[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53432-53445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22930]



[[Page 53431]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 437



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source 
Category; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 53432]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 437

[FRL-7555-5]
RIN 2040-AD95


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point 
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
amend certain provisions of the wastewater regulations for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category. This regulation 
established effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards and 
new source performance standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for 
the centralized waste treatment industry (CWT). Following promulgation 
of the regulations, a number of CWT facilities petitioned EPA to 
reconsider the limitations and standards for certain pollutants. 
Today's proposal provides a preliminary response to those petitions and 
the supporting data submitted by the petitioners. The amendments would 
delete certain selenium limitations and standards from the Metals 
Treatment and Recovery subcategory, as well as the the Multiple 
Wastestreams subcategory. This action also proposes to delete the 
barium, molybdenum, antimony, and titanium limitations and standards 
from the Oils Treatment and Recovery subcategory, and revise the 
Multiple Wastestreams subcategory, to reflect these changes. 
Furthermore, this proposal would increase the maximum monthly average 
BOD5 limitation for directly discharging facilities subject 
to a section of the Multiple Wastestreams subcategory. Finally, several 
facilities petitioned EPA to remove the molybdenum limitations from the 
Organics Treatment and Recovery subcategory and revise the Multiple 
Wastestreams subcategory. Based on EPA's preliminary analysis of the 
data received to date, EPA has not yet determined whether it is 
appropriate to remove these limitations. Therefore, this notice 
requests additional information on the achievability of the molybdenum 
limitations in the Organics Treatment and Recovery Subcategory and 
explains what data the Agency needs to demonstrate that molybdenum 
should not continue to be regulated in this subcategory.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 10, 2003. Persons wishing 
to request a public hearing regarding the pretreatment standards must 
do so by September 25, 2003. If commenters request a public hearing, 
EPA will hold a public hearing on these proposed pretreatment standards 
on October 10, 2003 from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, see Section I.F.

ADDRESSES: You can submit comments electronically, by mail, or through 
hand delivery/courier. Please mail comments to the Water Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460 or submit them electronically to 
http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Send either to the Attention of Docket ID 
No. OW-2003-0075. For more information on submitting comments, see 
Section I.C. If commenters request a public hearing on the pretreatment 
standards, EPA will hold a public hearing in Room 6231-F in the EPA-
West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elwood H. Forsht, EPA Office of Water 
by phone at (202)566-1025 or by e-mail at [email protected]. For 
information on how to get copies of this document and other related 
information see Section I.B.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include the following 
types of facilities that discharge pollutants directly or indirectly to 
U.S. waters.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                       Examples of regulated entities                     NAICS  codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................  Discharges from stand-alone waste treatment and       56221,
                                recovery facilities receiving materials from off-    562219
                                site. These facilities may treat hazardous or non-
                                hazardous waste, hazardous or non-hazardous
                                wastewater, and/or used material from off-site, for
                                disposal, recycling, or recovery.
                               Certain discharges from waste treatment systems at
                                facilities primarily engaged in other industrial
                                operations. Industrial facilities that process
                                their own, on-site generated, process wastewater
                                with hazardous or non-hazardous wastes,
                                wastewaters, and/or used material received from off-
                                site, in certain circumstances, may be subject to
                                this rule with respect to a portion of their
                                discharge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 definitions and applicability criteria in Sec. Sec.  437.1, 437.2, 
437.10, 437.20, 437.30, and 437.40 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. If you have questions about the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OW-2003-0075. The official public docket 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this action. 
The official public docket is the collection of materials that is 
available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-
2426. To view these docket materials, please call ahead to schedule an 
appointment. Every user is entitled to copy 266 pages per day before 
incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents a page for each page 
over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of $25.00.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document

[[Page 53433]]

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, ``EPA Dockets.'' You 
may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view 
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the 
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket 
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic docket. Although 
not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still 
access any of the publicly available docket materials through the 
docket facility identified in Section I.B.1.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. Please submit with your comments any references cited 
in your comments. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the 
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are 
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after 
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not 
required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or 
information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the 
instructions in Section I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit 
CBI or information protected by statute.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To 
access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, 
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once 
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OW-
2003-0075. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0075. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Section I..C.2. 
These electronic submissions will be accepted in Word Perfect or ASCII 
file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send an original and three (3) copies of your comments 
and any references cited in your comments to the Water Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0075.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Water 
Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0075. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation as identified in Section I.B.1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. 
Send information identified as CBI by mail only to the following 
address: Office of Science and Technology, Mailcode 4303T, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Elwood Forsht, Docket ID No. OW-2003-
0075.
    You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking 
any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk 
or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific

[[Page 53434]]

information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

F. Pretreatment Hearing Information

    If commenters request a public hearing on the pretreatment 
standards, a hearing will be held on October 10, 2003. During the 
pretreatment hearing, the public will have the opportunity to provide 
oral comment to EPA. EPA will not address any issues raised during the 
hearing at that time but these comments will be recorded and included 
in the public record for the rule. Persons wishing to attend or to 
present formal comments at the public hearing should contact Mr. Elwood 
Forsht before September 25, 2003 and should have a written copy for 
submittal at the hearing.

II. Legal Authority

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these 
regulations under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 
1318, 1342 and 1361.

III. Overview of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 
Centralized Waste Treatment

    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters'' (section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this, 
the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters 
except in compliance with the statute. The CWA confronts the problem of 
water pollution on a number of different fronts. It relies primarily, 
however, on establishing restrictions on the types and amounts of 
pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and public 
sources of wastewater.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that 
discharge effluent directly into the Nation's waters would not achieve 
the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires EPA to set nationally-
applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges 
for those who discharge wastewater indirectly through sewers flowing to 
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) (section 307(b) and (c), 33 
U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National pretreatment standards are 
established for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect 
dischargers which may pass through or interfere with POTWs operations. 
Generally, pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that 
wastewater from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject 
to similar levels of treatment. POTWs must also implement local 
pretreatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers 
to satisfy local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; 
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These 
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories 
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that 
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
    On December 22, 2000, EPA promulgated regulations establishing 
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards for new and 
existing sources, and new source performance standards for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Point Source Category (65 FR 81242).
    The regulations control the discharges from CWT facilities that 
receive waste, wastewater, or used material from off-site. EPA 
established limitations and standards for four CWT subcategories. The 
first three subcategories cover facilities that treat or recover only 
one type of waste, either metal-bearing (Subcategory A--Metals 
Treatment and Recovery), oily (Subcategory B--Oils Treatment and 
Recovery), or organic (Subcategory C--Organics Treatment and Recovery). 
The fourth subcategory, Subcategory D--Multiple Wastestreams, covers 
facilities that treat or recover some combination of metal-bearing, 
oily, and organic wastes, wastewater, or used material received from 
off-site. Using Subcategory D limitations and standards simplifies 
implementation of the rule and compliance monitoring for CWT facilities 
that treat wastes subject to more than one of the first three 
subcategories. These facilities may choose to comply with the 
provisions of the multiple wastestreams subcategory D rather than 
subcategories A, B, or C. However, they must certify that an equivalent 
treatment system is installed and properly designed, maintained, and 
operated.
    After the Agency published the December 2000 final rule, facilities 
in the regulated community conducted compliance monitoring studies and 
began to develop compliance strategies for the regulated pollutants. 
Based on these efforts, several members of the regulated community and 
a trade association submitted new information to the Agency and asked 
EPA to revise certain aspects of the final rule. After our own analysis 
and review, we determined that EPA should propose several minor 
modifications to the current rule.

IV. Amendment To Delete Selenium From the Metals Treatment and Recovery 
Subcategory

    EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the 
respective Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 
(BPT), Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), 
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment 
Standards for New Sources (PSNS) limitations and standards for selenium 
from Sec. Sec.  437.11, 437.13, 437.15 and 437.16. Section VI below 
describes the revision to the related segments of the Multiple 
Wastestreams Subcategory to reflect deletion of selenium from these 
sections of the Metals Treatment and Recovery

[[Page 53435]]

Subcategory. In the December 2000 final rule, EPA established, for the 
Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory, direct discharge limitations 
and standards as well as pretreatment standards for selenium and 15 
other metal pollutants. The model technology for the BPT, BAT, PSES and 
PSNS limitations and standards was primary chemical precipitation, 
liquid-solid separation, secondary chemical precipitation, 
clarification, and sand filtration. EPA is not proposing to delete the 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for selenium because the 
standards are based on a different model treatment system involving the 
use of selective metals precipitation
    While the data demonstrate that the technology EPA evaluated as the 
basis for the BPT, BAT, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards 
removes selenium, they also show that selenium removal was achieved 
only in the last stage of the model treatment system--the sand 
filtration polishing step. The sand filtration polishing step was 
included in the model technology to ensure compliance with total 
suspended solids limits (TSS) and not designed to achieve specific 
metal removals. While it is true that the removal of solids associated 
with sand filtration will include the removal of associated metals, 
these metals removals are not achieved at a consistent or predictable 
rate. It was not EPA's intention to regulate a metal for which removals 
were obtained only during this final, polishing step of an extended 
treatment train. EPA is not certain that the identified removals were 
not an artifact of the particular data set or that such removals are 
consistent and predictable with this technology. While removals were 
observed, EPA is not certain that facilities would be able to achieve 
the consistent removals required for compliance with a specific 
regulatory limit for selenium. Selenium is the only metal pollutant 
parameter regulated by the CWT regulation that falls into this 
category. The docket includes documents which describe EPA's review of 
the selenium data (DCS 47.1 and 47.2).
    Although EPA proposes to delete the regulatory limits for selenium 
in the selected sections, operation of treatment systems required to 
achieve compliance with the 14 other metals limits will ensure some 
continued removal of selenium, even if not at a consistent and 
predictable rate. EPA estimates that assuming no selenium removals 
would decrease EPA's December 22, 2000, estimated metals subcategory 
pollutant reductions by 53 lbs/yr or nearly zero percent of the total 
estimated reduction of 163 million lbs/yr. Expressed as toxic pound-
equivalents, the decrease as a result of assuming no selenium removals 
is 0.014 percent or 59 lb-eq/yr out of the total estimated reduction of 
415,383 lb-eq/yr (DCN 47.3).

V. Amendment To Remove Barium, Molybdenum, Antimony, and Titanium From 
the Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory

    In the December 2000 final rule, EPA established, for the Oils 
Treatment and Recovery Subcategory, direct discharge limitations and 
standards for barium, molybdenum, antimony, and titanium as well as 18 
other pollutants; and pretreatment standards for barium, molybdenum, 
and antimony as well as 11 other pollutants. The model technology that 
was the basis for the BPT, BAT, NSPS, and PSNS limitations and 
standards was emulsion breaking/gravity separation, secondary gravity 
separation and dissolved air flotation (DAF). The PSES model technology 
basis was emulsion breaking/gravity separation and DAF.
    After publication of the final rule, members of the regulated 
community evaluated different engineering strategies for complying with 
the promulgated limitations and standards. Several companies and a 
trade association submitted new information to EPA demonstrating that 
the model technology did not consistently remove certain pollutants 
from oils wastestreams in specified circumstances. They concluded and 
reported to EPA that the limitations and standards were not technically 
achievable, petitioning EPA to delete these pollutants from the 
regulated parameters.
    Based on the data submitted to the Agency concerning metals removal 
and the model technology, EPA reexamined the technology to determine 
whether it would achieve consistent and predictable removals of metal 
pollutants. As noted above, the model technology consists of emulsion 
breaking/gravity separation, secondary gravity separation and DAF. 
During the DAF phase of treatment, surface active agents, coagulating 
agents, and polyelectrolytes are added to the wastewater and the pH of 
the system is adjusted. The effect of the addition of coagulating 
agents and pH adjustment is to promote precipitation of metals and 
their consequent removal. Different metals are removed more effectively 
at different concentrations of coagulating agents and at different pH 
levels. EPA examined its data base to identify which of the metals 
pollutants were removed consistently and predictably by the treatment 
system that was the basis for the final limitations. The result of this 
review demonstrated that removals were not consistent and predictable 
for the following pollutants: Barium, molybdenum, antimony and 
titanium. As a result, EPA proposes to remove the limitations and 
standards for barium, molybdenum, antimony and titanium from 
Subcategory B and modify the related provisions of Subcategory D to 
reflect these changes.
    Even though this amendment would delete the limitations and 
standards for these four metal pollutants, the control of other metal 
pollutants ensures some incidental removals for these parameters. For 
direct discharge facilities, limitations for nine other metals remain 
in place. For indirect discharge facilities, pretreatment standards for 
six other metals remain in place.

A. Barium

    EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective 
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for barium 
from Sec. Sec.  437.21, 437.23, 437.24, 437.25 and 437.26. Section VI 
below describes the methodology used to revise the related segments of 
the Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory to reflect deletion of barium 
from the Oils Treatment and Recovery subcategory.
    EPA received information and data from several companies and a CWT 
trade association concerning barium concentrations in different types 
of waste receipts treated at CWT facilities. EPA evaluated this 
information and concluded that its model technology would not reliably 
and consistently remove barium to the limits required in the oils 
subcategory. The record includes the additional information provided to 
the Agency with the request for changes to the regulation and EPA's 
review of that information (DCNs 43.2.49, 43.2.51, 43.2.54, 43.2.60, 
44.1.1, 44.2, 44.3, 45.29.1, and 47.7).
    The commenters noted that CWT facilities accept a variety of oily 
waste receipts that contain barium including used lubricating oils and 
greases and oil and gas extraction drilling fluids and brine. The 
information and data indicates that barium is usually precipitated as 
barium sulfate and that sedimentation rather than dissolved air 
flotation would provide more consistent barium removals.
    EPA's single-stage DAF model treatment system was designed 
primarily to remove suspended solids and dispersed oil and grease from 
oily wastewater. The use of treatment chemicals provides an effective 
means

[[Page 53436]]

of increasing the efficiencies of DAF treatment systems in removing 
suspended solids and may also enhance the removal of metals (DCN 41.2, 
pages 8-13 to 15). The operating conditions of the model treatment 
technology evaluated for the final regulation included the addition of 
treatment chemicals (aluminum sulfate, caustic soda, and polymers). Use 
of aluminum sulfate (alum) precipitates barium sulfate which has a 
specific gravity 4.5 times heavier than water; the use of polymers 
flocculate suspended particles.
    Because of the density of barium sulfate and the use of polymers, 
large floc formations would tend to sink and smaller floc formations 
would tend to float. However, if colloidal suspensions are formed, DAF 
would tend to be ineffective. Therefore, removing barium sulfate by DAF 
requires a careful balance between forming a large enough floc to be 
floated but not too large to sink. In this situation, it appears that 
the model DAF technology would not reliably and consistently provide 
the pollutant reductions that form the basis for the promulgated 
limitations. Thus, EPA proposes to remove the limitations and standards 
for barium from Subcategory B and the associated provisions of 
Subcategory D. We did not intend to regulate a pollutant in the oils 
waste receipts subcategory for which compliance could not be 
consistently and predictably achieved with the model DAF treatment 
system.
    Although EPA proposes to delete the regulatory limits for barium, 
operation of treatment systems required to achieve compliance with 
other metals limits will ensure some continued removal of barium, even 
if not at a consistent and predictable rate. Even if there were no 
incidental removals for barium, the estimated pollutant reduction for 
this regulation remains relatively unchanged, i.e., the December 22, 
2000, estimated oils subcategory pollutant reductions would decrease by 
2,115 lbs/yr or 0.22 percent of the total estimated reduction of 
941,622 lbs/yr. Expressed as toxic pound-equivalents, the decrease as a 
result of assuming no barium removals is less than 0.008 percent or 4 
lb-eq/yr out of the total estimated reduction of 52,447 lb-eq/yr (DCN 
47.3).

B. Molybdenum, Antimony, and Titanium

    EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective 
BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations and standards for molybdenum, antimony, 
and titanium from Sec. Sec.  437.21, 437.23, 437.24; and by deleting 
the respective PSES and PSNS standards for molybdenum and antimony from 
Sec. Sec.  437.25 and 437.26. Section VI below describes the 
methodology used to revise the related segments of the Multiple 
Wastestreams Subcategory to reflect deletion of molybdenum, antimony, 
and titanium from the Oils Treatment and Recovery subcategory.
    EPA's single-stage DAF model treatment system was designed 
primarily to remove suspended solids and dispersed oil and grease from 
oily wastewater. The use of treatment chemicals provides an effective 
means of increasing the efficiencies of DAF treatment systems in 
removing suspended solids and may also enhance the removal of metals 
(DCN 41.2, pages 8-13 to 15). The conditions under which the model 
treatment technology operated which EPA evaluated for the final 
limitations and standards included the addition of treatment chemicals 
(aluminum sulfate, caustic soda, and polymer) with pH adjustments to 
relatively strong base levels between 9 to 11. These operating 
conditions optimize the removals of the more traditional heavy metals 
including chromium, zinc, lead, nickel, copper, and cadmium.
    After publication of the December 2000 final rule, the regulated 
community evaluated several different engineering strategies for 
complying with the limitations and standards. Several companies and a 
CWT trade association submitted new information to EPA demonstrating 
that the model technology would not consistently remove certain 
pollutants from oils wastestreams in specified circumstances. They 
concluded and reported to EPA that the antimony, molybdenum, and 
titanium limitations and standards were not technically achievable, 
petitioning EPA to delete these pollutants as regulated parameters. The 
docket includes the additional information provided to the agency and 
EPA's review of that information (DCNs 45.12.1, 45.12.2, 45.12.3, 
45.12.4, 45.25, 45.25.2, 46.5.1, 46.5.2, 46.5.3, 46.10, 46.11, 46.12, 
46.15, 46.21, and 47.5).
    Based on the materials submitted to the Agency, EPA reexamined its 
model technology and the associated removal data. The new information 
and data demonstrate that the oils subcategory model DAF treatment 
technology is unable to consistently meet the antimony, molybdenum, and 
titanium oils subcategory limitations and standards. Furthermore, the 
new data demonstrate that optimum removals of antimony, molybdenum, and 
titanium require treatment with high concentrations of iron (ranging 
from 1,000 to 5,000 mg/l ) and, for antimony and molybdenum, pH 
adjustments to relatively strong acid levels between 4 to 5. Therefore, 
to ensure compliance with the antimony, molybdenum, and titanium 
limitations and standards, many oily waste facilities would need to add 
a second-stage chemical precipitation step operated at a relatively low 
pH (between 4 and 5) and/or the addition of large quantities of iron 
(1,000 to 5,000 mg/l), and followed by clarification or filtration.
    EPA did not intend to regulate a pollutant in the oils waste 
receipts subcategory for which compliance could only be obtained with 
the addition of uniquely designed chemical precipitation systems to the 
model technology. Based on the information and data provided, we 
conclude that in many situations CWT facilities subject to Subpart B 
would not be able to comply with the antimony, molybdenum, and titanium 
limitations and standards through the use of the model DAF technology 
alone. Many facilities would need to add chemical precipitation unit 
operations uniquely designed for antimony, molybdenum, and titanium 
removal. Due to these circumstances, EPA proposes to remove the 
limitations and standards for these pollutants from Subcategory B and 
revise the associated provisions of Subcategory D.
    Although EPA proposes to delete the regulatory limits for antimony, 
molybdenum, and titanium, operation of treatment systems required to 
achieve compliance with other metals limits will ensure some continued 
removal of antimony, molybdenum, and titanium, even if not at 
consistent and predictable rates. Even if there were no incidental 
removals for antimony, molybdenum, and titanium, the estimated oils 
subcategory pollutant reduction for this regulation remains relatively 
unchanged, i.e., the December 22, 2000, estimated pollutant reductions 
would decrease by 7,828 lbs/yr or 0.83 percent of the total estimated 
reduction of 941,622 lbs/yr. Expressed as pollutant pound-equivalents, 
the decrease as a result of assuming no antimony, molybdenum, and 
titanium removals is about 2.89 percent or 1,518 lb-eq/yr out of the 
total estimated reduction of 52,447 lb-eq/yr (DCN 47.3).

VI. Amendment To Revise the Related Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory 
Segments

    EPA, in the December 2000 final rule, established limitations and 
standards for facilities that treat a combination of metal-bearing, 
oily or organic wastes, wastewater or used material. Use of

[[Page 53437]]

these Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory limitations and standards 
simplifies implementation of the rule and compliance monitoring for CWT 
facilities that treat wastes subject to more than one of the other 
subcategories. These facilities may elect to comply with the provisions 
of the Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory rather than the applicable 
individual provisions of the metals, oils, and organics treatment and 
recovery subcategories in the circumstances described in 40 CFR 437.40.
    EPA developed four sets of limitations for each of the possible 
combinations of the three subcategories of wastestreams. These are 
mixtures of (1) metal-bearing, oils, and organics waste receipts; (2) 
metal-bearing and oils waste receipts; (3) metal-bearing and organics 
waste receipts; and (4) oils and organics waste receipts. EPA derived 
these limitations and standards by combining pollutant limitations and 
standards from each possible combination of subcategories and selecting 
the most stringent pollutant values where they overlap. (For each 
pollutant, EPA selected the most stringent maximum monthly average 
limitations and its corresponding maximum daily limitation.) Today's 
proposal would modify the Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory limitations 
and standards to account for the removal of selenium from the Metals 
Subcategory limitations and standards and the removal of barium, 
molybdenum, antimony and titanium from the Oils Treatment and Recovery 
Subcategory.

A. Selenium

    EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective 
BPT, BAT, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for selenium from 
Sec. Sec.  437.42(b), (c), and (d); 437.44(b), (c), and (d); 437.46(b), 
(c), and (d); and 437.47(b), (c), and (d). Because selenium was 
regulated in the Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory but not in 
the Oils or Organics Treatment and Recovery Subcategories, there are no 
overlapping limitations for this pollutant. Therefore, the result of 
deleting selenium from the BPT, BAT, PSES, and PSNS segments of the 
metals subcategory (see Section IV above) would be that selenium 
limitations and standards would remain only in the NSPS segment of the 
Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory. The selenium NSPS standards are 
based on a different model treatment system involving the use of 
selective metals precipitation.

B. Barium

    EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective 
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for barium 
from Sec. Sec.  437.42(b), (c), and (e); 437.44(b), (c), and (e); 
437.45(b), (c), and (e); 437.46(b), (c), and (e); and 437.47(b), (c), 
and (e). Because barium was regulated in the Oils Treatment and 
Recovery Subcategory but not in the Metals or Organics Treatment and 
Recovery Subcategories, there are no overlapping limitations for this 
pollutant. Therefore, the result of deleting barium from the oils 
subcategory (see Section V above) is that there would be no barium 
limitations and standards for any segment of the Multiple Wastestreams 
Subcategory.

C. Molybdenum

    EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective 
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for molybdenum 
from Sec. Sec.  437.42(c), 437.44(c), 437.45(c), 437.46(c), and 
437.47(c). EPA had originally promulgated molybdenum limitations for 
the Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory and the Organics Treatment 
and Recovery Subcategory but not in the Metals Treatment and Recovery 
Subcategory. If EPA promulgates this amendment as proposed, there would 
be limitations for this pollutant only in the organics subcategory. 
Since the organics subcategory molybdenum limitations were more 
stringent than those in the oils subcategory, the molybdenum 
limitations in the related segments of the multiple wastestreams 
subcategory would continue to be based on the organics subcategory 
limitations.

D. Antimony

    EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective 
PSES and PSNS standards for antimony from Sec. Sec.  437.46(e) and 
437.47(e), and by revising the respective BPT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS 
limitations and standards for antimony in Sec. Sec.  437.42(b), (c), 
and (e), 437.45(e), 437.46(b) and (c), and 437.47(b) and (c).
    Because antimony was originally regulated for indirect discharges 
in the Metals and Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategories but not in 
the Organics Treatment and Recovery Subcategory, there would be PSES 
and PSNS standards for this pollutant only in the Metals subcategory, 
if EPA promulgates the amendments as proposed. The antimony standards 
in the related indirect discharge segments of the Multiple Wastestreams 
subcategory would therefore be based on the Metals subcategory 
limitations.
    In the December 2000 rule, EPA regulated antimony for direct 
discharges in the Metals, Oils, and Organics Treatment and Recovery 
Subcategories. If EPA promulgates this amendment as proposed, there 
would be BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations and standards for this 
pollutant only in the Metals and Organics subcategories. Therefore the 
BPT, BAT, and NSPS antimony limitations and standards in the related 
direct discharge segments of the Multiple Wastestreams subcategory 
would be based on the most stringent antimony limitations in the 
overlapping Metals and Organics subcategories.

E. Titanium

    EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective 
BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations and standards for titanium from 
Sec. Sec.  437.42(e), 437.44(e), and 437.45(e), and by revising the 
respective BPT limitations for titanium in Sec. Sec.  437.42(b) and 
(c). Because titanium was regulated for direct discharges in the Metals 
and Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategories but not in the Organics 
Treatment and Recovery Subcategory, there would be BPT, BAT, and NSPS 
limitations and standards for this pollutant only in the metals 
subcategory, if EPA promulgates this amendment as proposed. Therefore 
the BPT, BAT, and NSPS titanium limitations and standards in the 
related direct discharge segments of the Multiple Wastestreams 
subcategory would be based on the titanium limitations and standards in 
the Metals subcategory.

VII. Corrections and Edits to 40 CFR 437

    EPA proposes to correct a technical error contained in the December 
22, 2000, final rule. The Federal Register publication of the final 
rule (65 FR 81241) contained an error in Sec.  437.42(d) for the 
maximum monthly average BOD5 limitation for direct discharge 
facilities subject to the Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory for 
combined metals and organics waste receipts. The 3.0 mg/l 
BOD5 maximum monthly average limitation is revised to read 
53.0 mg/l. This matches the limitation in the final rule signed by the 
Administrator on August 28, 2000. The correct 53.0 mg/l BOD5 
limitation for this segment is reflected in the August 2000 
``Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry--Final,'' (EPA 
821-R-00-020)

[[Page 53438]]

as well as the supporting information and analyses in the record.
    The ``Authority'' citation is revised to conform with current 
guidance from the Federal Register Office.

VIII. Summary of Proposed Actions and Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Summary of Proposed Actions

    The Agency is proposing to delete certain limitations and standards 
for selenium from the metals subcategory and for antimony, barium, 
molybdenum, and titanium from the oils subcategory. The proposal also 
reflects these changes in the multiple wastestreams subcategory. We 
have concluded that the model technologies that provided the basis for 
the limitations and standards do not consistently and predictably 
remove these pollutants to the specified levels for compliance. 
Nevertheless, operation of treatment systems required to achieve 
compliance with other metals limits will ensure some continued removal 
of these five metals, even if not at consistent and predictable rates. 
Even if there were no incidental removals for these metals, the 
estimated pollutant reduction for this regulation remains relatively 
unchanged, i.e., the December 22, 2000, estimated pollutant reductions 
would decrease by 9,996 lbs/yr or 0.006 percent of the total estimated 
reduction of 166,125,128 lbs/yr for the CWT regulation. Expressed as 
toxic pound-equivalents, the decrease as a result of assuming no 
removals for these metals is 0.32 percent or 1,581 lb-eq/yr out of the 
total estimated reduction of 487,644 lb-eq/yr for the CWT regulation 
(DCN 47.8).
    Even though EPA does not believe that the potential increases in 
pollutant discharges related to the proposed amendments result in any 
significant environmental effects, we will continue to monitor the 
discharges from this industry as part of the biennial Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plans required under section 304(m) of the Clean 
Water Act.

B. Solicitation of Data and Comments

    EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking. 
The Agency asks that commenters address whether the record supports 
EPA's conclusions that the technology on which it based the final 
limitations and standards does not provide consistent and predictable 
removals for the pollutants the Agency has proposed to delete from the 
regulation. Any suggestions for changes or revisions should be 
supported by adequate technical data.
    EPA is particularly interested in receiving comment on an issue 
raised by the National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA) in its request 
for deletion of molybdenum limitations from certain subcategories. NORA 
submitted information to the Agency with a request that EPA delete the 
molybdenum limitations and standards from the Organics Treatment and 
Recovery subcategory and from the related sections of the Multiple 
Wastestreams subcategory (DCNs 45.32 and 45.33). They state that many 
CWT organics subcategory facilities have molybdenum influent raw waste 
concentrations that are too high for effective biological treatment. 
Based on our preliminary assessment of this new information and data we 
will probably delete the molybdenum limitations from the organics 
subcategory. However, we are seeking additional information to augment 
the record before finalizing such a change. As a consequence, EPA is 
not today proposing to remove the molybdenum limitations and standards 
as requested by NORA; however, EPA plans to evaluate closely any 
additional information it receives on this subject. When EPA 
promulgates the final rule, we will likely delete these limitations and 
standards from the organics subcategory and the related sections of the 
multiple wastestream subcategory if we receive adequate supporting 
documentation. The discussion below describes the kind of information 
EPA would need before it could delete the molybdenum limitations and 
standards from the CWT organics subcategory.
    Commenters should submit information showing that well-designed and 
well-operated treatment systems employing the BAT technology used as 
the basis for the organics subcategory limitations and standards will 
not provide consistent and predictable removals for molybdenum.
    The information and data should characterize the influent pollutant 
levels (including molybdenum) as well as the effluent levels being 
discharged in the treated final effluent resulting from the treatment 
of organics waste receipts at facilities with BAT technology for the 
organics subcategory. To the extent possible, we want to characterize 
organics subcategory treatment prior to commingling with wastewaters 
from other subcategories, non-contaminated stormwater, or other sources 
of water.
    Comments should include sufficient information and data to 
determine if the biological treatment system is well-designed and well-
operated during the sampling period(s). To the extent possible, the 
information and data should include (1) block diagrams identifying the 
influent, intermediate, and final outfall sampling points; holding 
tanks and equalization units; each component or stage of the biological 
treatment system; and any post biological unit operations; (2) the 
hydraulic and pollutant load design bases including hydraulic residence 
times in each stage of the biological treatment system; (3) the 
operational information and data that demonstrate good operation for 
the sampling period(s); (4) relative flows of the influent waste 
receipts and equalization characteristics; and (5) analytical and flow 
data for each sampling point including, to the extent available, the 
design and operation parameters, molybdenum, total suspended solids 
(TSS), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical 
oxygen demand (COD), and other regulated and relevant parameters. 
Please note what types of samples were collected at each sampling point 
(grab or composite) as well as the analytical methods used. If grab 
sample data are provided, please document how the grab samples 
represent typical wastewater characteristics. The rationale should at 
least address the flow and concentration variability of the organics 
subcategory waste receipts and any other commingled wastestreams as 
well as the residence times and mixing characteristics of any 
equalization unit operations.

IX. POTW Pretreatment Program Alternatives in Light of the December 22, 
2003 Compliance Deadline

    EPA is likely to take final action on today's proposal with only a 
short amount of time remaining before the December 22, 2003, deadline 
for indirect dischargers to comply with the 2000 pretreatment standards 
that are the subject of today's proposal. EPA understands that POTWs 
are already preparing pretreatment control mechanisms to implement 
those pretreatment standards. In view of the fact that EPA's rulemaking 
and the issuance of pretreatment control mechanisms are proceeding on 
parallel tracks, EPA recommends that the POTWs consider one of several 
approaches to account for the situation. For example, a POTW could 
decide to include, in the proposed and, if necessary, final amendments 
to its local pretreatment program, alternative sets of limitations that 
reflect both the requirements as they exist in unamended form today and 
the requirements that would apply if EPA promulgates amendments as 
proposed today. The first set of limitations would establish 
requirements for each

[[Page 53439]]

pollutant and subcategory as published in the 2000 rule. The second set 
of limitations would state that, if prior to December 22, 2003, EPA has 
amended part 437 to remove pretreatment standards for selenium, barium, 
molybdenum, antimony, and titanium for certain specified subcategories, 
then the limitations specified above for those pollutants and 
subcategories would not apply.
    Alternatively, EPA recommends that the POTWs consider including, in 
the proposed and, if necessary, final amendments to its pretreatment 
program a provision stating that the limitations for selenium, barium, 
molybdenum, antimony, and titanium correspond to those pretreatment 
standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes on December 
22, 2003. By including a provision like this, the POTW can incorporate 
the most recent EPA decisions regarding pretreatment standards for 
these pollutants without the need for further administrative 
proceeding. The POTW would be free, of course, following promulgation 
of any changes to the pretreatment standards to revise its local 
pretreatment program specifically to reflect any changes.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735, (October 4, 1993)], the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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.
    It has been determined that this proposal is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action would not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. 
It would merely delete the limitations for five pollutants from certain 
provisions of the current rule and corrects a limitation for another 
pollutant that was incorrectly transcribed from the version signed by 
the EPA Administrator. Consequently, today's proposed rule does not 
establish any new information collection burden on the regulated 
community.
    Burden means the 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 EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule 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 economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, a small entity is defined as (1) a small business with 
gross revenue under $6 million (based on Small Business Administration 
size standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district 
with a population 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposal 
rule removes or revises the limitations and standards for five 
pollutants from certain provisions of the current rule and corrects an 
error in another provision. These changes reduce the economic impacts 
of the regulation on those entities, including small entities, subject 
to the limitations and pretreatment standards. The estimated reduction 
in the analytical laboratory costs of compliance is about $496,000 (DCN 
47.6). The change to the BOD5 limitation will result in no change in 
economic burden because this modification merely corrects the 
limitation to reflect the BOD5 limitation in the August 28, 2000, 
version of the regulation signed by the Administrator.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. 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, 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

[[Page 53440]]

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.
    EPA has determined that this proposed 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. It deletes or revises the limitations 
and standards for five pollutants from certain provisions of the CWT 
guideline and corrects an inadvertent error in another limitation in 
the codified version of the current rule. The effect of these changes 
is to reduce the cost of the CWT regulations promulgated earlier. Thus, 
today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    For the same reason, EPA has determined that this proposal contains 
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The proposal, if promulgated, would not uniquely 
affect small governments because small and large governments are 
affected in the same way. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to 
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. 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'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This proposed rule 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, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's proposed rule would 
amend effluent limitations and pretreatment standards which impose 
requirements that apply to facilities when they discharge wastewater or 
introduce wastewater to a POTW. It deletes or revises the limitations 
and standards for five pollutants from certain provisions of the CWT 
guideline and corrects an inadvertent error in another limitation in 
the codified version of the current rule. EPA has determined that there 
are no CWT facilities owned and/or operated by State or local 
governments that would be subject to today's proposed rule. Further, 
the proposed rule would only incidentally affect State and local 
governments in their capacity as implementers of CWA NPDES permitting 
programs and approved pretreatment programs. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive 
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications 
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits 
comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. 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 9, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. It deletes or revises the limitations and 
standards for five pollutants from certain provisions of the current 
rule and corrects an inadvertent printing error in another section. EPA 
has not identified any CWT facilities covered by today's proposed rule 
that are owned and/or operated by Indian tribal governments. No Indian 
tribes are responsible for implementing the CWA NPDES permitting 
program. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In 
the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to 
promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA 
specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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, the Agency 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 the Agency.
    This proposal is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866. 
Further, this proposal does not concern an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 
272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical

[[Page 53441]]

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 437

    Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal, Water 
pollution control.

    Dated: September 2, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 437--THE CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    1. The authority citation for part 437 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 
1361.


Sec.  437.11  [Amended]

    2. Section 437.11(a) is amended by removing the entry for 
``Selenium'' in the BPT Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters.''


Sec.  437.13  [Amended]

    3. Section 437.13(a) is amended by removing ``selenium,.''


Sec.  437.15  [Amended]

    4. Section 437.15(a) is amended by removing ``selenium,.''


Sec.  437.16  [Amended]

    5. Section 437.16(a) is amended by removing ``selenium,.''


Sec.  437.21  [Amended]

    6. Section 437.21 is amended by removing the following entries in 
the BPT Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    a. Antimony.
    b. Barium.
    c. Molybdenum.
    d. Titanium.


Sec.  437.23  [Amended]

    7. Section 437.23 is amended by removing the following entries:
    a. ``antimony,.''
    b. ``barium,.''
    c. ``molybdenum,.''
    d. ``titanium,.''


Sec.  437.24  [Amended]

    8. Section 437.24 is amended by removing the following entries:
    a. ``antimony,.''
    b. ``barium,.''
    c. ``molybdenum,.''
    d. ``titanium,.''


Sec.  437.25  [Amended]

    9. Section 437.25 is amended by removing the following entries in 
the Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table, under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'':
    a. Antimony.
    b. Barium.
    c. Molybdenum.


Sec.  437.26  [Amended]

    10. Section 437.26 is amended by removing the following entries:
    a. ``antimony,.''
    b. ``barium,.''
    c. ``molybdenum,.''


Sec.  437.42  [Amended]

    11. Section 437.42 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the following entries in the BPT 
Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Selenium.
    b. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in 
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  437.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *

                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum      Maximum  monthly
         Regulated parameter              daily\1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................             0.249             0.206
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    c. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the entry for ``Titanium'' in 
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  437.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 53442]]



                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum      Maximum  monthly
         Regulated parameter              daily\1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Titanium............................            0.0947            0.0618
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    d. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the BPT 
Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Molybdenum.
    iii. Selenium.
    e. In paragraph (c)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in 
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  437.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum      Maximum  monthly
         Regulated parameter              daily\1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................             0.249             0.206
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    f. In paragraph (c)(1) by revising the entry for ``Titanium'' in 
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  437.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum      Maximum  monthly
         Regulated parameter              daily\1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
 
 
                              * * * * * * *
Titanium............................            0.0947            0.0618
 
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    g. Paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
    i. Revising the entry for ``BOD5'' in the BPT 
Limitations table under the heading ``Conventional Parameters'' as 
follows:


Sec.  437.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 53443]]



                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Maximum  daily   Maximum  monthly
         Regulated parameter                 \1\             avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
-------------------------------------
BOD5................................               163              53.0
 
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    ii. Removing the entry for ``Selenium'' in the BPT Limitations 
table under the heading ``Metal Parameters.''
    h. Paragraph (e) is amended by removing the following entries in 
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Titanium.
    i. Paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' 
in the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  437.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum      Maximum  monthly
         Regulated parameter              daily\1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................             0.928             0.679
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *


Sec.  437.44  [Amended]

    12. Section 437.44 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the following entries in the BAT 
Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Selenium.
    b. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the BAT 
Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Molybdenum.
    iii. Selenium.
    c. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing the entry for ``Selenium'' in 
the BAT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters.''
    d. In paragraph (e) by removing the following entries in the BAT 
Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Titanium.


Sec.  437.45  [Amended]

    13. Section 437.45 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the entry for ``Barium'' in the 
Performance Standards table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters.''
    b. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the 
Performance Standards table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Molybdenum.
    c. In paragraph (e) by removing the following entries in the 
Performance Standards table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Titanium.
    d. In paragraph (e) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in the 
Performance Standards table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  437.45  New Source Performance Standards.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                          Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum monthly
         Regulated parameter          Maximum daily\1\       avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Antimony............................             0.928             0.679

[[Page 53444]]

 
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *


Sec.  437.46  [Amended]

    14. Section 437.46 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the following entries in the 
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table, under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Selenium.
    b. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in 
the Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'' to read as follows:


Sec.  437.46  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum monthly
         Regulated parameter          Maximum daily\1\       avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................             0.249             0.206
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    c. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the 
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table, under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Molybdenum.
    iii. Selenium.
    d. In paragraph (c)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in 
the Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'' to read as follows:


Sec.  437.46  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum monthly
         Regulated parameter          Maximum daily\1\       avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................             0.249             0.206
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    e. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing the entry for ``Selenium'' in 
the Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters.''
    f. In paragraph (e) by removing the following entries in the 
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'':
    i. Antimony.
    ii. Barium.


Sec.  437.47  [Amended]

    15. Section 437.47 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the following entries in the 
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table, under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Selenium.
    b. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in 
the Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'' to read as follows:


Sec.  437.47  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSNS).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 53445]]



                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum monthly
         Regulated parameter          Maximum daily\1\       avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................             0.249             0.206
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    c. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the 
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table, under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'':
    i. Barium.
    ii. Molybdenum.
    iii. Selenium.
    d. In paragraph (c)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in 
the Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'' to read as follows:


Sec.  437.47  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSNS).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum monthly
         Regulated parameter          Maximum daily\1\       avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................             0.249             0.206
 
                             * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

* * * * *
    e. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing the entry for ``Selenium'' in 
the Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters.''
    f. In paragraph (e) by removing the following entries in the 
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table under the heading ``Metal 
Parameters'':
    i. Antimony.
    ii. Barium.

[FR Doc. 03-22930 Filed 9-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P