[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13496-13501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6847]



[[Page 13495]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly 
Owned Treatment Works; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 13496]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-7161-6]
RIN 2060-AJ87


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed amendments.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) final rule for new and existing 
publicly owned treatment works (POTW), pursuant to a settlement 
agreement with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 
(PhRMA) regarding their petition for judicial review of the POTW 
NESHAP. We are proposing to rescind the applicability provision; adopt, 
for all industrial POTW treatment plants which are area sources of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), the same NESHAP requirements which 
apply to industrial POTW treatment plants which are major sources of 
HAP; and exempt industrial POTW treatment plants which are area sources 
of HAP from the permit requirements in section 502(a) of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2002. 
If a public hearing is held, written comments must be received by May 
6, 2002.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by April 1, 2002, a public hearing will be held on April 
5, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-96-46, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460. In person or by courier, 
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-96-46, 
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC 20460. The EPA requests a 
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10:00 
a.m. and will be held at EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium in 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or an alternate site nearby. 
You should contact JoLynn Collins, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, 
Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA (C439-03), Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5671, to request a public hearing, 
to request to speak at a public hearing, or to find out if a hearing 
will be held.
    Docket. Docket No. A-96-46 for this regulation contains supporting 
information used in developing the standards. The docket is located at 
the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, in Room 
M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor, central mall), and may be 
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. Copies of docket materials may be obtained by request 
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Lucas, Waste and Chemical 
Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (C439-03), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-0884, facsimile number (919) 541-
0246, electronic mail address ``[email protected]''. For information 
concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or 
local representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office 
representatives.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

    Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to: 
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an 
ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption 
problems. Comments will also be accepted on disks in 
WordPerfect file format. All comments and data submitted in 
electronic form must note the docket number: (Docket No. A-96-46). No 
confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. 
Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information.'' 
Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to 
the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that 
proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: 
Attention Mr. Bob Lucas, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), 
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park NC 27711.
    The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the 
extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no 
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received 
by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without 
further notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing

    Persons interested in making an oral presentation or inquiring as 
to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. JoLynn Collins at 
the Emission Standards Division (C439-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5671, at least 2 days 
in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the 
public hearing should also call Ms. Collins to verify time, date, and 
location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested 
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning 
these proposed amendments.

Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete record of all the 
information compiled by the EPA in the development of the POTW NESHAP 
and these amendments. The docketing system is intended to allow members 
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate 
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking 
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their 
preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the 
case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA). The 
regulatory text and other materials related to these proposed 
amendments are available for review in the docket, or copies may be 
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

Worldwide Web (WWW)

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's proposed amendments will also be available on the WWW through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
today's proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information

[[Page 13497]]

regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           North American
                                           Standard          industrial
              Category                    industrial       classification     Examples of potentially regulated
                                        classification     system (NAICS)                 entities
                                         (SIC) codes           codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government..................               4952              22132  Sewage treatment facilities, and
                                                                             federally owned treatment works.
State/local/tribal Governments......               4952              22132  Sewage treatment facilities,
                                                                             municipal wastewater treatment
                                                                             facilities, and 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 could potentially 
be regulated by these proposed amendments. 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. 63.1580 of the final rule and in 40 CFR 
63.1. 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.

Outline

    The information presented in these proposed amendments is organized 
as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What changes to the current rule are we proposing as the result 
of our settlement agreement with the PhRMA?
III. What is the basis for controlling POTW that are area sources?
IV. What is the basis for exempting area source POTW from title V 
permitting?
V. What are the impacts of the proposed amendments?
VI. What are the administrative requirements?
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On October 26, 1999, we promulgated the NESHAP for new and existing 
POTW using our authority under the CAA. In the POTW NESHAP, we require 
air pollution controls on new or reconstructed treatment plants at POTW 
that are major sources of HAP. Section 112(a)(1) of the CAA defines a 
major source as:

    * * * any stationary source or group of stationary sources 
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits 
or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 
10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons 
per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.

    The standards also define the requirements for industrial POTW. 
Industrial POTW treat regulated waste streams from an industry (e.g., 
pharmaceutical manufacturing) that may be subject to other NESHAP, and 
this treatment allows the industry to comply with the NESHAP. The 
standards include a provision in 40 CFR 63.1580(c) stating that if an 
industrial major source complies with the other NESHAP by using the 
treatment and controls at a POTW, then the POTW is considered to be a 
major source.
    On March 23, 2001, we published final rule amendments that 
clarified and corrected errors in the promulgated rule. The PhRMA filed 
a timely petition for judicial review of the POTW NESHAP. The PhRMA 
expressed concern regarding the practical effect of the provision 
classifying an industrial POTW as a major source if the POTW receives 
wastewater for treatment from a major source. In particular, PhRMA was 
concerned that industrial POTW might be subject to permitting 
requirements which would otherwise not apply, and that such POTW might 
elect not to accept wastewater for treatment in these circumstances. We 
entered into settlement discussions with PhRMA and executed a 
settlement agreement with PhRMA on November 16, 2001. We are proposing 
these amendments to the POTW NESHAP pursuant to that agreement.

II. What Changes to the Current Rule Are We Proposing as the Result 
of Our Settlement Agreement With the PhRMA?

    In the settlement agreement we reached with PhRMA, we agreed to 
make the following three changes: (1) Rescind the applicability 
provision set forth in 40 CFR 63.1580(c); (2) adopt, for all industrial 
POTW treatment plants which are area sources of HAP, the same NESHAP 
requirements which apply to industrial POTW treatment plants which are 
major sources of HAP; and (3) exempt industrial POTW treatment plants 
which are area sources of HAP from the permit requirements in section 
502(a) of the CAA. Area sources of HAP are those stationary sources 
that emit, or have the potential to emit, less than 10 tons per year of 
any one HAP or less than 25 tons per year of a combination of HAP.
    The CAA affords EPA the authority to adopt an alternative 
definition of ``major source'' in appropriate circumstances. Our 
original intent in adopting the alternate definition in 40 CFR 
63.1580(c) of the POTW NESHAP was to make all industrial POTW subject 
to direct enforcement under the CAA, thereby providing additional 
assurance that they would adhere to the treatment and control limits of 
the applicable industrial NESHAP. The proposed amendments will still 
accomplish this goal since all POTW that meet our definition of 
industrial POTW will remain subject to direct enforcement and will be 
required to meet the control limits of the applicable industrial 
NESHAP.

III. What Is the Basis for Controlling POTW That Are Area Sources?

    As directed by section 112(k) of the CAA, we developed the Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy to control emissions of HAP from area sources in 
urban areas.

[[Page 13498]]

The Agency identified 33 HAP that present the greatest threat to public 
health in the largest number of urban areas as the result of emissions 
from area sources. In an action published in the Federal Register on 
July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38706), we identified POTW as one of the urban 
area source categories to be considered for additional regulation due 
to their contribution to HAP emissions in urban areas. At least six of 
the 33 urban area HAP (benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 
ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene) may be 
emitted from POTW. Evaluating the feasibility of controlling HAP 
emissions from industrial POTW that are area sources is, therefore, one 
element in implementing our Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
    Though POTW with significant HAP emissions are often associated 
with urban areas, today we are proposing a national rule. A national 
rule promotes regulatory consistency and assures that populations in 
smaller cities or rural areas that might be located near area sources 
will receive the same degree of protection. In addition, POTW serving 
urban areas can have rural locations. Therefore, a national rule was 
considered appropriate for POTW.
    When EPA regulates HAP emissions from area sources, CAA section 
112(d)(5) provides that we may set standards that provide for the use 
of generally available control technology (GACT). We have determined 
that GACT requirements for all existing industrial POTW which are area 
sources should be the same as the MACT requirements for those existing 
industrial POTW which are deemed to be major sources under the present 
rule. Thus, we are proposing to require that existing industrial POTW 
that are area sources must meet all requirements established by the 
applicable MACT standard for the industrial discharger. This approach 
assures that these requirements will be enforceable directly on an 
industrial POTW, without the need to classify any POTW, which itself 
emits HAP in area source quantities, as a major source.
    Similarly, we have determined that GACT requirements for all new or 
reconstructed industrial POTW should be the same as MACT requirements 
for new or reconstructed industrial POTW which are deemed to be major 
sources under the present rule. This requires that such sources comply 
with the MACT requirements for the industrial discharger or for new or 
reconstructed non-industrial POTW, whichever are more stringent. Thus, 
we are proposing to establish GACT equal to MACT for all industrial 
POTW. This eliminates the need for a definition of major source which 
is derived from the characteristics of the discharger rather than the 
POTW.
    For new and existing non-industrial POTW which are area sources, we 
have determined that GACT should be no control. In addition, we are 
proposing to exempt such non-industrial area sources from the 
notification requirements in the current POTW NESHAP. In setting GACT 
at no control for non-industrial facilities, we considered the fact 
that the emissions of HAP from these facilities are typically low. 
Existing facilities do not have HAP controls, and the cost of adding 
HAP controls would be prohibitively high. With respect to new sources, 
the CAA provides that we may establish GACT requirements less stringent 
than the MACT floors which apply to major sources. Although we did 
adopt some limited control requirements for those new non-industrial 
POTW which are major sources, we do not believe that requiring such 
controls would be warranted for those new POTW which are only area 
sources.

IV. What Is the Basis for Exempting Area Source POTW From Title V 
Permitting?

    We are proposing in these amendments to exempt those POTW which are 
regulated as area sources from any title V permitting requirements 
under the authority given to us under section 502(a) of the CAA. Major 
sources of HAP are subject to the Federal operating permit program 
established by title V of the CAA. Area sources may also be subject to 
title V permitting requirements, but we have statutory authority to 
waive these requirements. Section 502(a) of the CAA permits us to 
exempt one or more area source categories (in whole or in part) from 
the requirement to obtain a permit under 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a) if the 
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such 
categories.
    One important purpose of the operating permit program is to provide 
a mechanism by which the general regulatory requirements established by 
Federal standards can be translated into more specific requirements for 
affected sources. This function is largely superfluous in the case of 
industrial POTW because the industrial dischargers are themselves 
subject to the operating permit program, and wastewater treatment 
requirements under the applicable MACT standards are one of the 
elements which must be incorporated in the operating permit for those 
industrial facilities. Thus, it is unnecessary to require that an area 
source industrial POTW obtain an operating permit to identify those 
wastewater treatment requirements which apply. The applicable 
requirements will already be clearly established in the permit obtained 
by the discharger.
    In these circumstances, we believe it would be unnecessarily 
burdensome to require that an area source POTW obtain an additional 
operating permit. Therefore, unless the source is otherwise required to 
obtain an operating permit, we are proposing to exempt the owner or 
operator of industrial POTW area sources subject to these standards 
from any permitting requirements under title V of the CAA.

V. What Are the Impacts of the Proposed Amendments?

    We do not expect any change in the environmental impacts of the 
final POTW NESHAP as a result of these proposed amendments to apply 
GACT to POTW. All facilities regulated under the present rule must meet 
identical control requirements under these proposed amendments. 
Furthermore, EPA anticipates that there will be no increase in the 
regulatory burden because there are no additional sources that will be 
subject to the standards. Indeed, we believe that the proposed 
amendments, by exempting industrial POTW which are area sources from 
title V requirements, which would apply to them under the present rule, 
will relieve affected sources, State and local agencies, and the EPA 
Regional Offices from an unnecessary regulatory burden.

VI. What Are the Administrative Requirements?

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive 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;

[[Page 13499]]

    (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 these proposed amendments are not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' because they will not have an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' are 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that 
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation.
    The proposed amendments 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to the proposed amendments.
    Nevertheless, in the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA, State, and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed 
amendments from State and local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    These proposed amendments do not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed amendments impose no 
new requirements on new or existing POTW treatment plants. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed amendments 
from tribal officials.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation.
    The proposed amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because they are based on technology performance and not on health or 
safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no 
alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at 
a reasonable cost. Furthermore, the proposed amendments have been 
determined to be not ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866.

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

    The proposed amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because 
they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 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, 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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 
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. 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.
    The EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do not contain 
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more

[[Page 13500]]

for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The regulatory revisions proposed here 
have no associated costs and do not contain requirements that apply to 
small governments or impose obligations upon them. This action is not a 
``significant'' regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 
12866 and does not impose any additional Federal mandate on State, 
local and tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning 
of the UMRA. Thus, today's proposed amendments are not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202, 203, and 205 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for any action subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business as defined in each applicable subpart; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district, or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    The proposed amendments would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities as they impose no new requirements 
on new or existing POTW treatment plants. Pursuant to the provisions of 
5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that the proposed amendments will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Under the RFA, an agency is not required to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for a rule that the agency head certifies will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Consequently, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required and has not been prepared.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    An Information Collection Request (ICR) document was prepared for 
the October 26, 1999 POTW final rule by the EPA and was submitted to 
and approved by OMB. A copy of this ICR (OMB control number 2060-0428) 
may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of 
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA 
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail 
at [email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also 
be downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 
These proposed amendments will not require additional burden on the 
affected entities.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, all Federal 
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in 
their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual 
reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available 
and applicable VCS.
    The proposed amendments do not involve any additional technical 
standards. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply to 
this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VVV--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.1580 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1580  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if the following are all true:
    (1) You own or operate a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that 
includes an affected source (Sec. 63.1595);
    (2) The affected source is located at a POTW which is a major 
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, or at any industrial 
POTW regardless of whether or not it is a major source of HAP; and
    (3) Your POTW is required to develop and implement a pretreatment 
program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8 (for a POTW owned or operated by a 
municipality, state, or intermunicipal or interstate agency), or your 
POTW would meet the general criteria for development and implementation 
of a pretreatment program (for a POTW owned or operated by a 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal government).
    (b) If your existing POTW treatment plant is not located at a major 
source as of October 26, 1999, but thereafter becomes a major source 
for any reason other than reconstruction, then, for the purpose of this 
subpart, your POTW treatment plant would be considered an existing 
source.

    Note to Paragraph (b): See Sec. 63.2 of the national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) general provisions 
in subpart A of this part for the definitions of major source and 
area source.

    (c) If you reconstruct your POTW treatment plant, then the 
requirements for a new or reconstructed POTW

[[Page 13501]]

treatment plant, as defined in Sec. 63.1595, apply.
    3. Section 63.1586 introductory text is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1586  What are the emission points and control requirements for 
a non-industrial POTW treatment plant?

    There are no control requirements for an existing non-industrial 
POTW treatment plant. There are no control requirements for any new or 
reconstructed area source non-industrial POTW treatment plant which is 
not a major source of HAP. The control requirements for a new or 
reconstructed major source non-industrial POTW treatment plant which is 
a major source of HAP are as follows:
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.1590 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1590  What reports must I submit?

    (a)(1) If you have an existing non-industrial POTW treatment plant, 
or a new or reconstructed area source non-industrial POTW treatment 
plant, you are not required to submit a notification of compliance 
status. If you have a new or reconstructed non-industrial POTW 
treatment plant which is a major source of HAP, you must submit to the 
Administrator a notification of compliance status, signed by the 
responsible official who must certify its accuracy, attesting to 
whether your POTW treatment plant has complied with this subpart. This 
notification must be submitted initially, and each time a notification 
of compliance status is required under this subpart. At a minimum, the 
notification must list--
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.1591 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.1591  What are my notification requirements?

    (a) If you have an industrial POTW treatment plant or a new or 
reconstructed non-industrial POTW which is a major source of HAP, and 
your State has not been delegated authority, you must submit 
notifications to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. If your State has 
been delegated authority you must submit notifications to your State 
and a copy of each notification to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. 
The Regional Office may waive this requirement for any notifications at 
its discretion.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.1592 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1592  Which General Provisions apply to my POTW treatment 
plant?

    (a) Table 1 to this subpart lists the General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A) which do and do not apply to POTW treatment plants.
    (b) Unless a permit is otherwise required by law, the owner or 
operator of an industrial POTW which is not a major source is exempt 
from the permitting requirements established by 40 CFR part 70.
    7. Table 1 to subpart VVV is amended by revising the entries 
``Sec. 63.1(c)(2)(i)'' and ``Sec. 63.9(a)'' to read as follows:

           Table 1 to Subpart VVV.--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63--General Provisions to Subpart VVV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  General provisions  reference      Applicable to  subpart VVV                      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Sec.  63.1(c)(2)(i).............  Yes/No..........................  State options regarding title V permit.
                                                                     Unless required by the State, area sources
                                                                     subject to subpart VVV are exempted from
                                                                     permitting requirements.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Sec.  63.9(a)...................  Yes/No..........................  Applicability of notification requirements.
                                                                     Existing major non-industrial POTW
                                                                     treatment plants, and existing and new or
                                                                     reconstructed area non- industrial POTW
                                                                     treatment plants are not subject to the
                                                                     notification requirements.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-6847 Filed 3-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P