[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35680-35685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17023]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 425

RIN 2040-AC48
[FRL-5527-4]


Leather Tanning and Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines; 
Pretreatment Standards; New and Existing Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating changes modifying the pretreatment 
standards for existing and new sources applicable to certain facilities 
in the leather tanning and finishing point source category that conduct 
unhairing operations and that discharge process wastewater to publicly 
owned treatment works (``POTW''). This rule responds to a petition 
submitted by the leather tanning industry. The Agency conducted an 
informal survey of a small number of POTWs, permitting authorities, and 
industry representatives knowledgeable of leather processing operations 
and wastewater treatment. EPA is promulgating these changes as a 
``direct'' final rule because the Agency does not expect significant 
adverse or critical comments. EPA also wants to provide prompt 
implementation of the rule to minimize any potential hazards to worker 
safety and health that may occur in the absence of this rule. Prompt 
implementation will also allow affected facilities in this category to 
reduce the use of treatment chemicals.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 7, 1996 unless significant 
adverse or critical comments are received by September 6, 1996. If the 
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send comments in triplicate on this rule to Mr. Ed Terry, 
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M St. S.W., 
Washington, DC 20460.


[[Page 35681]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ed Terry, Engineering and Analysis 
Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460, or 
telephone 202-260-7128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulated entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action 
are those facilities in the leather tanning and finishing point source 
category that conduct unhairing operations and that discharge process 
wastewater to publicly owned treatment works, and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of regulated entities   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Leather tanning facilities that     
                                     conduct beamhouse operations and   
                                     indirectly discharge process       
                                     wastewater to publicly owned       
                                     treatment works                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in Sec. 425.15, Sec. 425.25, Sec. 425.65, or 
Sec. 425.85 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Organization of this document:

I. Legal Authority
II. Clean Water Act
III. Overview of the Leather Tanning Industry
IV. Regulatory Activities and Responses
V. Petition Submitted by Industry
VI. Agency Action in Response to Petition
VII. Options Considered
    A. Selected Option
    B. Other Options Considered
    (1) Option 2
    (2) Option 3
VIII. Scope of This Rule
IX. Executive Order 12866
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
XII. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIV. Administrative Procedure Requirements

I. Legal Authority

    These regulations are being promulgated under the authority of 
sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (known as the Clean Water 
Act), 33 U.S.C. sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.

II. Clean Water Act

    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (``the Act'') 
established a comprehensive program to ``restore and maintain the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' 
[Section 101(a)]. By July 1, 1977, existing industrial dischargers were 
to achieve ``effluent limitations requiring the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available'' (``BPT'')[Section 
301(b)(1)(A)]; and by July 1, 1983, dischargers of certain pollutants 
were required to achieve ``effluent limitations requiring the 
application of the best available technology economically achievable * 
* * which will result in reasonable further progress toward the 
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants'' 
(``BAT'') [Section 301(b)(2)(A)]. New industrial direct dischargers 
were required, under Section 306, to comply with new source performance 
standards (``NSPS''), based on the best available demonstrated 
technology; and new and existing dischargers to publicly owned 
treatment works (``POTW'') were subject to pretreatment standards under 
Sections 307(b) and of the Clean Water Act. The requirements for direct 
dischargers were to be incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits issued under Section 402 of the 
Act, and pretreatment standards were made enforceable directly against 
dischargers to POTWs (``indirect dischargers'').

III. Overview of the Leather Tanning Industry

    Leather tanning is a general term for the various processing steps 
involved in converting animal skins or hides into leather. The three 
major hide and skin types used to manufacture leather are cattle hides, 
sheepskins and pigskins. The three primary steps of processing hides or 
skins are: beamhouse operations which wash and soak the hides or skins 
and (at most tanneries) chemically remove the attached hair; tanyard 
processes in which the tanning agent (primarily chromium) reacts with 
and stabilizes the proteinaceous matter in the hides or skins; and 
retanning and wet finishing processes which accomplish further 
processing by using additional tanning agents (again primarily chromium 
although other agents are also used) and other chemical agents such as 
dyes, lubricants and various finishes.
    The U.S. leather tanning industry, identified by the Department of 
Commerce's Standard Industrial Classification as industry number 3111, 
is an old industry. The number of tanneries in the U.S. has steadily 
decreased from around 7,500 in 1865 to approximately 1,000 by the year 
1900. In 1982, EPA data indicated there were 158 tanneries producing 
leather and discharging wastewaters to surface streams or to POTWs. 
According to estimates in the U.S. Industrial Outlook--1993, in 1992 
the leather tanning and finishing industry employed about 12,700 
people, distributed among 110 facilities, or an average of about 115 
employees per facility. Tanneries are clustered in the northeast and 
mid-Atlantic states, the Chicago-Milwaukee area and the Gloversville-
Johnstown area of New York State. Other facilities are scattered around 
the U.S. Cattle hides represent the bulk of raw material utilized for 
tanning done in the U.S. The following is a brief description of the 
three primary areas of process operations of facilities in the leather 
tanning and finishing industry.
    The first primary area of process operations is the beamhouse in 
which the raw hides and skins are prepared by cleaning and soaking to 
make them more pliable, and unhairing, or hair removal, to make the 
hides more attractive and useful. Beamhouse operations usually start 
with siding and trimming, followed by washing and soaking, fleshing and 
unhairing. The unhairing operation includes lime and sodium sulfide as 
the primary chemicals which dissolve the hair. Wastewaters are highly 
alkaline, in a pH range of 10 to 12.
    The second primary area of process operations is the tanyard in 
which a durable material is produced from the animal hides or skins. 
The proteinaceous matter in the hides reacts with the tanning agent and 
becomes stabilized. The tanning is accomplished by trivalent chromium, 
by vegetable tannins extracted from the bark of certain trees, or by 
synthetic tanning agents. These operations occur in an acidic medium 
and the wastewater generated usually has a pH in the range of 2.5 to 
3.5. The resulting stabilized materials will not degrade by physical or 
biological mechanisms.
    The third primary area of process operations is retanning and wet 
finishing which gives the tanned hides special or desired features, 
such as bleached appearance, added coloring, lubricants, or further 
tanning for finished leather properties. These operations usually do 
not have a significant effect on the acidity/alkalinity of associated 
wastewaters.

[[Page 35682]]

IV. Regulatory Activities and Responses

    On April 9, 1974 (39 FR 12958) EPA promulgated the original 
regulation for the leather tanning industry, establishing effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards for the industry based on the best 
practicable control technology currently available (``BPT''), the best 
available technology economically achievable (``BAT''), new source 
performance standards (``NSPS'') for new direct dischargers, and 
pretreatment standards for new indirect dischargers (``PSNS''). These 
requirements were codified at 40 CFR Part 425, Subparts A-F.
    The Tanners Council of America, Inc. (now the Leather Industries of 
America, Inc.), challenged the 1974 promulgated rule. The U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit left BAT and PSNS undisturbed, but 
remanded the BPT and NSPS limitations and standards.
    On March 23, 1977 (42 FR 15696), EPA promulgated pretreatment 
standards for existing sources (``PSES'') for the leather tanning 
industry. These standards included only a pH range and did not 
establish limits on chromium or sulfide.
    On July 2, 1979 (44 FR 38746), EPA proposed revised effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards for the leather tanning and 
finishing point source category. EPA proposed to replace the remanded 
BPT and NSPS limitations and standards, establish new best conventional 
pollutant control technology (``BCT'') limitations, and revise BAT, 
PSES and PSNS limitations and standards.
    On November 23, 1982 (47 FR 52848) EPA promulgated a final 
regulation for the leather tanning and finishing industry point source 
category, establishing effluent limitations and standards to control 
specific toxic, nonconventional and conventional pollutants for nine 
subcategories in the leather tanning and finishing point source 
category. The pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers to POTWs 
established categorical limits on the discharge of chromium and 
sulfides and revised pH limits in certain subcategories.
    The Tanners Council of America (now known as the Leather Industries 
of America, Inc. (LIA)) filed a petition for judicial review of several 
aspects of the promulgated regulation. This action was followed by the 
filing of an administrative Petition for Reconsideration with EPA. The 
Agency conducted an extensive review of the existing data base and 
acquired additional data. Following discussions between the Agency and 
the LIA, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
    The settlement agreement, signed on December 11, 1984, addressed 
the issues raised in the LIA petition. EPA agreed to propose amendments 
to the 1982 rule and to solicit comments on these issues. LIA agreed to 
dismiss its petition for judicial review and to withdraw the Petition 
for Reconsideration if EPA promulgated rules consistent with the 
proposed amendments.
    In response to the 1984 settlement agreement on the revised 
effluent guidelines, EPA published on January 21, 1987 (52 FR 2370) 
proposed amendments to the 1982 rule and preamble language with 
solicitation of comments. As one of the provisions of the settlement 
agreement, EPA agreed to propose to delete the upper pH limit for 
vegetable tanners in Subpart C [Hair Save or Pulp, Non-chrome Tan, 
Retan-Wet Finish subcategory (Sec. 425.35(a))] only. Also, as part of 
the settlement agreement, LIA and EPA jointly requested the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to stay the effectiveness of the 
sections of 40 CFR Part 425 which EPA had agreed to propose to amend, 
pending final action by EPA on the proposed amendments. On February 22, 
1985, the Court entered an Order staying specified sections of Part 
425, pending final promulgation of an amendment to the regulation 
consistent with the settlement agreement.
    On March 21, 1988 (53 FR 9176) EPA promulgated amendments to 40 CFR 
Part 425. The promulgated rule added an alternative sulfide analytical 
method, clarification of the procedures that support applicability of 
sulfide pretreatment standards, revisions to certain BPT effluent 
limitations, corrections to NSPS, and an allowance for small tannery 
exemptions under certain conditions. The preamble to the promulgated 
rule stated that the Agency would not consider a waiver from the upper 
pH limit of 10.0 for other subcategories than Subpart C because it 
would be unduly complicated.

V. Petition Submitted by Industry

    On March 18, 1993, Counsel for the leather tanning industry 
submitted a petition to the Agency, requesting that the Agency amend 
the upper pH limit for leather tanning facilities that conduct 
unhairing (``beamhouse'') operations with indirect discharge to 
publicly owned treatment works (``POTWs''). The petition asks the 
Administrator ``* * * to include within the relevant regulatory section 
language allowing a POTW, subject to EPA review, to waive the upper pH 
limit for regulated discharges upon a showing that any such waiver will 
not `interfere,' cause a `pass through' or be `incompatible' with a 
POTW's treatment works.'' The petitioners go on to say: ``The 
rulemaking is requested because, as a result of changes in operating 
conditions and an incorrect assumption that flow equalization alone 
would allow continuous control of tannery wastewaters to a level 
between 7.0 and 10.0, the existing upper pH limit cannot always be 
safely met.''
    Since 1977, EPA has prohibited the discharge into POTWs of effluent 
from such facilities where the discharge failed to fall within a pH 
range of 7.0 to 10.0. This limitation was established primarily due to 
concerns over the solubility of chromium at higher pH levels and the 
potential for upsetting biological treatment systems of POTWs. To meet 
the pH requirement, leather tanning facilities would mix high pH 
beamhouse wastewaters with low pH tanyard wastewaters in a flow 
equalization process, resulting in a wastewater discharge that would 
meet the pH requirement.
    In 1982, EPA subsequently set chromium pretreatment standards for 
the industry. The treatment technology for chromium reduction is 
precipitation at a pH range of 8.5 to 9.0, thus requiring tanyard 
wastewater to be raised from its usual range of 2.5 to 3.5. However, 
this treatment was not required at most facilities because POTWs would 
grant removal credits allowing chromium to be discharged without 
pretreatment.
    Following the invalidation of the original removal credit 
regulation in 1986, see NRDC v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289 (3rd Cir. 1986), 
cert. denied 479 U.S. 1084 (1987), leather tanning facilities raised 
the pH of the tanyard wastewaters in order to achieve necessary 
chromium reduction. The petitioners assert that because the resulting 
wastewaters, when combined with the beamhouse wastewaters, are still at 
a pH outside the pretreatment standard, plants have found it necessary 
to add acid to the combined wastewater before discharge.
    The petitioners indicate this acidification is problematic for 
several reasons. First, this adjustment to the pH may result in the 
generation and release of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a highly toxic 
gas, in the leather tanning facility or in the POTW. In addition, the 
petitioners assert that many municipal authorities believe that tannery 
wastewater alkalinity and buffering capacity are highly beneficial in 
counteracting sewer corrosion and H2S generation within the sewer 
system.

[[Page 35683]]

VI. Agency Action in Response to Petition

    In response to the petition, the Agency conducted an informal 
survey of a small number of POTWs receiving leather tanning 
wastewaters, permitting authorities, and industry representatives 
knowledgeable of leather processing operations and wastewater 
treatment.
    Eight POTW managers and operators were contacted regarding the 
issues raised in the petition. Three of the POTWs contacted were 
identified in the petition and five of the POTWs contacted were known 
by EPA to be receiving wastewater from leather tanning facilities. All 
those contacted were amenable to receiving leather tanning and 
finishing wastewaters with a higher pH at the point of discharge to the 
POTW. Four operators stated that wastewaters with alkaline pH 
contribute to more efficient POTW operation. Three operators expressed 
the opinion that higher pH levels inhibit corrosion. Two operators 
stated that high pH at the user's point of discharge reduces or 
eliminates the need for adding caustic to the POTW treatment system to 
maximize removal efficiency. One POTW operator stated that his system 
had not had any operating or performance problems associated with too 
high a pH in his system.
    Based on review of the petition, telephone discussions with 
operators and managers of POTWs receiving leather tanning wastewater, 
and regulatory personnel, EPA has determined that there is sufficient 
basis for promulgating amendments to the upper pH limit contained in 
the pretreatment standards for existing and new sources in the subparts 
identified below.

VII. Options Considered

A. Selected Option

    EPA is promulgating this rule to revise the existing pretreatment 
standards to eliminate upper (alkaline) pH limits for plants in four 
subcategories in which unhairing operations are conducted. This minor 
revision will benefit POTW operations by lowering operating costs and 
reducing potential risks for worker safety and health. This option was 
selected because EPA believes that interference with the operation of 
POTWs (i.e., damage to POTW collection systems and upset of biological 
treatment processes, and potential for adverse effect on the health and 
safety of POTW workers) and potential for pass through of pollutants 
are not likely events. Affected POTWs may still elect to set an 
alternative upper (alkaline) pH limit based on local circumstances.

B. Other Options Considered

    The following options were considered but not selected.
(1) Option 2
    EPA would promulgate a rule to develop new upper (alkaline) pH 
limits for all indirect dischargers in each of the four subcategories 
affected by the petition. This option was not selected because EPA does 
not have sufficient data to develop different pH limits. Even if 
sufficient data were available to develop different pH limits, this 
option also may leave individual cases where new pH limits still may 
not fit local circumstances, thus requiring further regulatory action. 
Moreover, as indicated above, the information currently available to 
the Agency indicate that no upper (alkaline) pH limits are necessary.
(2) Option 3
    EPA would promulgate a rule adding a new section to 40 CFR Part 425 
which would establish a procedure for use by individual POTWs in 
changing the pH range specified in the categorical pretreatment 
standards. The procedure would allow individual POTWs receiving these 
wastewaters to determine the appropriate upper (alkaline) pH limit for 
each of the affected leather tanning and finishing facilities. POTWs 
would determine the appropriate upper pH limit applicable to each 
indirect discharging leather tanning and finishing facility with 
operations in the affected subcategories based on consideration of all 
relevant factors pertinent to the POTW, including but not limited to 
those that EPA might present in support of such an option. EPA did not 
select this option because of the added unnecessary procedural burden 
this would place on POTWs; as indicated above, EPA does not believe 
that such limits are necessary. Where local conditions make such limits 
appropriate, POTWs should be free to set limits based on existing 
procedures rather than a new procedure developed for this rule.

VIII. Scope of This Rule

    This notice of a ``direct'' final rule addresses only certain 
leather tanning facilities that conduct beamhouse operations and 
indirectly discharge process wastewater to publicly owned treatment 
works. Thus this final rule applies to the standards in Subparts A, B, 
F, and H of 40 CFR Part 425, at Secs. 425.15, 425.25, 425.65, and 
425.85.
    The petition submitted by the Leather Industries of America, Inc., 
sought to amend only the Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources 
(PSES). Because EPA set Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) 
equal to PSES, this final rule applies to both existing and new 
indirect dischargers. However, because PSNS were set equal to PSES in 
each subcategory, EPA need only promulgate an amendment to PSES to 
effect the elimination of the upper (alkaline) pH limit for both 
existing and new sources in these four subcategories.
    The petitioners also asked for relief from 40 CFR Part 425 Subpart 
C--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources--Hair Save or Pulp, Non-
Chrome Tan, Retan--Wet Finish subcategory. However, EPA's rulemaking to 
implement the 1984 settlement agreement addressed removal of the upper 
(alkaline) pH limit for this subcategory.

IX. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject 
to OMB review.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

[[Page 35684]]

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
    Under section 204 of the UMRA, EPA generally must develop a process 
to permit elected officials of State, local and tribal governments (or 
their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulations 
containing significant Federal intergovernmental mandates. These 
consultation requirements build on those of Executive Order 12875 
(``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership'').
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. This rule is intended to reduce the burden of 
compliance by affected industries with certain federal effluent 
requirements. In addition, the approach selected for altering the 
existing regulations is intended also to decrease implementation 
burdens for State and local governments. Thus, today's rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    Similarly, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments and thus this rule is not subject to the requirements 
of section 203 of UMRA. However, EPA has nonetheless involved state and 
local governments in the process of developing this rule. The Agency 
consulted with representatives of selected POTWs regarding the 
underlying technical aspects of this rule. The Agency will continue 
this process of consulting with state, local and other affected parties 
after issuance of the rule in order to further minimize the potential 
for unfunded mandates.

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C 601 et seq., requires EPA 
and other agencies to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
for regulations that have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. This regulatory action does not have any adverse 
impact on either small or large entities. Therefore, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

XII. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. 
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the 
APA as amended.

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
3500 et seq., EPA must submit a copy of any rule that contains a 
collection-of-information requirement to the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget for review and approval. This rule contains no 
additional information collection requirements beyond those already 
required by 40 CFR part 403 and 40 CFR part 122 and by 40 CFR Part 425, 
and therefore the review requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act is 
not applicable.

XIV. Administrative Procedure Requirements

    The Agency is publishing this action as a ``direct final'' rule. A 
direct final rule is not an ``interim final'' rule (i.e. a rule which 
provides for public comment after it has gone into effect); rather it 
is a rule which is published with a delayed effective date allowing for 
the receipt of and response to public comment before the rule goes into 
effect. A response to all comments received will be placed in the 
docket for this rule prior to the effective date. This rule thus fully 
complies with notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA). EPA has chosen to use the direct final approach 
for this rule because the Agency does not expect to receive adverse or 
critical comment and to allow for the most expeditious implementation 
possible, consistent with the APA. However, consistent with APA 
requirements, if EPA does receive significant adverse or critical 
comment, EPA will withdraw this rule prior to its effective date and 
proceed with a normal rulemaking process. As a result, elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register, EPA is also proposing this rule; if EPA 
decides to withdraw the direct final rule based on public comment, EPA 
will proceed with a revised rule based on this proposal. There will not 
be an additional comment period, so parties interested in commenting on 
the proposed rule should do so at this time.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 425

    Leather, Leather Tanning and Finishing, Water Pollution Control, 
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal, Pretreatment Standards for Existing 
and New Sources.

    Dated: June 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 425, subchapter N, 
chapter I, of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as 
follows:

PART 425--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 425 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314 (b), (c), (e) and (g), 1316 (b) 
and (c), 1317 (b) and (c), 1318 and 1361.

Subpart A--Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory

    2. Section 425.15(a) is amended by revising the footnote to the 
table to read as follows:

[[Page 35685]]

Sec. 425.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) * * *
______________
    \1\ Not less than 7.0.
* * * * *

Subpart B--Hair Save, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory

    3. Section 425.25 is amended by revising the footnote to the table 
to read as follows:


Sec. 425.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *
______________
    \1\ Not less than 7.0.

Subpart F--Through-the-Blue Subcategory

    4. Section 425.65 is amended by revising the footnote to the table 
to read as follows:


Sec. 425.65  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *
______________
    \1\ Not less than 7.0.

Subpart H--Pigskin Subcategory

    5. Section 425.85 is amended by revising the footnote to the table 
to read as follows:


Sec. 425.85  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *
______________
    \1\ Not less than 7.0.

[FR Doc. 96-17023 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P