for responses to these and all 

other NODA comments. 

B. ASTM D7575 as an Alternative Oil 

and Grease Method in 40 CFR Part 136 

After careful consideration of all the 

comments received on the NODA, EPA 

concludes that the case has not yet been 

made that ASTM D7575 should be 

approved for nationwide use as an 

alternative oil and grease method. EPA 

has multiple reasons supporting this 

conclusion. First, ASTM D7575 is not 

applicable to the same range and 

matrices as the existing Part 136 oil and 

grease methods. ASTM D7575 is 

applicable for measuring oil and grease 

from 5 mg/L to 200 mg/L while EPA 

Method 1664A is applicable for 

measuring oil and grease from 5 mg/L to 

1,000 mg/L. Additionally, as explained 

in Note 2 in the method, ASTM D7575 

is not appropriate for certain samples 

where the solid matter is not sufficiently 

IR transmitting, such as those that 

contain high levels of metal particulates. 

Further, EPA Method 1664A also 

quantifies non-polar oil and grease 

(SGT–HEM) while ASTM D–7575 does 

not. 

Second and more importantly, EPA 

continues to share the concerns raised 

by many commenters. Given that the 

two methods measure a method-defined 

parameter, by definition, they cannot 

measure the same thing. Consequently, 

because of the wide variety and type of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
14460 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

individual compounds that may be 

measured as oil and grease and because 

oil and grease is extensively 

incorporated in permits covering a wide 

variety of wastewater matrices, a 

permittee could be in or out of 

compliance simply due to a change in 

the test method used to evaluate 

samples. EPA continues to conclude 

such concerns are well founded for the 

following reasons. First, oil and grease 

is a method-defined parameter. That is, 

the results are dependent on the 

particular method used. As ASTM 

D7575 uses a different determinative 

step than the existing approved 

methods, one would not expect the 

results to be the same for all 

applications. Second, the results of 

ASTM D7575 have been evaluated on a 

relatively limited number of matrices 

(13) in comparison to the extensive 

number and types of possible 

applications. In contrast, when EPA 

promulgated Method 1664A to replace 

the previous Freon-based method, it 

evaluated the two methods on a much 

more extensive and wide variety of 

matrices (approximately 35). Third, the 

data evaluated to date demonstrate that 

while ASTM D7575 produces results 

that are generally very close to the 

approved method for the set of matrices 

evaluated, they are not statistically 

comparable results. As such, the 

concerns that the two methods may 

produce different results are well 

founded. 

However, EPA also recognizes that a 

blanket conclusion that one can never 

promulgate new methods for methoddefined parameters based on a different 

determinative technique leaves little 

room for technology improvements. 

Furthermore, EPA is keenly interested 

in supporting the development and use 

of ‘‘green’’ methods such as ASTM 

D7575 that do not require solvents. As 

such, EPA considered various 

approaches for allowing its use as an 

alternative to approved methods while 

minimizing the well founded concern 

that the two methods may affect 

compliance. In other words, in those 

applications where the two methods 

produce results that are comparable 

enough not to affect compliance, EPA 

wants to encourage the use of nonsolvent based methods such as ASTM 

D7575. On the other hand, EPA wants 

to prevent the use of ASTM D7575 in 

those applications where the two 

methods differ in their results and have 

the potential to affect a facility’s 

compliance status. Here, there simply is 

not enough data to make a nationwide 

determination. Until such time that EPA 

has enough data to make such a 

determination, EPA has concluded such 

determinations should be made on a 

case by case basis rather than a 

nationwide basis. As a result, EPA has 

decided not to approve ASTM D7575 as 

an alternative oil and grease method in 

Part 136. 

EPA also considered a novel approach 

in which it would approve ASTM 

D7575 as an alternative oil and grease 

method in Part 136 with a requirement 

to demonstrate comparability (side-byside data) to the permitting authority. 

To determine comparability for a 

specific application, a permittee could 

use the specific side by side comparison 

procedures recommended in the 

guidance document that was developed 

when Method 1664A was promulgated 

(see’’Analytical Method Guidance for 

EPA Method 1664A Implementation 

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

R–00–003, February 2000). Under this 

approach, a permittee would only be 

able to use ASTM D7575 if the 

recommended procedures demonstrated 

comparability. This approach would 

provide for a non-solvent based 

alternative to measuring oil and grease 

and eliminate the compliance concerns 

noted above. This approach would be 

novel because EPA has never approved 

a method for nationwide use with such 

a requirement. As explained in Section 

II.A, the purpose of promulgating Part 

136 methods for nationwide use is to 

simplify the permitting process and 

reduce burden to the permittees and the 

permitting authority (often the state). As 

a result, EPA consulted with various 

permitting authorities on this 

consideration. Feedback from 

permitting authorities indicated that 

reviewing side by side comparison data 

would be a huge burden on the states 

and that many POTWs lack both the 

expertise and staff to conduct a side by 

side comparison. As a result, EPA 

rejected this approach. 

C. ASTM D7575 as an Alternative Oil 

and Grease Method in Permit Specific 

Applications 

In EPA’s effort to promote the use of 

newer and more efficient methods, EPA 

looked at a third option—the use of 

EPA’s Alternate Test Procedures process 

spelled out in the regulations at 40 CFR 

136.5. EPA considered this approach for 

encouraging and allowing the use of 

ASTM D7575 while eliminating the 

associated compliance concerns using 

existing regulatory authority. As 

explained in Section F, EPA recognizes 

that new technologies and approaches 

are constantly being developed and, as 

such, Part 136 currently allows for 

permittees to gain approval of the use of 

an alternate method for a specific 

application at a facility or type of 

discharge that is different from the 

approved test procedure. Therefore, the 

authority already exists under § 136.5 

for a permittee to request the use of 

ASTM D7575 as an alternative oil and 

grease method for a specific use (i.e. 

limited use ATP). The burden to review 

such requests rests on the EPA Regional 

ATP Coordinators rather than the 

permitting authority which is often a 

state or a local control authority. As 

such, EPA encourages permittees to 

carefully consider whether or not ASTM 

D7575 is an acceptable alternative to the 

existing methods for their specific 

matrix and, if supported by data, to 

make such requests to their Regional 

ATP Coordinator. To the extent that 

such requests are widespread, EPA 

headquarters will provide technical 

support to the Regional ATP 

Coordinators. 

Part 136 already stipulates that an 

applicant must provide comparability 

data for the performance of the 

proposed method compared to the 

reference method to eliminate 

compliance concerns. EPA anticipates 

that requests for the use of ASTM D7575 

as an alternative oil and grease method 

could be widespread, thus EPA wants to 

ensure that such requests are handled 

consistently. To that end, EPA 

recommends that applicants 

demonstrate comparability by 

conducting a side-by-side comparison 

using the specific procedures (e.g. 

sampling frequency, number of samples, 

QA/QC, and statistical analyses) 

recommended in the guidance 

document that was developed when 

Method 1664A was promulgated 

[Analytical Method Guidance for EPA 

Method 1664A Implementation and Use 

(40 CFR part 136), EPA/821–R–00–003, 

February 2000]. Comparability could be 

shown if this side by side comparison 

demonstrates there is not a significant 

difference between the promulgated 

method and ASTM D7575. Finally, EPA 

notes that such requests may provide 

sufficient additional data that may allow 

EPA at a later date to later make a 

nationwide determination on the 

approval of ASTM D7575 as an 

alternative oil and grease method. 

IV. New Docket Materials 

1. Response to Comment document 

2. Response from ASTM re: technical 

questions 

3. Memo describing outreach to states 

and control authorities on burden 

4. May 14, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 

26315) 

5. ‘‘Analytical Method Guidance for 

EPA Method 1664A 

Implementation and Use (40 CFR 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 14461 

part 136),’’ EPA/821–R–00–003, 

February 2000 

Dated: February 27, 2013. 

Nancy K. Stoner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05248 Filed 3–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0357; FRL–9373–9] 

Fenpyrazamine; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of fenpyrazamine 

in or on multiple commodities which 

are identified and discussed later in this 

document. Valent U.S.A. Corporation 

and Interregional Research Project 

Number 4 (IR–4) requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 6, 2013. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 6, 2013, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0357, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 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 OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Benbow, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 347–0235; email address: 

benbow.gene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/ 

text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ 

Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–0357 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before May 6, 2013. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). In addition to filing an 

objection or hearing request with the 

Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR 

part 178, please submit a copy of the 

filing (excluding any Confidential 

Business Information (CBI)) for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2011–0357, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of July 6, 2011 

(76 FR 39358) (FRL–8875–6) and of July 

20, 2011 (76 FR 43233) (FRL–8880–1), 

EPA issued documents pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of 

pesticide petitions (PP 1F7841) by 

Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera 

Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 

94596 and PP 1E7850 by IR–4, 500 

College Road East, Suite 201W, 

Princeton, NJ 08540. The petitions 

requested that 40 CFR part 180 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the fungicide 

fenpyrazamine, S-allyl 5-amino-2- 

isopropyl-4-(2-methylphenyl)-3-oxo-2,3- 

dihydropyrazole-1-carbothioate, in or 

on: Almond at 0.02 parts per million 

(ppm); almond, hulls at 1.5 ppm; 

lettuce, head at 2.5 ppm; lettuce, leaf at 

2.5 ppm; small fruit vine climbing 

subgroup, except fuzzy kiwi fruit, crop 

subgroup 13–07F at 3.5 ppm; grape, 

juice at 7.0 ppm; grape, raisins at 4.5 

ppm; low growing berry subgroup 13– 

07G at 3.0 ppm (PP 1F7841); pistachio 

at 0.02 ppm; Caneberry subgroup 13– 

07A at 7.0 ppm; Bushberry subgroup 

13–07B at 7.0 ppm; and ginseng at 0.80 

ppm (PP 1E7850). Those documents 

referenced a summary of the petitions 

prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 

the registrant, which are available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 

There were no comments received in 

response to the notices of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has 

determined that the tolerances should 

be based upon parent fenpyrazamine 

only, has revised the tolerance levels for 

several commodities, and determined a 

tolerance is not needed for raisins. The 

reason for these changes is explained in 

Unit IV.D. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES