Modernizing Ignitable Liquids Determinations

As Enacted ( Federal Register)

Cited in

Published date	02 April 2019
Citation	84 FR 12539
Record Number	2019-05878
Section	Proposed rules
Court	Environmental Protection Agency

12539

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

consistent with the fundamental

federalism principles and preemption

requirements described in Executive

Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have

tribal implications under Executive

Order 13175, Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments, because it would not have

a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes.

If you believe this proposed rule has

implications for federalism or Indian

tribes, please contact the person listed

in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or

more in any one year. Though this

proposed rule would not result in such

an expenditure, we do discuss the

effects of this rule elsewhere in this

preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Department of Homeland

Security Directive 023–01 and

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,

which guide the Coast Guard in

complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a

preliminary determination that this

action is one of a category of actions that

do not individually or cumulatively

have a significant effect on the human

environment. This proposed rule

involves a safety zone that allows all

vessels to transit or navigate within the

safety zone but prohibits vessels, other

than large passenger vessels from

anchoring within the safety zone

without the express consent from the

Captain of the Port, Southeast Alaska or

a designated representative. Normally

such actions are categorically excluded

from further review under paragraph

L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01,

Rev. 01 We seek any comments or

information that may lead to the

discovery of a significant environmental

impact from this proposed rule.

V. Public Participation and Request for

Comments

We view public participation as

essential to effective rulemaking, and

will consider all comments and material

received during the comment period.

Your comment can help shape the

outcome of this rulemaking. If you

submit a comment, please include the

docket number for this rulemaking,

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and provide a reason for each

suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit

comments through the Federal

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person

in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

section of this document for

alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All

comments received will be posted

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov and will include

any personal information you have

provided. For more about privacy and

the docket, visit https://

www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM

as being available in the docket, and all

public comments, will be in our online

docket at https://www.regulations.gov

and can be viewed by following that

website’s instructions. Additionally, if

you go to the online docket and sign up

for email alerts, you will be notified

when comments are posted or a final

rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS

AREAS.

■1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

Department of Homeland Security Delegation

No. 0170.1.

■2. Revise § 165.1702 to read as

follows:

§ 165.1702 Gastineau Channel, Juneau,

Alaska-safety zone.

(a) The waters within the following

boundaries are a safety zone: All waters

eastward to shore from a line beginning

at Gastineau Channel Light 4 (LLNR

23695) in position 58°17.82′ N,

134°25.36′ W, in the direction of 130°

True to Rock Dump Lighted Buoy 2A

(LLNR 23685) at position 58°17.14′ N,

134°23.84′ W.

(b) Definitions. The following

definitions apply to this section:

(1) A large passenger vessel for the

purpose of this regulation are cruise

ships and ferries.

(2) Cruise ship means any vessel over

100 gross registered tons, carrying more

than 12 passengers for hire which makes

voyages lasting 24 hours, of which any

part is on high seas. Passengers from

cruise ships are embarked or

disembarked in the U.S. or its

territories. Cruise ships do not include

ferries that hold Coast Guard Certificates

of Inspection endorsed for ‘‘Lakes, Bays,

And Sounds’’, that transit international

waters for only short periods of time on

frequent schedules.

(3) Ferry means a vessel which is

limited in its use to the carriage of deck

passengers or vehicles or both, operates

on a short run on a frequent schedule

between two or more points over the

most direct water route, other than in

ocean or coastwise service.

may transit or navigate within the safety

zone.

(2) No vessels, other than a large

passenger vessel may anchor within the

safety zone without the express consent

from the Captain of the Port, Southeast

Alaska.

Dated: March 7, 2019.

Stephen R. White,

Capt., U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port,

Southeast Alaska.

[FR Doc. 2019–06375 Filed 4–1–19; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 266

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0830; FRL–9991–

43–OLEM]

RIN 2050–AG93

Modernizing Ignitable Liquids

Determinations

AGENCY

: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION

: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is

proposing to update the regulations for

the identification of ignitable hazardous

waste under the Resource Conservation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12540

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

and Recovery Act (RCRA) and to

modernize the RCRA test methods that

currently require the use of mercury

thermometers. These proposed revisions

would provide greater clarity to

hazardous waste identification, provide

flexibility in testing requirements,

improve environmental compliance,

and, thereby, enhance protection of

human health and the environment.

DATES

: Comments must be received on

or before June 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES

: Submit your comments,

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OLEM–2018–0830, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online

instructions for submitting comments.

Once submitted, comments cannot be

edited or removed from Regulations.gov.

The 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. The EPA will generally not

consider comments or comment

contents located outside of the primary

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or

other file sharing system). For

additional submission methods, the full

EPA public comment policy,

information about CBI or multimedia

submissions, and general guidance on

making effective comments, please visit

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Daniel Fagnant, Office of Land and

Emergency Management (5304P),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number 703–308–

0319; email address: fagnant.daniel@

epa.gov or Melissa Kaps, Office of Land

and Emergency Management (5304P),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number 703–308–

6787; email address: kaps.melissa@

epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

: The

information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. What action is the Agency taking?

C. What is the Agency’s authority for

taking this action?

D. What are the incremental costs and

benefits of this action?

II. Background

A. What is a hazardous waste?

B. What is the hazardous waste

characteristic of ignitability?

C. What is the regulatory history of the

ignitability characteristic?

D. What is a flash point and how is it

measured?

E. What flash point test methods does EPA

currently require?

F. What is the aqueous alcohol exclusion?

G. Why consider alternatives to mercury

thermometers in test methods?

III. Proposed Revisions to the Ignitability

Characteristic Flash Point Test Methods

A. Why is EPA proposing new flash point

test methods for ignitable liquids?

B. What test method is EPA proposing to

add to Method 1010A?

C. What test method is EPA proposing to

add to Method 1020B?

D. How are the proposed test methods

equivalent to the currently required test

methods?

E. Why is EPA not removing the currently

required flash point test methods?

IV. Codification of Guidance Into the

Ignitability Characteristic

A. Aqueous Alcohol Exclusion

1. Why is EPA proposing a revision to the

aqueous alcohol exclusion?

2. What are the proposed changes to the

aqueous alcohol exclusion?

3. Solicitation of Public Input on Other

Changes to the Aqueous Alcohol

Exclusion for Ignitability

B. Multiphase Testing

1. Why is the Agency proposing a revision

to codify sampling guidance for

multiphase wastes?

2. Proposed Codification of Guidance for

Multiphase Waste Sampling

V. Additional Corrections to § 261.21

A. What are the proposed changes to the

definition of ignitable compressed gas in

§ 261.21(a)(3)(ii)?

B. What are the proposed changes to

§ 261.21(a)(4)(i)(A)?

C. What are the proposed changes to the

notes section of § 261.21?

VI. Revision to Mercury Thermometer

Requirements in the Air Sampling and

Stack Emissions Methods

A. Why is EPA proposing revisions to the

air sampling and stack emissions

methods?

B. Proposed Changes to Mercury

Thermometer Requirements in SW–846

Method-Defined Parameter Air Sampling

and Stack Emissions Methods

VII. Incorporation by Reference

VIII. State Authorization

A. Applicability of Proposed Rule in

Authorized States

B. Effect on State Authorization

IX. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review and Executive

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and

Regulatory Review

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory

Costs

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA)

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution or Use

J. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act (NTTAA)

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

To Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The proposed rule to update the test

methods for determining if a liquid

waste is ignitable under the ignitability

characteristic may potentially affect any

entity (e.g., generator, laboratory) that

currently conducts flash point testing

using either SW–846 Method 1010A

(Pensky-Martens) or Method 1020B

(Setaflash). The rule may also affect any

entity (e.g., generator, laboratory,

combustor) that uses SW–846 air

sampling and stack emissions Methods

0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, or 0051. EPA

does not expect the other parts of this

proposed action (i.e., changes to

aqueous alcohol exclusion, addition of

sampling guidelines for multiphase

mixtures, and technical edits) to affect

any entity because they do not create

new requirements or change existing

requirements.

The universe of facilities affected by

the proposed updates to the ignitability

test methods and SW–846 air sampling

and stack emissions methods includes:

(1) Commercial laboratories, (2) EPA

laboratories, and (3) state laboratories.

EPA identified 217 unique commercial

laboratories that conduct ignitability

testing under either Method 1010A or

1020. EPA identified an additional 18

commercial laboratories accredited to

conduct any of the air sampling and

stack emissions methods that would be

updated under this proposed rule, for a

total of 235 commercial labs affected by

the rule. These 235 total laboratories are

part of 177 unique firms, including

several large commercial laboratories

with multiple locations. EPA estimates

that the total number of laboratories,

including 20 state and nine federal

laboratories, potentially affected by this

rule is 264. The analysis used to identify

the potential universe for this proposed

rule can be found in EPA’s Regulatory

Impact Analysis of the Modernization of

Ignitable Liquid Determination Rule,

which is in the docket.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12541

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

ASTM International (ASTM) is a nonprofit

organization, made up of producers, users,

consumers, government, and academia, that

develops and publishes consensus-based standards

(https://www.astm.org/).

This discussion is not intended to be

exhaustive but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This discussion

lists the types of entities that EPA is

now aware could potentially be

regulated by this action. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person listed in the

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

First, EPA proposes to update the

flash point test methods required for

determining if a liquid waste is an

ignitable hazardous waste. Second, EPA

is proposing to codify existing guidance

regarding the regulatory exclusion in the

ignitable characteristic for aqueous

liquids containing alcohols and is

requesting comment on whether

additional changes may be warranted.

Third, EPA is proposing to codify

existing sampling guidance regarding

waste mixtures having multiple phases

when determining whether a waste

exhibits the ignitability characteristic.

Fourth, EPA is proposing to update

cross references to Department of

Transportation regulations and to

remove obsolete information. Finally,

EPA is proposing to provide alternatives

to the use of mercury thermometers in

the air sampling and stack emissions

methods in Test Methods for Evaluating

Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical

Methods (SW–846). Adding the option

of using non-mercury thermometers in

place of mercury thermometers would

provide the regulated community with

increased flexibility in their

implementation of these required test

methods. The use of alternatives to

mercury thermometers is consistent

with previous Agency actions and helps

achieve the Agency’s goal of minimizing

the use of mercury.

The EPA is proposing and requesting

comment on revisions to modernize the

ignitability flash point test methods

(Methods 1010A and 1020B) and air

sampling and stack emissions methods

(Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, and

0051) to allow the use of non-mercury

thermometers. The Agency is also

proposing to update the ignitability

regulation (40 CFR 261.21) by codifying

guidance for aqueous alcohol solutions

and multiphase mixtures, as well as

making technical corrections. EPA

expects this proposed rulemaking to

improve hazardous waste identification,

reduce testing costs, improve laboratory

safety, and improve environmental

compliance, thereby enhancing

protection of human health and the

environment.

C. What is the Agency’s authority for

taking this action?

The authority to propose this rule can

be found in sections 1002, 1006, 2002,

3001–3009, 3013, and 3017 of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1970, as

amended by the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as

amended by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42

U.S.C. 6901, 6905, 6912, 6921–6929,

6934, and 6938.

D. What are the incremental costs and

benefits of this action?

EPA prepared an economic analysis of

the potential costs and benefits

associated with this proposed action.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis of the

Modernization of Ignitable Liquid

Determinations Rule is available in the

docket. The proposed rule will modify

SW–846 test methods while also

retaining the current procedures to

provide entities increased flexibility.

For the purpose of the analysis, EPA

assumes that every facility that

currently conducts flash point testing:

(1) Is compliant with the current test

methods, (2) will adopt the updated test

methods if cost effective, and (3) will

continue to conduct flash point testing.

The analysis indicates that the rule, as

proposed, is projected to result in

annualized cost savings of about

$78,500 to $477,000 (based on a

discount rate of 7 percent). The net

present value of costs over 20 years is

estimated to be a cost savings of

$832,000 to $5 million (seven percent

discount rate). EPA’s analysis shows

qualitative benefits to human health and

the environment through the reduced

use of mercury thermometers.

II. Background

A. What is a hazardous waste?

Subtitle C of RCRA and its

implementing regulations establish a

cradle-to-grave regulatory management

scheme for certain solid wastes that

qualify as hazardous wastes. RCRA

defines solid waste as ‘‘any garbage,

refuse, sludge from a waste treatment

plant, water supply treatment plant, or

air pollution control facility and other

discarded material, including solid,

liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous

material * * *.’’ (See RCRA 1004(27),

42 U.S.C. 6903(27).) EPA has further

defined the term solid waste for

purposes of its RCRA hazardous waste

regulations (40 CFR 261.2). To be

considered a hazardous waste, a

material first must be classified as a

solid waste. Under EPA’s regulations,

generators of solid waste are required to

determine whether their wastes are

hazardous wastes (40 CFR 262.11). A

solid waste is a hazardous waste if it

exhibits any of the four characteristics

of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or

toxicity (40 CFR 261.20–.24), or is a

listed waste (40 CFR 261.30–.33). Listed

wastes include wastes from non-specific

sources, such as spent solvents; by-

products from specific industries; and

discarded, unused commercial chemical

products.

B. What is the hazardous waste

characteristic of ignitability?

The characteristic of ignitability (40

CFR 261.21) identifies solid waste as

hazardous based on the properties of the

waste that give it the potential to cause

harm to human health or the

environment through direct or indirect

fire hazard, including contributing to or

causing landfill fires. Waste that is

identified as hazardous pursuant to 40

CFR 261.21 has the EPA Hazardous

Waste Number of D001. Ignitable

hazardous waste (D001) is regulated to

minimize its opportunity to cause or

contribute to fires during routine waste

management activities. Solid wastes that

are regulated as ignitable hazardous

waste include: (1) Certain liquids with

flash points below 60 °C (140 °F); (2)

non-liquid substances that are capable,

under specified conditions, of causing

fire through friction, absorption of

moisture, or spontaneous chemical

changes and, when ignited, burns so

vigorously and persistently that they

create a hazard; (3) ignitable compressed

gases; and (4) oxidizers.

C. What is the regulatory history of the

ignitability characteristic?

The ignitability characteristic was

originally proposed in 1978 (43 FR

58945) with an objective of identifying

wastes that present a fire hazard due to

being ignitable under routine waste

disposal and storage conditions. The

ignitability characteristic was finalized

in 1980 when EPA promulgated the first

phase of regulations under Subtitle C of

RCRA to protect human health and the

environment from the improper

management of hazardous waste (45 FR

33066, May 19, 1980). These regulations

included 40 CFR part 261, which in

part, defined the ignitability

characteristic and incorporated by

reference ASTM

D 93–79 (Pensky-

Martens) and ASTM D 3278–78

(Setaflash) as the required tests for

ignitable liquid hazardous waste

determinations. In a 1981 revision, EPA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12542

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

revised SW–846 Method 1010 to allow

the use of D 93–79 or D 93–80 (46 FR

35246, July 7, 1981).

ASTM standards D 3278–78, D 93–79,

and D 93–80 were the methods available

for flash point testing at the time of the

1980 and 1981 rulemakings. Since that

time, ASTM International (ASTM) has

updated D 93 and D 3278 multiple times

to improve the standards and

incorporate new technology. EPA

previously proposed to update the flash

point test methods for ignitability in the

2002 proposed Methods Innovation

Rule (67 FR 66252, Oct 30, 2002) by

replacing ASTM standard D 3278–78

with D 3278–96 and ASTM standards D

93–79 and D 93–80 with D 93–99c. In

that proposed rule, EPA also requested

comment on whether D 93–00 should

instead replace D 93–79 and D 93–80.

The public raised concerns that the

sampling procedures of the proposed

versions of D 93 may lead to a loss of

flammable volatile constituents from a

sample due to greater headspace in the

sampling container. The Agency made

the decision to not revise flash point

testing when the Methods Innovation

Rule was finalized in 2005, agreeing

with public comments that EPA further

study the changes in flash point testing

standards (70 FR 34550, June 14, 2005).

EPA later made corrections to the

ignitability characteristic to replace

obsolete references to DOT regulations

related to definitions of ignitable

compressed gases and oxidizers (see

July 14, 2006 Federal Register; 71 FR

40254). That final rule amended

§ 261.21 by revising paragraphs (a)(3)

and (a)(4) and adding notes 1 through 4

to the end of the section. No change was

made to § 261.21(a)(1). The current

language in § 261.21(a)(1) is

substantively the same as it was in 1980.

D. What is a flash point and how is it

measured?

The Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of

Chemical Technology defines a flash

point as the lowest temperature,

corrected to normal atmospheric

pressure (101.3kPa), at which the

application of an ignition source causes

the vapors of a liquid specimen to ignite

under the specific conditions of the test

(Solvents. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of

Chemical Technology. 1–40). A flash

point can be measured using a

specifically designed apparatus

operated under specified procedures. In

general, these procedures involve

incrementally heating a liquid sample to

a specified temperature in an open or

closed cup and then exposing the

vapors above the liquid to a flame or

electric spark ignition source. The

person performing the test looks for a

flash caused by the vapor phase

igniting; if no flash is observed, the

sample is heated to a higher temperature

and the experiment is repeated. When

used for RCRA regulatory purposes, the

test is repeated until the temperature

surpasses 60 °C (140 °F) using specified

procedures and apparatuses to ensure

that accurate and precise waste

determinations are being made.

E. What flash point test methods does

EPA currently require?

EPA currently requires the use of one

of two flash point test methods when

making an ignitability hazardous waste

determination for liquid wastes, if

generator knowledge is not used. (For

more information on the use of

generator knowledge, see Agency

guidance, Waste Analysis at Facilities

that Generate, Treat, Store and Dispose

of Hazardous Wastes, available in the

docket.) The required test methods to

determine the method-defined

parameter for the flash point of ignitable

hazardous waste are SW–846 Methods

1010A and 1020B, which are listed in

40 CFR 260.11 and required by 40 CFR

261.21(a)(1). EPA requires the use of a

specific method to obtain a method-

defined parameter when the particular

procedures and/or equipment of that

method are necessary to achieve the

property measurement required by

regulation. Therefore, to determine

whether a liquid waste is ignitable

hazardous waste under RCRA (i.e., has

a flash point less than 60 °C (140 °F)),

its flash point must be assessed

according to the procedures and

instrumentation set forth in Methods

1010A or 1020B. While other methods

may exist that can measure the flash

point of a liquid waste, only the test

methods set forth in Methods 1010A or

1020B may be used for determining

whether a liquid waste is ignitable

under 40 CFR 261.21(a)(1). Because

using Method 1010A or 1020B yields

results that are driven by the particular

technical specifications in those

methods, the measures and outcomes

from these methods are known as

method-defined parameters, and their

required use in section § 261.21 can

only be amended through a regulatory

effort.

Method 1010A is a test method for

flash point measurement using a

procedure and instrumentation

commonly referred to as the Pensky-

Martens method. Method 1010A, or the

Pensky-Martens method, incorporates

by reference ASTM standards D 93–79

and D 93–80. The last two digits at the

end of these ASTM standards indicate

the year of publication for these

standards (i.e., 1979 and 1980,

respectively). ASTM standard D 93 is an

actively maintained standard under the

ASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum

Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants.

The most recent update to the D 93

standard is D 93–16a, which was

published in 2016.

Alternatively, SW–846 Method 1020B

can be used for determining the

hazardous waste characteristic of

ignitability for liquids. Method 1020B is

a test method for flash point

measurement using the Setaflash, or

small-scale closed-cup, device and

method. Method 1020B incorporates by

reference ASTM standard D 3278–78,

which is maintained by the ASTM

Committee D01 on Paint and Related

Coatings, Materials, and Applications.

The last update to this ASTM standard

was in 1996. However, the standard was

reaffirmed in 2011 as ASTM D 3278–

96(2011).

In making an ignitable liquid

hazardous waste determination, either

the Pensky-Martens or the Setaflash

method may be used for most wastes.

The Pensky-Martens test is more

appropriate for liquids that are

nonhomogenous, form films, have high

viscosities, or are slurries because it

uses an instrument that can

mechanically mix wastes. The Setaflash

method, however, provides a practical

advantage of reduced sample size and,

therefore, reduced lab waste generation

when compared to the Pensky-Martens

method. Generators and laboratories

should choose to use the test method

that is most suitable to their needs.

F. What is the aqueous alcohol

exclusion?

The ignitability characteristic in

§ 261.21(a)(1) excludes ‘‘aqueous

solution[s] containing less than 24

percent alcohol by volume’’ from the

scope of liquids subject to § 261.21.

When EPA originally proposed the

ignitability characteristic in 1978, the

proposed rule did not contain an

exclusion for aqueous alcohols (43 FR

58945). Commenters on the 1978

proposed rule ‘‘argued that the

ignitability characteristic improperly

includes many liquid wastes such as

wine, latex paint and other water borne

coatings which contain low

concentrations of volatile organics such

as alcohol and will consequently exhibit

flash points below 100 °F but will not

sustain combustion because of the high

percentage of water present.’’

(Background Document for the

Characteristic of Ignitability, US EPA,

May 2, 1980, page 38.) In response, EPA

modified the ignitability characteristic

in the final rule with ‘‘an exclusion

similiar [sic] to that prescribed by DOT

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12543

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Note that even if this waste stream falls within

the scope of the aqueous alcohol exclusion and,

thus, would not be regulated as an ignitable

hazardous waste, this waste stream could still be

regulated as a hazardous waste if it exhibits other

hazardous characteristics or is listed. In addition,

once a waste stream no longer meets the

requirements of the exclusion or is likely to not

meet the requirements during normal management

(e.g., the water or alcohol content changed), the

waste would be subject to regulation under the

ignitability characteristic.

A copy of this Question and Answer has been

placed into the docket for this proposal. A version

is also available at www.epa.gov/rcraonline, RCRA

Online Number 13548.

In developing this proposed rule, EPA reviewed

how the ignitability characteristic’s aqueous alcohol

exclusion related to the alcohol exclusion under

DOT’s Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). A

summary of DOT’s HMR’s exemption of alcoholic

beverages and aqueous solutions of alcohol has

been placed into the docket for reference.

This memorandum is available at https://

www.epa.gov/mercury/2008-memo-requiring-all-

epa-labs-phase-out-use-mercury-filled-

thermometers and in the docket.

This document is available at https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/

documents/nistuserfriendlyguide.pdf and in the

docket.

This report is available at https://

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mercury/mercury_report.html

and in the docket.

See https://www.astm.org/SNEWS/SO_2008/

mercury_so08.html and the docket.

See http://www.mercuryconvention.org/.

[Department of Transportation] and

exempt from the ignitability

characteristic aqueous solutions with

alcohol concentrations of less than 24

percent by volume. This exclusion will

remove from the ignitability

characteristic such things as wine and

latex paint which flash at less than

100 °F but will not sustain combustion.’’

(ibid., 39.) Thus, the 1980 final rule

codified the following text in the

definition of ignitability at

§ 261.21(a)(1): ‘‘It is a liquid, other than

an aqueous solution containing less

than 24 percent alcohol by volume, and

has a flash point less than 60 °C

(140 °F).’’

(45 FR 33121; May 19, 1980.)

EPA later clarified the alcohol

exclusion in several ways. In the

preamble to a later rulemaking (55 FR

22543, June 1, 1990), EPA stated that

‘‘the term alcohol [in § 261.21(a)(1)]

refers to any alcohol or combination of

alcohols’’ and noted that ‘‘[i]f the

alcohol has been used for solvent

properties and is one of the alcohols

specified in EPA Hazardous Waste No.

F003 or F005, the waste must be coded

with these Hazardous Waste Numbers.’’

In addition, in 1992, the EPA clarified

that the ‘‘alcohol exclusion in 40 CFR

261.21(a)(1), however, is not limited to

those wastes mentioned in the May 19,

1980, Federal Register. It applies to all

aqueous solutions containing less than

24 percent alcohol, even if additional

non-alcoholic components are present.’’

(EPA Monthly Hotline Report, EPA530–

R–92–014g, July 1992, page 3.)

In that

clarification, EPA stated that the

‘‘alcohol exclusion for the ignitability

characteristic was adopted from the

Department of Transportation’s (DOT)

definition of ‘‘combustible liquids’’ in

49 CFR 173.115(b). The alcohol

exclusion in 49 CFR 173.115(b)(2)(ii)

applies to aqueous solutions containing

24 percent or less alcohol by volume

which contain no less than 50 percent

water. Since EPA originally intended to

be consistent with DOT regulations

when promulgating the alcohol

exclusion in § 261.21(a)(1), the 50

percent water stipulation may be

applied to the ignitability

characteristic.’’

Thus, for the purpose

of the ignitability characteristic in

§ 261.21(a)(1), EPA stated that

‘‘aqueous’’ means a ‘‘solution

continuing at least 50 percent water by

weight.’’ (ibid., 4.)

G. Why consider alternatives to mercury

thermometers in test methods?

Today, EPA is proposing to remove

the requirement to use mercury

thermometers in several EPA analytical

methods by revising the method or by

adding modern alternative methods that

may be used. Because of its unique

properties, elemental mercury has been

used in many applications, including

thermometers, fluorescent light bulbs,

and some electrical switches. However,

mercury from these devices can enter

the environment through breakage or

spills during use and during recycling

or disposal. Mercury is a potent

neurotoxin with a variety of well-

documented negative health effects. For

more information on the negative health

effects of mercury exposure, see https://

www.epa.gov/mercury/health-effects-

exposures-mercury#self.

Government agencies continue to

phase out the use of mercury devices,

including efforts by EPA (see 76 FR

2056, January 12, 2011; 77 FR 2456,

January 18, 2012; and the September 30,

2008 memorandum, Phasing Out

Mercury Filled Thermometers

), the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) (see User-Friendly

Guidance on the Replacement of

Mercury Thermometers

), and the

Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR) (see report on

Children’s Exposure to Elemental

Mercury: A National Review of Exposure

Events

). Organizations, including

ASTM International (see ASTM and the

Mercury Initiative

) and the United

Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) (see Minamata Convention

have also worked to phase out mercury

thermometer usage. EPA maintains

information on efforts to reduce

mercury exposures and to address

mercury pollution in the environment at

https://www.epa.gov/mercury. In the

majority of uses, mercury thermometers

can be replaced with safer, technically

appropriate, readily available non-

mercury temperature measurement

devices (Ripple and Strouse J. ASTM

International 2005).

III. Proposed Revisions to the

Ignitability Characteristic Flash Point

Test Methods

A. Why is EPA proposing new flash

point test methods for ignitable liquids?

Although the flash point test methods

currently required by § 261.21(a)(1)

provide accurate determinations of

whether a liquid waste is characteristic

for ignitability, these methods were

published about 40 years ago, and

newer technology is now available. As

explained in Section II.E. in this notice,

SW–846 Method 1010A currently

incorporates by reference ASTM

standards D 93–79 and D 93–80, which

are known as the Pensky-Martens

method. SW–846 Method 1020B

currently incorporates by reference

ASTM standard D 3278–78, otherwise

known as the Setaflash method. These

test methods represented technology

and best practices developed in 1978,

1979, and 1980. Since then, the ASTM

committees that maintain these

standards have updated these test

methods to incorporate modernized

technology and practices, but the RCRA

regulations still require the use of the

1978, 1979, and 1980 versions.

Due to the scientific and technological

advances over the last few decades,

these methods have become outdated

and their use presents several

challenges to the regulated community.

For instance, these standards require

mercury thermometers, which are being

phased out because of the

environmental health and safety

concerns of mercury. The Agency’s

mercury thermometer requirements

have become more difficult to meet as

organizations, such as NIST (NIST,

2011), discontinue calibration services

for mercury thermometers; consensus-

based bodies, such as ASTM (ASTM,

2008), phase out mercury thermometers

from their standards; and instrument

manufacturers phase out mercury

thermometers from commercially

available equipment. As part of its

efforts to reduce mercury usage and

release, and in the interest of providing

the regulated community with modern,

readily available options for

compliance, EPA has already revised

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12544

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

SW–846 methods that require the use of

mercury thermometers to allow for the

use of non-mercury-containing

temperature measuring devices (77 FR

2456, Jan 18, 2012; 79 FR 11228, Feb 27,

2014).

The decreased use of mercury

thermometers and new technology in

modern instrumentation combined with

the decreased availability of calibration

services limit commercially available

flash point devices that meet the current

EPA testing requirements for ignitable

waste. First, the flash point standards

required by EPA use reference materials

that, as EPA understands, are no longer

commercially available as certified

reference materials, such as para-xylene

for D 3278–78. Second, new

technologies, such as electric spark

ignition sources in place of flame

ignition sources, offer improved lab

safety and are available in modern

instruments. Third, the Agency believes

that new instruments may not be able to

increase temperature at the specified

rate (temperature ramping rate) in SW–

846 Method 1020B.

EPA is proposing to revise the

existing required Flash Point Test

Methods 1010A and 1020B by adding

modern consensus-based standards that

reflect the improvements and

modernization of flash point testing that

has occurred since 1978 to the methods

currently required by 261.21(a). EPA

understands that many generators and

laboratories already have

instrumentation capable of modern flash

point testing. Therefore, the proposed

update adds the flexibility of using

modern test methods, provides the

potential for cost savings, and enhances

the protection of human health and the

environment while providing equivalent

results (See Section III.D. for

information on how the proposed test

methods are equivalent to the currently

required test methods).

B. What test method is EPA proposing

to add to Method 1010A?

EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR

261.21 and update Method 1010A to

Method 1010B to incorporate by

reference ASTM standard D 8175–18 as

an alternative to ASTM standards D 93–

79 and D 93–80 (Pensky-Martens

method) (see Table 1). The D 8175–18

standard is maintained by the ASTM

Committee D34 on Waste Management,

with whom the Agency worked to

modify the existing D 93–16 standard

for waste testing. The creation of the D

8175–18 standard utilized the existing

knowledge and practices of the flash

point testing community to develop a

standard specifically suited for flash

point testing of waste matrices.

The Agency initially considered

proposing to incorporate by reference

ASTM standard D 93–16 as a required

flash point test method. ASTM standard

D 93, has been updated numerous times

between 1980 and 2017. The 1979,

1980, 2016, and 2017 versions of D 93

all achieve the same fundamental

measurement; the newest versions

incorporate newer technology, provide

more detailed procedures, and include

quality control measures, such as

instrument verification using certified

reference materials. However, the D 93–

16 standard was written for the testing

of petroleum products, and EPA, after

reviewing the standard, had concerns

that the standard was not ideally suited

for flash point testing of waste forms.

The matrices of discarded chemicals,

lab wastes, liquids from emergency

response, free products, and other

wastes that might make up a waste

mixture are often more complex and

varied than petroleum products. The

Agency is concerned about the

appropriateness of some aspects of the

D 93–16 sampling procedures when

applied to waste analysis. The D 93–16

standards were developed primarily to

test the flash point of products while

RCRA testing requirements are often for

more complex mixtures. For example,

heating a sample to lower the viscosity

before placing it in the closed cup

device for measurement of the flash

point may produce results that are not

representative when testing waste

mixtures with relatively small

concentrations of volatile components

that easily ignite and readily evaporate

at elevated temperatures. The Agency

notes that the public raised similar

concerns in comments regarding the

Agency’s proposal to incorporate D 93–

99c by reference as part of the Methods

Innovation Rule (See comments by the

American Chemistry Council, EPA

Docket Number EPA–HQ–RCRA–2002–

0025). The D 93–16 standard is also

designed to measure petroleum

products in a temperature range from 40

°C to 370 °C. As the regulatory criteria

for flash point of ignitable liquids is 60

°C and below, EPA worked with ASTM

to modify the D 93–16 test procedure to

measure flash points of waste matrices

in a narrower temperature range and

closer to room temperature. The lower

but narrower temperature range

required for RCRA ignitability testing

also allows for a slower temperature

ramp rate in the method. The Agency

notes that it is possible that the lowest

temperature of the apparatus is

significantly higher than the actual flash

point of the sample. Some liquids such

as gasoline, pentane, hexane, natural gas

condensate, drip oil, etc. have flash

points below ¥20 C, the lower limit of

the small scale closed cup test method.

Conditions can exceed the fire point

(see ASTM D92) and a significant

enlargement of the test flame is

observed. In such situations, it is to be

concluded that the flash point is below

the range of the tester and hence below

60 C.

ABLE

1—S

UMMARY OF

URRENT AND

ROPOSED

SW–846 F

LASH

OINT

ESTS AND THE

ASTM S

TANDARDS

NCORPORATED BY

EFERENCE

ASTM

Standard

incorporated

by reference

Common name Status EPA SW–846

method

number

Publication

year

D 93–79 .......... Pensky-Martens ............................................. Current flash point test method used in

§ 261.21(a)(1). 1010A 1979

D 93–80 .......... Pensky-Martens ............................................. Current flash point test method used in

§ 261.21(a)(1). 1010A 1980

D 8175–18 ...... Pensky-Martens ............................................. Proposed modern, alternative flash point test

method. 1010B 2018

D 3278–78 ...... Setaflash, Small Scale Closed Cup ............... Current flash point test method used in

§ 261.21(a)(1). 1020B 1978

D 8174–18 ...... Setaflash, Small Scale Closed Cup ............... Proposed modern, alternative flash point test

method. 1020C 2018

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12545

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Repeatability and Reproducibility are terms

defined by ASTM and other organizations.

Repeatability is precision determined from multiple

test results by a single, well trained operator in a

single lab with one set of equipment.

Reproducibility is precision determined from

multiple tests in several laboratories. See ASTM

E177–14 for more information.

C. What test method is EPA proposing

to add to Method 1020B?

EPA similarly worked with ASTM to

modify the current version of the small-

scale closed-cup flash point test. EPA is

proposing to revise § 261.21 and update

Method 1020B to Method 1020C,

incorporating by reference the resulting

ASTM standard D 8174–18 as an

alternative to ASTM standard D 3278–

78 (Setaflash method) (see Table 1). The

D 8174–18 standard is an updated

version of the D 3828–16a standard that

has been modified to be more

appropriate for waste testing. EPA first

considered incorporating by reference D

3278–96(2011), which is the most

current version of the standard that is in

Method 1020B. However, this standard

does not use the most modern

technology available for Setaflash

closed-cup testing, having been last

updated in 1996 (and last reaffirmed in

2011). As ASTM has multiple standards

for closed-cup flash point testing, EPA

also considered the suitability of ASTM

standards D 7236–16 and D 3828–16a.

Due to EPA’s understanding that D 3828

is a preferred method in the analytical

community, EPA focused on ASTM

standard D 3828–16a as a new test for

ignitable liquids. After further review of

ASTM D 3828–16a standard, the Agency

identified concerns with the sampling

procedures similar to the Agency’s

concerns with D 93–16 as stated in

Section III.B. The sampling procedures

in 3828–16a are refined and optimized

for petroleum products. Waste matrices

can be mixtures of a wide variety of

chemical compounds with varying

physical properties and may present

sampling challenges not often found in

petroleum products. As a result, EPA

worked with ASTM to adapt the

standard to waste samples.

Additionally, EPA was interested in a

testing procedure that minimized

sampling requirements and waste

generation. The use of a finite flash

method would require that samples

with unknown flash point temperatures

be measured in a series of tests until a

flash was detected. Each test in the

series would require a new sample be

placed in the tester, increasing the

amount of sample required for analysis

and waste generated by testing.

Therefore, EPA worked with ASTM to

develop a modified version of ASTM

standard D 3828–16a that also includes

a non-mandatory ramp test. This ramp

test procedure (found in the appendix of

D 8174–18) can be used to determine an

estimated flash point when working

with an unknown sample. The

estimated flash point can then be used

to perform the finite flash test

procedure, limiting the total number of

tests needed when the expected flash

point of a sample is not known.

D. How are the proposed test methods

equivalent to the currently required test

methods?

Technical changes between the

currently required SW–846 Methods

1010A and 1020B and the proposed test

methods include the allowance for an

automatic method with electronic flash

point detection, the option to use a

flame ignition source or an electric

ignition source, and use of non-mercury

temperature devices. The changes in

instrumentation that have occurred over

time as new technology was developed

present opportunities for improvements

to a method but also may affect

precision, accuracy, or bias of an

instrument or method. In the process of

adapting these new technologies, ASTM

and other organizations have conducted

a number of studies to verify that these

technological changes present

equivalent testing results, as discussed

below.

The use of automated instrumentation

for flash point testing has been a widely

accepted practice for decades. In 1992,

ASTM completed a round robin study

(see Research Report S15–1008 in

docket) using ASTM standards D 92 and

D 93 to determine the precision and

accuracy of automatic and manual flash

point instruments. This round robin

study found no statistical difference

between the reproducibility variances of

automatic and manual Pensky-Martens

flash point methods.

The use of electric ignition sources in

flash point testing improves lab safety.

The Energy Institute funded a round

robin study to determine the precision

for ASTM D 3828–9 using both gas and

electric igniters (see Energy Institute

Research Report, August 15, 2010 in

docket). The round robin study found

that while there was bias between the

electric and gas ignition sources, the

bias was small relative to the

repeatability of the method. ASTM took

this information into consideration and

decided to publish a combined

precision applicable to both gas and

electric ignitors for ASTM standard D

3828.

Both of the new ASTM standards that

will be incorporated by reference, D

8175–18 and D 8174–18, allow for the

use of temperature measuring devices

that are either digital or liquid-in-glass.

The digital temperature measuring

devices and liquid-in-glass

thermometers must meet the

specifications listed in Annex A1 and

A2 of D 8175–18 and Annex A4 of D

8174–18. These performance-based

specifications may allow for the use of

mercury-containing thermometers but

do not require them. The performance

requirements of temperature

measurement devices are set by

manufacturers to meet certification

standards set by NIST and other

standards organizations. The use of

calibrated and certified non-mercury

temperature measurement devices in

flash point testing is expected to

provide equivalent results (See User

Friendly Guidance on the Replacement

of Mercury Thermometers from NIST/

EPA in docket).

The changes in instrumentation to

incorporate new technology are already

reflected in the modern versions of the

ASTM standards that are currently

required by EPA for flash point testing

pursuant to 261.21 (e.g., modern

versions of D 93–79, such as D 93–16a,

have electric ignition sources). The

repeatability and reproducibility of the

modern standards are similar to that of

the standards currently required by

EPA.

This similarity, for the purposes

of flash point testing, indicates that the

results from either test method should

be similar.

For example, ASTM standard D 93–80

lists a repeatability of 2 °C and a

reproducibility of 3.5 °C for flash point

measurements of 104 °C and under. For

modern versions of D 93, repeatability

and reproducibility are dependent upon

the flash point temperature measured.

Therefore, using EPA’s regulatory value

for flash point of 60 °C in the

temperature-dependent equation given

by ASTM D 93–16, repeatability is 1.74

°C and reproducibility is 4.26 °C. ASTM

standard D 3278–78 gives a repeatability

of 1.7 °C and a reproducibility of 3.3 °C.

D 3278–96(11), which is the modern

version of D 3278–78, lists a

repeatability of 1.7 °C and a

reproducibility of 3.3 °C. The similar

values for repeatability and

reproducibility in the modern standards

and the 1978 to 1980 standards that EPA

currently requires shows that the

accuracy of these methods has remained

relatively unchanged despite the

adoption of new technology into the

standard as discussed above.

These precision and accuracy

statements from ASTM are based on

testing relatively pure reference

chemicals. To confirm these results for

more complex waste forms (e.g., those

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12546

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

consisting of multiple components and

multiple phases), a single lab study was

conducted. In ASTM standards D 8175–

18 and D 8174–18, a single lab study

using simulated waste matrices

determined repeatability for these

standards. The simulated waste matrices

were single phases consisting of an

equal volume mixture of xylenes and 1-

butanol, a mixture (by volume) of 60%

1-butanol and 40% n-decane, a mixture

(by volume) of 70% n-decane and 30%

n-undecane, and a mixture (by volume)

of 10% acetone and 90% n-heptane. A

multiphase mixture (by volume) of 50%

diesel, 47.5% water, and 2.5% acetone

was also studied (see D 8175–18 and D

8174–18 in the docket for specific

results). Based on these studies, D 8175–

18 repeatability is between 0.88 °C and

2.26 °C for the five samples tested. D

8174–18 repeatability is between 0.88 °C

and 2.34 °C for the five waste forms

tested. The repeatability values of D

8175–18 and D 8174–18 are consistent

with the stated repeatability of the

ASTM standards currently required by

SW–846 Methods 1010A and 1020B

(i.e., ASTM standards D 3278–78, D 93–

79, and D 93–80). EPA understands that

future updates to ASTM standards D

8175–18 and D 8174–18 will have more

robust precision and accuracy values

when ASTM completes interlaboratory

validation of the methods. EPA will

update the regulation or revisit the

accuracy of these test methods, if

necessary.

E. Why is EPA not removing the

currently required flash point test

methods?

ASTM standards D 93–79, D 93–80,

and D 3278–78 remain technically

acceptable methods for determinations

of flash point for ignitable liquids. The

Agency strongly encourages generators

and laboratories to use alternatives to

mercury thermometers whenever

possible but is also proposing flexibility

by not requiring that existing equipment

be modified or replaced to remove

mercury thermometers already in use.

The Agency anticipates that domestic

and international efforts to reduce

mercury usage, the environmental

benefits of removing mercury from the

workplace, and the economic benefits

from reduced testing costs will result in

generators and laboratories adopting the

new methods over time. This shift

toward using the new methods will

result in the reduction and eventual end

of mercury thermometer use in flash

point testing as part of the normal

process of upgrading or replacing

laboratory equipment.

The Agency is interested in input

from the public on whether it would be

more appropriate to remove the

incorporation by reference of D 93–79,

D 93–80, and D 3828–78 from SW–846

and 40 CFR 261.21 at this time. The

SW–846 Test Methods program states a

preference for the regulated community

to use the most up-to-date version of

SW–846 methods. However, to provide

flexibility, both the current and

proposed methods would need to be

specified in the regulation. By leaving

ASTM standards D 93–79, D 93–80, and

D 3278–78 incorporated by reference

within SW–846 Methods 1010 and 1020

and the ignitability regulation, the

Agency intends to provide the regulated

community the time it needs to

transition between the old and new test

standards. The Agency may remove

ASTM standards D 93–79, D 93–80, and

D 3278–78 from SW–846 Methods 1010

and 1020 and the ignitability regulation

in a future update.

IV. Codification of Guidance Into the

Ignitability Characteristic

A. Aqueous Alcohol Exclusion

1. Why is EPA proposing a revision to

the aqueous alcohol exclusion?

As part of its effort to update the

ignitability methods, the Agency

reviewed the exclusion for aqueous

solutions containing ignitable alcohols

to determine if the exclusion should be

revised. Since 1980, questions regarding

the scope of the exclusion have been

raised. As discussed in more detail in

Section II.F. of this notice, EPA has

provided clarification by interpreting

the exclusion to include any alcohol or

combination of alcohols (except if the

alcohol has been used for its solvent

properties and is one of the alcohols

specified in EPA Hazardous Waste No.

F003 or F005) that contains less than 24

percent alcohol by volume, even if

additional non-alcoholic components

are present, and at least 50 percent

water by weight.

EPA has since become aware that the

aqueous alcohol exclusion may

inadvertently exclude certain wastes

from the ignitibility characteristic—

aqueous liquids with small amounts of

alcohol, where these wastes are

ignitable due primarily to non-alcoholic

components—contrary to the intent of

the exclusion. For example, the

exclusion may apply to an aqueous

waste stream that contains a small

concentration of an ignitable alcohol

and a large concentration of an ignitable

non-alcoholic component. This waste

would be excluded from the ignitability

characteristic despite potentially

exhibiting the same hazards as ignitable

wastes that do not fall within the scope

of the exclusion.

EPA is currently unaware of existing

mismanagement or damage cases

resulting from this interpretation, and it

may only affect a small number of

(currently unknown) waste streams. The

Agency solicits information on the

experience of the regulated community,

state authorized programs, and others in

implementing this provision of the

ignitability characteristic (See Section

IV.A.3. in this notice).

2. What are the proposed changes to the

aqueous alcohol exclusion?

Due to questions received about the

alcohol exclusion under the RCRA

hazardous waste ignitibility

characteristic, EPA wants to use this

opportunity to clarify the exclusion’s

scope by proposing to codify the

existing guidance into the regulatory

text. Specifically, EPA is proposing to

revise the aqueous alcohol exclusion

from ‘‘other than an aqueous solution

containing less than 24 percent alcohol

by volume’’ to ‘‘other than a solution

containing less than 24 percent of any

alcohol or combination of alcohols

(except if the alcohol has been used for

its solvent properties and is one of the

alcohols specified in EPA Hazardous

Waste No. F003 or F005) by volume and

at least 50 percent water by weight.’’

This proposed change removes the term

‘‘aqueous’’ from § 261.21(a)(1), which is

currently undefined in the RCRA

hazardous waste regulations, and

specifies what percentage of water

defines the scope of this exclusion. The

Agency notes that the water content of

a waste is not a method-defined

parameter and more than one method or

procedure may be appropriate for

measuring the water content of a

sample. Existing SW–846 methods for

water quantification include EPA SW–

846 Methods 9000 and 9001. An analyst

should choose the most appropriate

method for measuring water content

based on the physical and chemical

properties of their waste.

Codifying the guidance into the

regulatory text would provide clarity

and certainty for the regulated

community and will remove the need

for generators and laboratories or

managers of waste to rely on multiple

documents to understand the intended

scope of the alcohol exclusion.

Today’s proposed action would have

no effect on 40 CFR 403.5(b)(1), which

prohibits ‘‘pollutants which create a fire

or explosion hazard in the POTW

[publicly owned treatment work],

including, but not limited to,

wastestreams [sic] with a closed cup

flash point of less than 140 degrees

Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade

using the test methods specified in 40

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12547

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

EPA evaluated whether the aqueous alcohol

exclusion in §261.21 should apply to 40 CFR

403.5(b)(1) and concluded that extending the

exclusion to 40 CFR 403.5(b)(1) is not appropriate.

(July 24, 1990 Federal Register; 55 FR at 30086).

‘‘POTW collection systems are an ideal

environment for generation of flammable/ignitable

atmospheres . . . allowing an exemption from the

flash point prohibition for aqueous solutions

containing less than 24 percent alcohol by volume

would not sufficiently protect POTWs.’’ (ibid.)

Letter dated November 20, 2012 from Betsy

Devlin, USEPA, to Gary Jones, Printing Industries

of America, available at www.epa.gov/rcraonline

(RCRA Online Number 14834). A copy of this letter

is available in the docket to today’s proposed rule.

CFR 261.21’’ with no exemption for

aqueous alcohol solutions (July 24, 1990

Federal Register; 55 FR 30082).

Any

revisions made to the aqueous alcohol

exclusion in § 261.21(a)(1) from this rule

would not change its inapplicability to

40 CFR 403.5(b)(1).

3. Solicitation of public input on other

changes to the aqueous alcohol

exclusion for ignitability

Because the aqueous alcohol

exclusion could be interpreted to be

more broadly applicable than originally

intended (See Section IV.A.1. in this

notice), EPA is seeking input on

whether any additional revisions should

be made to the aqueous alcohol

exclusion in § 261.21(a)(1). The Agency

is interested in the experiences of state

authorized programs that manage

excluded aqueous alcohols as solid

waste and whether state programs have

more stringent requirements. The

Agency is also interested in input from

waste generators, laboratories, and other

members of the public who may have

information regarding the specific

hazards, or lack thereof, of managing

waste streams pursuant to the current

exclusion. This information might

include: How much waste is generated

and managed under the exclusion for

aqueous alcohol solutions, how specific

waste is currently managed, what waste-

specific or industry-specific

management standards or established

practices for solutions of aqueous

alcohol waste already exist, what waste

forms are not currently excluded but

may warrant exclusion due to a lack of

risk to human health or the

environment, what specific waste forms

may currently be excluded despite

presenting risks to human health or the

environment, and any examples of

waste mismanagement, damage, or

injury resulting from waste managed

under the aqueous alcohol exclusion.

This information may help identify

appropriate revisions to the aqueous

alcohol exclusion for ignitable liquids to

limit the exclusion to its original intent.

Possible revisions to the aqueous

alcohol exclusion could include

explicitly identifying specific waste

streams in the regulation to which the

exclusion would apply to remove the

uncertainty regarding the current scope

of the exclusion and narrowing the

types of alcohol that would qualify for

the aqueous alcohol exclusion. Other

considerations could include adding a

minimum alcohol content as a

requirement for excluded wastes to

better target potential waste streams that

flash primarily from their alcoholic

components or adding to or improving

the existing criteria a waste must meet

to be eligible for the exclusion (e.g.,

raise the minimum water content for

aqueous alcohol solutions) to decrease

the likelihood that a liquid waste

excluded from the ignitability

characteristic would be able to sustain

combustion or otherwise contribute to

an ongoing fire. The Agency seeks

information that can be used to

determine appropriate revisions to the

aqueous alcohol exclusion.

B. Multiphase Testing

1. Why is the Agency proposing a

revision to codify sampling guidance for

multiphase wastes?

The Agency has received questions in

the past on sampling wastes that are

multiple phases or may become

multiple phases during normal

management. The proposed and current

test methods for ignitability contain

instructions and procedures specific to

that ASTM standard. The Agency is

proposing to add new language to

261.21(a) to clarify that EPA’s existing

sampling procedures for multiphase

samples would be applicable to all

liquid wastes tested under 261.21.

Existing guidance from the Agency

states that multiphase mixtures should

be separated so that each phase is

analyzed individually (discussed further

below).

2. Proposed Codification of Guidance

for Multiphase Waste Sampling

The Agency is proposing to add a new

paragraph to § 261.21(a) that clarifies

how to properly test multiphase wastes

containing multiple liquid(s) with or

without solids for ignitability

determinations. This added language

would codify EPA’s long-standing

sampling guidance for multiphase

wastes, which are wastes that, due to

differences in density (e.g., oil/water) or

physical form (e.g., solid/liquid),

separate into two or more phases. EPA’s

long-standing sampling guidance states

that for multiphase mixtures, a

generator and laboratory should

separate the sample into all of its

different solid and/or liquid phases, to

the extent practicable, and analyze each

one individually in accordance with

§ 261.21(a) to determine whether that

phase exhibits the characteristic of

ignitability. However, care should be

taken to avoid loss of volatiles during

separation, and it may not be possible

to remove solids in all multiphase

wastes. If the individual phases cannot

be separated without an appreciable loss

of volatiles such that the ignitability test

results may be affected, then the

multiphase waste should be tested for

flash point as a whole.

The Agency notes that some waste

mixtures may initially be one phase

upon generation and later separate into

two or more phases during the course of

normal management. The requirement

to make hazardous waste

determinations upon generation and at

any time during the course of

management (including if phase

separation occurs) is already clearly

stated in 40 CFR 262.11(a). ‘‘The

hazardous waste determination for each

[RCRA] solid waste must be made at the

point of waste generation, before any

dilution, mixing, or other alteration of

the waste occurs, and at any time in the

course of its management that it has, or

may have, changed its properties as a

result of exposure to the environment or

other factors that may change the

properties of the waste such that the

RCRA classification of the waste may

change.’’ This policy was reaffirmed in

the hazardous waste generator proposed

and final rules (80 FR 57938 and 81 FR

85751).

EPA’s existing guidance on

multiphase mixtures, which applies at

initial generation and during the course

of normal management, as applicable, in

SW–846 states to break up and separate

phases when possible (SW–846 Chapter

2, pp 8–9). For example, the Agency has

explained that a hazardous waste

determination is required for both

phases of a multiphase liquid and that

the RCRA sampling protocol called the

COLIWASA (Composite Liquid Waste

Sampler, ASTM D–5495), found in

Chapter Nine of EPA’s waste testing

guidance, ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating

Solid Waste (SW–846),’’ can be used for

this purpose.

The proposed regulatory

language in this notice would clarify

that multiphase wastes should be

separated out into its different liquid

and/or solid phases, to the extent

possible, before then testing each

individual phase for ignitability in

accordance with § 261.21.

Related to this issue, EPA notes that

determining that a waste contains liquid

and separating liquid from solid may be

relatively straightforward through

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12548

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

observation, decanting, pipetting, or

simple gravity filtration (i.e., EPA

Method 9095, Paint Filter Liquids Test

or PFLT). However, confirming that a

waste does not contain liquid might not

be possible using these techniques for

some wastes. In 1993, the Agency

proposed Update II to SW–846, which

included modified language in SW–846

to state that the pressure filtration

technique specified in SW–846 Method

1311 (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure or TCLP; see Section 7.1.1)

should be used to determine if a waste

contains a free liquid as part of making

hazardous waste characteristics

determinations such as ignitability or

corrosivity (August 31, 1993 Federal

not finalize this proposed modification

due to commenters’ concerns that the

proposed action would discourage the

use of Method 9095 (PFLT) in

demonstrating that a free liquid exists.

In the preamble to the final rule, EPA

clarified that the pressure filtration

technique should be used to definitively

determine that a free liquid did not exist

(January 13, 1995 Federal Register; 60

FR 3089). EPA stated,

‘‘The definitive procedure for determining

if a waste contains a liquid for the purposes

of the ignitability and corrosivity

characteristics is the pressure filtration

technique specified in Method 1311.

However, if one obtains a free liquid phase

using Method 9095, then that liquid may

instead be used for purposes of determining

ignitability and corrosivity. However, wastes

that do not yield a free liquid phase using

Method 9095 should then be assessed for the

presence of an ignitable or corrosive liquid

using the pressure filtration technique

specified in Method 1311.’’ (60 FR 3092,

January 13, 1995).

EPA also stated that it may re-propose

modifying its guidance in Chapter 7 to

reflect its stated position. Therefore, we

are requesting comment on adding this

language—which reflects EPA’s position

on determining free liquids—to SW–846

as guidance. Finally, with regard to

separating multiphase wastes for

purposes of testing, we note that

Method 9095B or the pressure filtration

technique in Method 1311 can be used

to remove solids in multiple phase

mixtures, whenever practical.

V. Additional Corrections to § 261.21

A. What are the proposed changes to the

definition of ignitable compressed gas in

§ 261.21(a)(3)(ii)?

As part of its effort to modernize and

update the RCRA ignitability

characteristic regulations in § 261.21,

the Agency is proposing corrections to

the ignitable compressed gas definitions

in § 261.21(a)(3)(ii), where EPA has

determined that particular Department

of Transportation (DOT) regulations

originally relied upon by EPA have

subsequently changed, or certain

guidance is no longer available.

First, EPA is proposing to update

§ 261.21(a)(3)(ii)(A) to replace outdated

references to the Bureau of Explosives

and DOT. The current EPA regulation at

§ 261.21(a)(3)(ii)(A) establishes that a

waste compressed gas is ignitable under

RCRA when certain flammability

concentration criteria are met, as

determined ‘‘using a test acceptable to

the Bureau of Explosives and approved

by the director of the Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Technology, U.S.

Department of Transportation’’.

However, subsequent to the EPA’s

original promulgation of this provision,

DOT modified their regulations to

require ASTM standard E 681–85 or

‘‘other equivalent method approved by

the [PHMSA] Associate Administrator’’

as an approved test for this purpose (55

FR 52433). See 49 CFR 173.115(a). EPA

also notes that the Bureau of Explosives

is no longer the delegated authority

from DOT to determine this testing

requirement. (See communications with

Bureau of Explosives in the docket to

this proposed rule.) Therefore, EPA is

proposing to revise § 261.21(a)(3)(ii)(A)

to specify the ASTM standard E 681–85

as the approved test for determining

whether any waste that is an ignitable

compressed gas exhibits the RCRA

ignitability characteristic, and to remove

reference to the Bureau of Explosives as

an approving agency for sampling and

test methods. Consistent with the

current DOT regulations, EPA is also

proposing to correct in its own

regulations the reference identifying the

agency responsible for approving other

tests as equivalent for this purpose, by

adding the phrase ‘‘approved by the

Associate Administrator, Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation.’’

EPA is also proposing to revise

§ 261.21(a)(3)(ii)(B)–(D) to align with the

existing DOT regulations for flammable

gases. Paragraphs (B), (C) and (D) in

§ 261.21(a)(3)(ii) reference ‘‘Flame

Projection Apparatus,’’ ‘‘Open Drum

Apparatus,’’ and ‘‘Closed Drum

Apparatus,’’ all of which are described

as methods from the Bureau of

Explosives. EPA inquired with the

Bureau of Explosives about the

continued availability of these test

methods and found that the methods

were unavailable. (See correspondence

with the Bureau of Explosives in the

docket to this proposed rule.) In 1980,

the Agency incorporated these Bureau

of Explosives test methods into its

RCRA regulations to be consistent with

how flammable gases were defined by

DOT requirements. (See 45 FR 33108,

May 19, 1980 Federal Register; see also

Ignitability Background Document, U.S.

EPA, May 2, 1980 in the docket to this

proposed rule.) However, as discussed

earlier, DOT subsequently updated their

definition and testing requirements.

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to

update the definition of ignitable

compressed gas within

§ 261.21(a)(3)(ii)(B)–(D), by removing

references to Bureau of Explosives

methods, and to mirror the definition

and testing that DOT now requires. This

change will allow generators to

determine if their waste meets the

definition of an ignitable compressed

gas by determining if it meets the

definition of a Division 2.1 flammable

gas or a flammable aerosol (see 49 CFR

173.115(a) and (l)).

EPA believes that these updates are

necessary to ensure that the RCRA

definition reflects the current DOT

regulations for evaluating ignitable

compressed gases, consistent with

EPA’s longstanding approach to

incorporate certain DOT requirements

when establishing definitions (and

associated test methods) that reflect

routine waste management conditions

for these types of wastes.

B. What are the proposed changes to

§ 261.21(a)(4)(i)(A)?

In 40 CFR part 261, EPA is amending

this paragraph to read, ‘‘The material

meets the definition of a Division 1.1,

1.2, or 1.3 explosive, as defined in

§ 261.23(a)(8), in which case it must be

classed as an explosive.’’

Currently, § 261.21(a)(4)(i)(A)

references ‘‘a Class A explosive or a

Class B explosive.’’ The terms Class A

and B explosives came from the

classification system for explosives used

by DOT before 1991. However, DOT

revised its classification system for

explosives, based on the United Nations

Recommendations on the Transport of

Dangerous Goods, as part of a final rule

issued on December 21, 1990 amending

the Hazardous Materials Regulations (55

FR 52402). The new system replaced the

use of explosive classes A, B, and C

with the classification codes of 1.1, 1.2,

1.3, and 1.4 (49 CFR 173.53). EPA

issued a direct final rule on March 18,

2010 that, in part, incorporated these

changes into the RCRA hazardous waste

regulations. (75 FR 12989). This direct

rule amended 40 CFR 261.23(a)(8) to

read, ‘‘It is a forbidden explosive as

defined in 49 CFR 173.54, or is a

Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 explosive as

defined in 49 CFR 173.50 and 173.53.’’

(75 FR 13002). Before this revision, 40

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12549

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

CFR 261.23(a)(8) referenced DOT’s

regulations addressing Class A

explosives and Class B explosives.

However, as the preamble to the rule

pointed out, ‘‘these cross-references are

out of date with the current DOT

regulations, and the referenced sections

either no longer exist or no longer

address these explosives. This change

modifies the rule to provide the correct

citations.’’ (75 FR 12993). Section

261.21(a)(4)(i)(A) was overlooked by the

2010 EPA rulemaking, and this

proposed change corrects that by

updating § 261.21(a)(4)(i)(A) with the

correct references.

C. What are the proposed changes to the

notes section of § 261.21?

EPA proposes to delete the four notes

at the end of 40 CFR 261.21, which are

outdated or unnecessary to

understanding the regulation.

EPA intends to delete Note 1 because

the Bureau of Explosives will no longer

be the source for the methods identified

in 261.21(a)(3)(ii)(B)–(D). The current

language for Note 1 states that a

‘‘description of the Bureau of

Explosives’ Flame Projection Apparatus,

Open Drum Apparatus, Closed Drum

Apparatus, and method of tests may be

procured from the Bureau of

Explosives.’’

EPA proposes to delete Notes 2 and 3.

Notes 2 and 3, respectively, state that as

part of a U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) reorganization,

the Office of Hazardous Materials

Technology (OHMT), which was the

office listed in the 1980 publication of

49 CFR 173.300 for the purposes of

approving sampling and test procedures

for a flammable gas, and the Research

and Special Programs Administration

(RSPA), which was the office listed in

the 1980 publication of 49 CFR 173.151a

for the purposes of determining that a

material does not present a hazard in

transport, ceased operations on

February 20, 2005. OHMT and RSPA

programs have moved to the Pipeline

and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration (PHMSA) in the DOT.

This historical information is no longer

necessary to understanding the

regulation.

EPA also proposes to delete Note 4.

Note 4 was added in a 2006 EPA

rulemaking to provide referential

information to the change made to 40

CFR 261.21(a)(4) in the same action (71

FR 40254). Before the 2006 rule, 40 CFR

261.21(a)(4) incorporated by reference

the DOT regulation that defined an

oxidizer, 49 CFR 173.151. In 1990, DOT

revised its regulations governing

transportation of hazardous materials

(55 FR 52402), including 49 CFR

173.151. However, 40 CFR 261.21(a)(4)

retained the original DOT definition of

an oxidizer, causing the DOT section it

referenced to become irrelevant after

1990. EPA’s 2006 final rule replaced the

obsolete DOT reference in 40 CFR

261.21(a)(4) with the actual language

from 49 CFR 173.151 as it existed at the

time 40 CFR 261.21 was finalized in

1980. Note 4 states that ‘‘[t]he DOT

regulatory definition of an oxidizer was

contained in § 173.151 of 49 CFR, and

the definition of an organic peroxide

was contained in paragraph 173.151a.

An organic peroxide is a type of

oxidizer.’’ EPA proposes to remove Note

4 in this rulemaking to avoid possible

confusion, particularly because it can be

difficult to obtain copies of the CFR

from 1980.

VI. Revision to Mercury Thermometer

Requirements in the Air Sampling and

Stack Emissions Methods

A. Why is EPA proposing revisions to

the air sampling and stack emissions

methods?

Earlier in this action, EPA proposed to

modernize flash point determinations

for ignitable liquids by revising Methods

1010A and 1020B to adopt modern

consensus-based standards that allow

flexibility in temperature measurement

devices (see Section III.A.). Similarly,

EPA is proposing to update the SW–846

air sampling and stack emissions

methods that use mercury thermometers

and are method-defined parameters.

These methods are Methods 0010, 0011,

0020, 0023A, and 0051. This update

would provide current users of these

methods the flexibility to use alternative

temperature-measuring devices instead

of the currently required mercury

thermometers. The current users of

Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, and

0051 would be able to continue using

mercury thermometers if desired. While

the test methods for flash point of

ignitable liquids and test methods for air

sampling and stack emissions methods

are unrelated in the hazard and matrix

of waste they analyze, the underlying

rationale and environmental benefits of

providing the flexibility to use

alternatives to mercury thermometers

are the same. As a result, EPA is

proposing these method revisions in the

same action. See Section II.G. above for

more information on the effects of

mercury on human health and the

environment.

B. Proposed Changes to Mercury

Thermometer Requirements in SW–846

Method-Defined Parameter Air

Sampling and Stack Emissions Methods

EPA has identified five SW–846

method-defined parameter test methods

for air sampling and stack emissions

methods that require the use of mercury

thermometers: Methods 0010, 0011,

0020, 0023A, and 0051 (see Section

VI.A.). These sampling methods cover

emissions from stationary sources, such

as hazardous waste incinerators and

boilers and industrial furnaces. Many of

these sampling methods are

modifications of, or are similar to, EPA

Method 5 of Appendix A–3 of 40 CFR

60, Determination of Particulate Matter

Emissions from Stationary Sources. For

Method 5, EPA proposed (77 FR 1130,

Jan 9, 2012), and finalized (79 FR 11228,

Feb 27, 2014), the use of alternative

mercury-free thermometers if the

thermometers are, at a minimum,

equivalent in terms of performance or

are suitably effective for the specific

temperature measurement application.

EPA is proposing to add similar

language, where appropriate, in SW–846

Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, and

0051. The removal of the requirement to

use mercury thermometers does not

change the underlying technology of the

methods. Therefore, in accordance with

the SW–846 methods policy statement,

the method numbers and letters are not

being revised due to these changes (see

https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/policy-

statement-about-test-methods-

evaluating-solid-waste-

physicalchemical-methods). The

Agency anticipates that the addition of

mercury thermometer alternatives to

these methods (i.e., the mirroring of

changes made to regulatory

requirements under Method 5) should

result in a minimal impact to the

regulated community. For example,

analytical laboratories that offer these

air sampling and stack emissions

methods also likely offer Method 5

testing, which already allows for non-

mercury thermometer usage. Labs that

have non-mercury thermometers for

calibrating Method 5 should recognize

the benefits of reduced mercury

thermometer usage while incurring no

additional costs. Alternatively,

laboratories may continue using

mercury thermometers in the updated

methods (see Section III.E.).

VII. Incorporation by Reference

The Methods Innovation Rule, which

was finalized on June 14, 2005, revised

40 CFR 260.11 to remove the

incorporation by reference of all SW–

846 methods except those SW–846

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12550

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

It is important to note that while a method

listed in §260.11 is a method-defined parameter,

that method also may be used for non-mandatory

purposes. For example, the Pensky-Martens method

described in Method 1010A could also be used as

part of quality control to test a product for purity,

which is unrelated to §261.21 and, otherwise, not

required under RCRA. In this case, the method

would not be a method-defined parameter. In order

to be a method-defined parameter, a method must

be part of a regulatory requirement under RCRA.

EPA notes that decisions regarding whether a

state rule is more stringent or broader in scope than

the federal program are made when the Agency

authorizes a state program for a particular rule.

methods that are also regulatory

required method-defined parameters.

Those methods remain incorporated by

reference when used as method-defined

parameters under the RCRA regulations

and, thus, can only be amended through

a regulatory effort.

The Agency is proposing to

incorporate by reference ASTM D 8174–

18, ASTM D 8175–18, ASTM E 681–85,

SW–846 Method 1010B and SW–846

Method 1020C into § 261.21 and as

applicable into Appendix IX to part 261.

These test methods are described in

detail in Section III and Section V,

above. The Agency is also proposing to

incorporate by reference SW–846 Test

Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, and

0051. These test methods are updated

versions of currently incorporated by

reference SW–846 Methods 0010, 0011,

0020, 0023A, and 0051, as described in

Section VI, above. The Agency is

proposing to incorporate by reference

Method 0010 into § 260.11(c)(3)(i) and

Appendix IX to part 261. The Agency is

proposing to incorporate by reference

Method 0011 into § 260.11(c)(3)(viii)

and Appendix IX to part 261. The

Agency is proposing to incorporate by

reference Method 0020 into

§ 260.11(c)(3)(ii) and Appendix IX to

part 261. The Agency is proposing to

incorporate by reference Method 0023A

into§ 260.11(c)(3)(ix) Appendix IX to

part 261, § 266.104(e)(1), and Appendix

IX to part 266. The Agency is proposing

to incorporate by reference Method 0051

into § 260.11(c)(3)(xiii), Appendix IX to

part 261, § 266.107(f), and Appendix IX

to part 266. The Agency is also

proposing to incorporate by reference

Method 0011 into § 260.11(c)(3)(viii)

and Appendix IX to part 266. The

ASTM standards proposed for

incorporation by reference are available

for purchase from ASTM International,

100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700,

West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959,

www.astm.org, 877–909–2786. To obtain

ASTM E 681–85, call 877–909–2786.

The SW–846 Test Methods proposed for

incorporation by reference are

published in the test methods

compendium known as ‘‘Test Methods

for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/

Chemical Methods,’’ EPA Publication

SW–846, Third Edition, available at

https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846.

VIII. State Authorization

A. Applicability of Proposed Rule in

Authorized States

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA

may authorize qualified states to

administer and enforce the RCRA

hazardous waste program within the

state. Following authorization, EPA

retains enforcement authority under

sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA,

although authorized states have primary

enforcement responsibility. The

standards and requirements for state

authorization are found at 40 CFR part

271. Prior to enactment of the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a state

with final RCRA authorization

administered its hazardous waste

program entirely in lieu of EPA

administering the federal program in

that state. The federal requirements no

longer applied in the authorized state,

and EPA could not issue permits for any

facilities in that state, since only the

state was authorized to issue RCRA

permits. When EPA promulgated new,

more stringent federal requirements for

these pre-HSWA regulations, the state

was obligated to enact equivalent

authorities within specified time frames.

However, the new federal requirements

did not take effect in an authorized

state, until the state adopted the federal

requirements as state law. In contrast,

under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C.

6926(g)), which was added by HSWA,

new requirements and prohibitions

imposed under HSWA authority take

effect in authorized states at the same

time that they take effect in

unauthorized states. EPA is directed by

the statute to implement these

requirements and prohibitions in

authorized states, including the

issuance of permits, until the state is

granted authorization to do so. While

states must still adopt HSWA related

provisions as state law to retain final

authorization, EPA implements the

HSWA provisions in authorized states

until the states do so.

Authorized states are required to

modify their programs only when EPA

enacts federal requirements that are

more stringent or broader in scope than

existing federal requirements.

RCRA

section 3009 allows the states to impose

standards more stringent than those in

the federal program (see also 40 CFR

271.1). Therefore, authorized states may,

but are not required to, adopt federal

regulations, both HSWA and non-

HSWA, that are considered less

stringent than previous federal

regulations.

B. Effect on State Authorization

Today’s notice proposes regulations

that, if finalized, would not be

promulgated under the authority of

HSWA. Thus, the standards, if finalized,

would be applicable on the effective

date only in those states that do not

have final authorization of their base

RCRA programs. Moreover, authorized

states are required to modify their

programs only when EPA promulgates

federal regulations that are more

stringent or broader in scope than the

authorized state regulations. For those

changes that are less stringent, states are

not required to modify their programs.

This is a result of section 3009 of RCRA,

which allows states to impose more

stringent regulations than the federal

program.

The proposed revisions to several test

methods are considered to be neither

more nor less stringent than the existing

test methods. Thus, authorized states

may, but are not required to, adopt these

changes.

IX. Statutory and Executive Orders

Reviews

Additional information about these

statutes and Executive Orders can be

found at http://www.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 action is not a significant

regulatory action because it does not

have a significant economic impact nor

does it raise novel legal or policy issues.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) waived review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory

Costs

This action is expected to be an

Executive Order 13771 deregulatory

action. Details on the estimated cost

savings of this proposed rule can be

found in EPA’s Regulatory Impact

Analysis of the Modernization of

Ignitable Liquid Determination Rule,

which is in the docket.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The use of the proposed methods or

the existing methods impose the same

information collection burden as the

existing regulation. OMB has previously

approved the information collection

activities contained in the existing

regulations and has assigned OMB

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12551

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

control numbers 2050–0053 and 2050–

0073.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this proposed action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

under the RFA. In making this

determination, the impact of concern is

any significant adverse economic

impact on small entities. An agency may

certify that a rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities if

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has

no net burden or otherwise has a

positive economic effect on the small

entities subject to the rule. As

documented in the Regulatory Impact

Analysis of the Modernization of

Ignitable Liquid Determinations Rule

found in the docket for this proposal,

EPA does not expect the rule to result

in an adverse impact to a significant

number of small entities. For

commercial labs, the analysis presented

in Chapter 3 indicates either no change

in costs or a cost savings, due to the

flexibility afforded by the rule.

Therefore, out of the 128 firms defined

as small under the Small Business

Administration size standards, no firms

have costs greater than one percent of

annual revenues. EPA has therefore

concluded that this proposed action will

either relieve regulatory burden or have

no net regulatory burden for all directly

regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA)

As documented in the Regulatory

Impact Analysis of the Modernization of

Ignitable Liquid Determinations Rule

found in the docket for this proposal,

this proposed action does not contain an

unfunded mandate of $100 million or

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.

1531–1538, and does not significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

This proposed action does not have

tribal implications as specified in

Executive Order 13175. Because the

proposed rule is expected to result in

minimal costs and possibly net cost

savings, EPA does not expect that it

would result in any adverse impacts on

tribal entities. Thus, Executive Order

13175 does not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order

13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that concern

environmental health or safety risks that

the EPA has reason to believe may

disproportionately affect children, per

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory

action’’ in section 2–202 of the

Executive Order. This action is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it does not concern an

environmental health risk or safety risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution or Use

This action is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, because it is not a

significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This action involves technical

standards. The EPA proposes to use

ASTM D 8175–18 and ASTM D 8174–

18. These test methods were adopted by

ASTM in March 2018. These standards

are available for purchase from ASTM

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,

P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA

19428–2959. EPA worked with ASTM to

specifically develop these consensus-

based standards to better suit waste

testing by modifying existing ASTM

standards. EPA worked with a member

of the ASTM D02.08 Subcommittee

(who also represents Stanhope-Seta) to

modify existing ASTM methods D 93–

16 and D 3828–16a, which were

developed by the ASTM D02.08

Subcommittee. These new draft

methods were then submitted to

ASTM’s review process and were

approved by the ASTM D34 Committee

to become new ASTM methods.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes that this action does

not have disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental

effects on minority populations, low-

income populations and/or indigenous

peoples, as specified in Executive Order

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This proposed rule would only

modernize testing and codify guidance

for the characterization of ignitable

hazardous waste, it would not affect

how such waste is disposed of. EPA

therefore does not expect it to result in

any adverse environmental justice

impacts.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste, Incorporation by

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Incorporation by reference,

Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 266

Environmental protection, Energy,

Hazardous waste, Incorporation by

reference, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 21, 2019.

Andrew R. Wheeler,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40

CFR parts 260 and 261 as follows:

PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

■1. The authority citation for part 260

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921–

6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939,

and 6974.

■2. Amend § 260.11 by:

■a. Adding new paragraphs (b)(11)

through (13); and

■b. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (ii),

(viii), (ix), (xiii), (xvii), and (xviii).

The additions and revisions read as

follows:

§ 260.11 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

* * * * *

(11) ASTM D 8175–18 ‘‘Test Method

for Finite Flash Point Determination of

Liquid Wastes by Pensky-Martens

Closed Cup Tester.’’ IBR approved for

§ 261.21.

(12) ASTM D 8174–18 ‘‘Test Method

for Finite Flash Point Determination of

Liquid Wastes by Small Scale Closed

Cup Tester.’’ IBR approved for § 261.21.

(13) ASTM E 681–85 ‘‘Standard Test

Method for Concentration Limits of

Flammability of Chemicals (Vapors and

gases).’’ IBR approved for § 261.21.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

12552

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(3) * * *

(i) Method 0010, dated [TBD] and in

the Basic Manual, IBR approved for

appendix IX to part 261.

(ii) Method 0020, dated [TBD] and in

the Basic Manual, IBR approved for

appendix IX to part 261.

* * * * *

(viii) Method 0011, dated [TBD] and

in Update III, IBR approved for

appendix IX to part 261 and appendix

IX to part 266,.

(ix) Method 0023A, dated [TBD] and

in Update III, IBR approved for

appendix IX to part 261, § 266.104, and

appendix IX to part 266, ,.

* * * * *

(xiii) Method 0051, dated [TBD] and

in Update III, IBR approved for

appendix IX to part 261, § 266.107, and

appendix IX to part 266,

* * * * *

(xvii) Method 1010B, dated December

2018 and in Update VII, IBR approved

for § 261.21 and appendix IX to part

261.

(xviii) Method 1020C, dated

December 2018 and in Update VII, IBR

approved for § 261.21 and appendix IX

to part 261.

* * * * *

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

■3.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.

■4. Amend § 261.21 by:

■a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (3)(ii),

and (4)(i)(A) adding paragraph (a)(5);

and

■b. Removing Notes 1, 2, 3, and 4 to

read as follows:

§ 261.21 Characteristic of ignitability.

(a) * * *

(1) It is a liquid, other than a solution

containing less than 24 percent of any

alcohol or combination of alcohols

(except if the alcohol has been used for

its solvent properties and is one of the

alcohols specified in EPA Hazardous

Waste No. F003 or F005 in 40 CFR

261.31) by volume and at least 50

percent water by weight, that has a flash

point less than 60 °C (140 °F), as

determined by using one of the

following ASTM standards: ASTM D

93–79, D 93–80, D 3278–78, D 8174–18

or D 8175–18 as specified in SW–846

Test Methods 1010B or 1020C

(incorporated by reference, see § 260.11

of this subchapter).

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) A compressed gas shall be

characterized as ignitable if any one of

the following occurs:

(A) Either a mixture of 13 percent or

less (by volume) with air forms a

flammable mixture or the flammable

range with air is wider than 12 percent

regardless of the lower limit. These

limits shall be determined at

atmospheric temperature and pressure.

The method of sampling and test

procedure shall be the ASTM E 681–85

(incorporated by reference, see § 260.11

of this subchapter), or other equivalent

methods approved by the Associate

Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation.

(B) It is determined to be flammable

or extremely flammable using 49 CFR

173.115(l).

(4) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) The material meets the definition

of a Division1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosive, as

defined in § 261.23(a)(8), in which case

it must be classed as an explosive,

* * * * *

(5) It is a multiphase mixture, where

any liquid phase has the flash point

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section, or any non-liquid phase has the

properties described in paragraph (a)(2)

of this section.

* * * * *

5. Amend Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix

IX to Part 261 by removing the text

‘‘1010A’’ and adding ‘‘1010B’’ in its

place, wherever it appears (56

occurrences); and removing the text

‘‘1020B’’ and adding ‘‘1020C’’ in its

place, wherever it appears (56

occurrences).

[FR Doc. 2019–05878 Filed 4–1–19; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

Services

42 CFR Part 600

[CMS–2407–PN]

RIN 0938–ZB42

Basic Health Program; Federal

Funding Methodology for Program

Years 2019 and 2020

AGENCY

: Centers for Medicare &

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION

: Proposed methodology.

SUMMARY

: This document proposes the

methodology and data sources necessary

to determine federal payment amounts

to be made in program years 2019 and

2020 to states that elect to establish a

Basic Health Program under the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act to

offer health benefits coverage to low-

income individuals otherwise eligible to

purchase coverage through Affordable

Insurance Exchanges. Prior to the final

notice being published, Basic Health

Program (BHP) payments will be made

using the methodology described in the

Final Administrative Order published

on August 24, 2018. Payments for 2019

will be conformed to the finalized 2019

payment methodology through

reconciliation.

DATES

: To be assured consideration,

comments must be received at one of

the addresses provided below, no later

than 5 p.m. on May 2, 2019.

ADDRESSES

: In commenting, refer to file

code CMS–2407–PN. Because of staff

and resource limitations, we cannot

accept comments by facsimile (FAX)

transmission.

Comments, including mass comment

submissions, must be submitted in one

of the following three ways (please

choose only one of the ways listed):

1. Electronically. You may submit

electronic comments on this regulation

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

the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.

2. By regular mail. You may mail

written comments to the following

address ONLY: Centers for Medicare &

Medicaid Services, Department of

Health and Human Services, Attention:

CMS–2407–PN, P.O. Box 8016,

Baltimore, MD 21244–8016.

Please allow sufficient time for mailed

comments to be received before the

close of the comment period.

3. By express or overnight mail. You

may send written comments to the

following address ONLY: Centers for

Medicare & Medicaid Services,

Department of Health and Human

Services, Attention: CMS–2407–PN,

Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.

For information on viewing public

comments, see the beginning of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Christopher Truffer, (410) 786–1264; or

Cassandra Lagorio, (410) 786–4554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Inspection of Public Comments: All

comments received before the close of

the comment period are available for

viewing by the public, including any

personally identifiable or confidential

business information that is included in

a comment. We post all comments

received before the close of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Apr 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

Subscribers can access the reported version of this case.

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Request your trial

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.
Thousands of Data Sources

Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the world’s leading publishers.
Find What You Need, Quickly

Advanced A.I. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research.
Over 2 million registered users

Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world.

Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document.

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Request your trial

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.
Thousands of Data Sources

Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the world’s leading publishers.
Find What You Need, Quickly

Advanced A.I. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research.
Over 2 million registered users

Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world.

Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case.

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Request your trial

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.
Thousands of Data Sources

Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the world’s leading publishers.
Find What You Need, Quickly

Advanced A.I. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research.
Over 2 million registered users

Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world.

Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments.

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Request your trial

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.
Thousands of Data Sources

Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the world’s leading publishers.
Find What You Need, Quickly

Advanced A.I. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research.
Over 2 million registered users

Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world.

Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case.

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Request your trial

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.
Thousands of Data Sources

Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the world’s leading publishers.
Find What You Need, Quickly

Advanced A.I. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research.
Over 2 million registered users

Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world.

Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received.

Request your trial

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.
Thousands of Data Sources

Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the world’s leading publishers.
Find What You Need, Quickly

Advanced A.I. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research.
Over 2 million registered users

Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world.

Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found.

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Request your trial

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.
Thousands of Data Sources

Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the world’s leading publishers.
Find What You Need, Quickly

Advanced A.I. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research.
Over 2 million registered users

Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world.

Modernizing Ignitable Liquids Determinations

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users