issue-1995-12-06•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-06
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-06
issue-1995-12-06Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-06Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 95-29735 Tebuthiuron; Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62364-62366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29735]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300403; FRL-4986-2]
RIN 2070-AC18
Tebuthiuron; Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA has completed the reregistration process and issued a
Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) for tebuthiuron. In the
reregistration process, all information to support this pesticide's
continued registration is reviewed for adequacy and, when needed,
supplemented with new scientific studies. Based on the RED tolerance
assessment for the pesticide chemical subject to this proposed rule,
EPA is proposing to lower the tolerance for grass hay and grass
rangeland forage and change the commodity name grass, rangeland forage
to grass, forage.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the OPP document control number
[OPP-300403], must be received on or before January 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments to Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person,
deliver comments to Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted in ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
docket number [OPP-300403]. No CBI should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many
Federeal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Ben Chambliss, Special Review
[[Page 62365]]
and Reregistration Division (7508W), Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location: Special Review
Branch, Crystal Station #1, 3rd Floor, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington,
VA 22202, (703)-308-8174; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Legal Authorization
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et
seq., authorizes the establishment of tolerances (maximum legal residue
levels) and exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities pursuant
to section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). Without such tolerances or
exemptions, a food containing pesticide residues is considered to be
``adulterated'' under section 402 of the FFDCA, and hence may not
legally be moved in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 342). To establish a
tolerance or an exemption under section 408 of the FFDCA, EPA must make
a finding that the promulgation of the rule would ``protect the public
health'' (21 U.S.C. 346a(b)). For a pesticide to be sold and
distributed the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances
under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.).
In 1988, Congress amended FIFRA and required EPA to review and
reassess the potential hazards arising from currently registered uses
of pesticides registered prior to November 1, 1984. As part of this
process, the Agency must determine whether a pesticide is eligible for
reregistration and if any subsequent actions are required to fully
attain reregistration status. EPA has chosen to include in the
reregistration process a reassessment of existing tolerances or
exemptions from the need for a tolerance. Through this reassessment
process, EPA can determine whether a tolerance must be amended,
revoked, or established, or whether an exemption from the requirement
of one or more tolerances must be amended or is necessary.
The procedure for establishing, amending, or repealing tolerances
or exemptions from the requirement of tolerances is set forth in the
Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR parts 177 through 180. Pursuant to
40 CFR 180.32, EPA is proposing the amendment of the following
tolerances. The Administrator of EPA or any person may initiate an
action proposing to establish, amend, revoke, or exempt a tolerance for
a pesticide registered for food uses. Each petition or request for a
new tolerance, an amendment to an existing tolerance, or a new
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance must be accompanied by a
fee. Current Agency policy on tolerance actions identified during the
reregistration process is to waive the payment of fees if the tolerance
action concerns revision or revocation of an established tolerance.
Comments submitted in response to the Agency's published proposals are
reviewed; the Agency then publishes its final determination regarding
the specific tolerance actions.
II. Chemical-Specific Information and Proposed Actions
Tebuthiuron: Amendment to 40 CFR 180.390
1. Regulatory background. Tebuthiuron is a nonselective soil
activated herbicide used to control broadleaf and woody weeds, grasses,
and brush on terrestrial feed crop and terrestrial nonfood crop sites.
Tolerances exist for tebuthiuron use on grass hay and forage as well as
secondary residues in meat of cattle, goats, horses, sheep, and in
milk. Tebuthiuron was registered by the Elanco Products Co. in 1974.
The registration was later transferred to DowElanco in 1989. A
Registration Standard was issued in July 1987 for all pesticide
products containing tebuthiuron. Under this standard, registrants were
required to generate and supply missing data and to replace
unacceptable data. In June 1994, the Agency issued the Reregistration
Eligibility Document for Tebuthiuron. This document reflects a
reassessment of all data submitted in response to the Registration
Standard of Tebuthiuron.
2. Proposed action--a. Lower the tolerance for grass hay and forage
from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 10 ppm. A tolerance reduction from
20 ppm to 10 ppm is recommended for grass hay and forage based on data
showing that combined residues of tebuthiuron and it's regulated
metabolites did not exceed 10 ppm on any grass forage or hay sample in
field trials conducted under label conditions.
b. Amend the commodity definition listed in 40 CFR 180.390 to
conform to commodity definitions currently used by EPA to read as
follows: ``Grass, rangeland, forage'' is proposed to read as ``Grass,
forage''.
III. Public Comment Procedures
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments,
information, or data in response to this proposed rule. Comments must
be submitted by January 5, 1996. Comments must bear a notation
indicating the document control number. Three copies of the comments
should be submitted to either location listed under ADDRESSES.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of a comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this document in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal
be referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e)
of the FFDCA.
Documents considered and relied upon by EPA pertaining to this
action, and all written comments filed pursuant to this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA between 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. To satisfy
requirements for analysis specified by Executive Order 12866 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA has considered the impacts of this
proposal.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300403] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
[[Page 62366]]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of
this document.
IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule: (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action,''
because it does not meet any of the regulatory-significance criteria
listed above.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), and EPA has determined that it will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, small
governments, or small organizations.
Accordingly, I certify that this proposed rule does not require a
separate regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed regulatory action does not contain any information
collection requirements subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Pub. L. 104-4 for State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector because it would not
impose enforceable duties on them.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 30, 1995.
Jack E. Housenger,
Chief, Special Review Branch, Special Review and Reregistration
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.390, by amending the table therein by revising the
entries for grass, hay and grass, rangeland, forage to read as follows:
Sec. 180.390 Tebuthiuron; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Grass, hay................................................. 10.0
Grass, forage.............................................. 10.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 95-29735 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29734 Maleic Hydrazide, Oryzalin, Hexazinone, Streptomycin; Tolerance Actions
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62361-62364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29734]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300405; FRL-4987-4]
RIN 2070-AC18
Maleic Hydrazide, Oryzalin, Hexazinone, Streptomycin; Tolerance
Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: For each of the pesticides subject to the actions listed in
this proposed rule, EPA has completed the reregistration process and
issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED). In the
reregistration process, all information to support a pesticide's
continued registration is reviewed for adequacy and, when needed,
supplemented with new scientific studies. Based on the RED tolerance
assessments for the pesticide chemicals
[[Page 62362]]
subject to this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke various
tolerances for maleic hydrazide, oryzalin, and hexazinone. This
document also proposes to delete as surplusage the term ``negligible''
from a regulation on streptomycin.
DATES: EPA must receive written comments, identified by the OPP
document control number [OPP-300405], on or before February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments to Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person,
deliver comments to Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number [OPP-300405]. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found below in
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Jeff Morris, Special Review
and Reregistration Division (7508W), Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location: Special Review
Branch, Crystal Station #1, 3rd Floor, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington,
VA 22202. Telephone: (703)-308-8029; e-mail:
[email protected].
I. Legal Authorization
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et
seq.) authorizes the establishment of tolerances (maximum legal residue
levels) and exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities pursuant
to section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). Without such tolerances or
exemptions, a food containing pesticide residues is considered to be
``adulterated'' under section 402 of the FFDCA, and hence may not
legally be moved in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 342). To establish a
tolerance or an exemption under section 408 of the FFDCA, EPA must make
a finding that the promulgation of the rule would ``protect the public
health'' (21 U.S.C. 346a(b)). For a pesticide to be sold and
distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances
under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.).
In 1988, Congress amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) and required EPA to
review and reassess the potential hazards arising from currently
registered uses of pesticides registered prior to November 1, 1984. As
part of this process, the Agency must determine whether a pesticide is
eligible for reregistration or whether any subsequent actions are
required to fully attain reregistration status. EPA has chosen to
include in the reregistration process a reassessment of existing
tolerances or exemptions from the need for a tolerance. Through this
reassessment process, based on more recent data, EPA can determine
whether a tolerance must be amended, revoked, or established, or
whether an exemption from the requirement of one or more tolerances
must be amended or is necessary.
The procedure for establishing, amending, or revoking tolerances or
exemptions from the requirement of tolerances is set forth in 40 CFR
parts 177 through 180. The Administrator of EPA, or any person by
petition, may initiate an action proposing to establish, amend, revoke,
or exempt a tolerance for a pesticide registered for food uses. Each
petition or request for a new tolerance, an amendment to an existing
tolerance, or a new exemption from the requirement of a tolerance must
be accompanied by a fee. Current Agency policy on tolerance actions
identified during the reregistration process is to waive the payment of
fees if the tolerance action concerns revision or revocation of an
established tolerance, or if the proposed exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance requires the concurrent revocation of an
approved tolerance. Comments submitted in response to the Agency's
published proposals are reviewed, and the Agency then publishes its
final determination regarding the specific tolerance actions.
II. Chemical-Specific Information and Proposed Actions
A. Maleic Hydrazide
1. Regulatory history. In 1952, USDA registered maleic hydrazide
for use as a growth regulator. EPA issued a Registration Standard for
maleic hydrazide in 1988. In 1992, EPA issued a Data Call-In (DCI)
notice for maleic hydrazide and the potassium salt of maleic hydrazide
that required data to address ecological effects, environmental fate,
and residue chemistry data gaps. EPA published a RED for maleic
hydrazide in June 1994 that reflects a reassessment of all data
submitted to date in response to the Registration Standard and the 1992
DCI. The RED also conditions the maleic hydrazide reregistration on the
cranberry tolerance revocation proposed in this document. Persons
interested in the details of this reassessment are referred to the
maleic hydrazide RED (NTIS #PB88-236849).
2. Current proposal. EPA proposes to revoke the 15-ppm tolerance
for maleic hydrazide residues in or on cranberries, as listed in 40 CFR
180.175(b). EPA is proposing this action for two reasons: (1) The
registrant is not supporting the use of maleic hydrazide on this
commodity, and end-use maleic hydrazide labels do not list cranberries
as a registered use (Two States, Massachusetts and New Jersey, had
FIFRA section 24(c) (Special Local Need) registrations for the use of
maleic hydrazide on cranberries in 1984 and 1985; EPA cancelled those
registrations in 1991, and EPA believes that since 1992 there has been
little or no usage of maleic hydrazide on cranberries in those States.)
Therefore, no residues of maleic hydrazide are expected in or on
cranberries, making a cranberry tolerance unnecessary. (2) Also, EPA
does not have adequate nature-of-the-residue data to determine that the
cranberry tolerance for maleic hydrazide is protective of the public
health. A tolerance under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act requires a finding that the tolerance will protect the
public health, and to make such a finding for the established cranberry
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.175(b), EPA needs adequate data on the nature
of the residue (see 40 CFR part 158 for guidance on data requirements).
To date, the Agency has not received these data.
If during the comment period of this proposed rule no party
indicates that it will support the use of maleic hydrazide on
cranberries by providing the necessary data, EPA will issue a final
rule revoking the tolerance.
B. Oryzalin
1. Regulatory history. Oryzalin was first registered in the United
States in 1974 for use as a preemergence herbicide in fruit and nut
crops, vineyards, orchards, forest areas, noncrop areas, and
agricultural crops. In
[[Page 62363]]
1987, EPA issued a Registration Standard for oryzalin that evaluated
the studies submitted to that date. EPA issued a DCI for oryzalin in
1991 requiring additional phytotoxicity data, plant and animal
analytical methods, and nondietary exposure data. The January 27, 1995
RED for oryzalin reflects a reassessment of all data submitted in
response to the Registration Standard and the DCI. The RED also
conditions the oryzalin reregistration on the tolerance actions
proposed in this document. The Agency refers persons interested in this
reassessment to the oryzalin RED (NTIS publication #PB90-174137).
2. Current proposal. EPA proposes to revoke the tolerances for
oryzalin residues in or on the following commodities listed in 40 CFR
180.304(a): cottonseed, .05 ppm; grain, barley, .05 ppm; grain, wheat,
.05 ppm; peas (succulent), .05 ppm; potatoes, .05 ppm; and soybeans, .1
ppm. EPA is proposing this action because the registrant is not
supporting the use of oryzalin on these commodities, and end-use
oryzalin labels do not list these commodities as registered uses (these
have not been registered uses since before publication of the the 1987
registration standard). As a result, residues of oryzalin in or on
these commodities are not expected; therefore, the tolerances are not
necessary.
EPA previously issued a proposal to remove the above-named
commodities from 40 CFR 180.304(a). (See the Federal Register of
January 18, 1995 (60 FR 3611).) That proposal is superseded by this
document.
EPA has sufficient data to ascertain the adequacy of the
established tolerances listed 40 CFR 180.304(a) for the above-named
commodities. However, if no party indicates support for the use of
oryzalin on these commodities during the comment period of this
proposed rule, EPA will issue a final rule revoking the tolerances.
C. Hexazinone
1. Regulatory history. EPA first registered hexazinone in 1975 for
use as a broad-spectrum herbicide for general weed control. In 1982,
EPA issued an initial Registration Standard for hexazinone, and in 1988
EPA issued a second Registration Standard. The 1988 Standard summarized
available data supporting the registration of hexazinone products and
required additional product chemistry, residue chemistry, toxicology,
ecological effects, and environmental fate data. The January 27, 1995
RED for hexazinone represents an assessment of the data required by the
Registration Standards. The RED also conditions the hexazinone
reregistration on the tolerance actions proposed in this document.
Persons interested in this reassessment should contact NTIS (telephone
no. 703-487-4650) for a copy of the hexazinone RED.
2. Current proposal. EPA proposes to revoke the tolerances for
hexazinone residues in or on the following commodities in 40 CFR
180.396: eggs, .1 ppm; poultry, fat, .1 ppm; poultry, meat, .1 ppm;
poultry, mbyp, .1 ppm; pineapple, fodder, 5 ppm; and pineapple, forage,
5 ppm.
EPA is proposing to revoke the egg and poultry tolerances because
the maximum residue expected in poultry tissues would be .005 ppm, an
order of magnitude below the limit of detection for hexazinone
metabolites, resulting in no detectible residues. Therefore, tolerances
are not needed for hexazinone residues in or on eggs and poultry. The
pineapple fodder and forage tolerances are proposed for revocation
because EPA no longer regulates pineapple fodder and forage as raw
agricultural commodities (since the Agency does not consider pineapple
fodder and forage to be produced in significant quantities to warrant
regulation).
If no valid objections are raised during the comment period
following this proposed rule, EPA will issue a final rule revoking the
tolerances.
D. Streptomycin
1. Regulatory history. Streptomycin has been used in the United
States since the 1940s to treat bacterial infections in humans and was
first registered as a pesticide in 1955. At that time, it was used
primarily as a bactericide/fungicide on selected agricultural and
nonagricultural crops. Other uses include seed treatment, residential
use, and as an aquarium algaecide. In 1988, EPA issued a Registration
Standard for streptomycin requiring data to support the registered uses
regulated under FIFRA.
EPA issued a RED for streptomycin on September 30, 1992, reflecting
a reassessment of all data submitted in response to the Registration
Standard. The RED also conditions the streptomycin reregistration on
the tolerance action proposed in this document. Persons interested in
this reassessment should contact NTIS (telephone no. 703-487-4650) for
a copy of the streptomycin RED.
2. Current proposal. EPA proposes to delete ``negligible'' from 40
CFR 180.245 because in this case the term ``negligible'' is surplusage.
III. Public Comment Procedures
EPA invites interested persons to submit written comments,
information, or data in response to this proposed rule. Comments must
be submitted by February 5, 1996. Comments must bear a notation
indicating the document control number. Three copies of the comments
should be submitted to either location listed under ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). EPA will not disclose
information so marked, except in accordance with procedures set forth
in 40 CFR part 2. A second copy of such comments, with the CBI deleted,
also must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. EPA may
publicly disclose without prior notice information not marked
confidential.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide under FIFRA, as amended, that contains any
of the ingredients listed herein may request within 30 days after
publication of this document in the Federal Register that this
rulemaking proposal be referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance
with section 408(e) of the FFDCA.
Documents considered and relied upon by EPA pertaining to this
action, and all written comments filed pursuant to this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA between 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300405] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
[[Page 62364]]
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of
this document.
IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
To satisfy requirements for analysis specified by Executive Order
12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, EPA has analyzed the impacts of this
proposal.
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
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. Under section 3(f),
the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule: (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action,'' because it
does not meet any of the regulatory-significance criteria listed above.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
EPA has reviewed this proposed rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and has determined that it will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small businesses, small governments,
or small organizations. Accordingly, I certify that this proposed rule
does not require a separate regulatory flexibility analysis under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed regulatory action does not contain any information
collection requirements subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4, for State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector, because it would
not impose enforceable duties on them.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 30, 1995.
Jack E. Housenger,
Chief, Special Review Branch, Special Review and Reregistration
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.175, by removing paragraph (b) and designating it as
``reserved'' as follows:
Sec. 180.175 Maleic hydrazide; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 180.245 [Amended]
3. By amending Sec. 180.245 Streptomycin; tolerances for residues,
by removing the term ``negligible'' from the text.
Sec. 180.304 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 180.304 Oryzalin; tolerances for residues by amending
paragraph (a) in the table therein by removing the entries for
cottonseed; grain, barley; grain, wheat; peas (succulent); potatoes;
and soybeans.
Sec. 180.396 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 180.396 Hexazinone; tolerances for residues by amending
paragraph (a) in the table therein by removing the entries for eggs;
poultry, fat; poultry, mbyp; poultry, meat; pineapple, fodder; and
pineapple, forage.
[FR Doc. 95-29734 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29722 Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Limited Access; Foreign Fishing; Proposed 1996 Initial Harvest Specifications
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62373-62381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29722]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 611, 675, 676, and 677
[Docket No. 95112820-5280-01; I.D. 111495A]
Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands;
Limited Access; Foreign Fishing; Proposed 1996 Initial Harvest
Specifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed 1996 initial specifications for groundfish and
associated management measures; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 1996 initial harvest specifications, prohibited
species bycatch allowances, and associated measures for the groundfish
fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI).
This action is necessary to inform the public about proposed 1996
harvest specifications and associated management measures. The intended
effect is to conserve and manage the groundfish resources in the BSAI
and to
[[Page 62374]]
provide an opportunity for public participation in this process.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by January 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel.
The preliminary 1996 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE)
report, dated September 1995, is available from the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage,
AK 99510-2252, 907-271-2817.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen R. Varosi, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Groundfish fisheries in the BSAI are
governed by Federal Regulations (50 CFR 675) that implement the Fishery
Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Area (FMP). Other applicable regulations are found at
50 CFR 611.93 (Foreign Fishing) and 50 CFR part 676 (Limited Access
Management of Federal Fisheries In and Off of Alaska) and 50 CFR part
677 (North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan). The FMP was prepared by
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and approved by
NMFS under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The FMP and implementing regulations require NMFS, after
consultation with the Council, to specify for each calendar year the
total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species and the ``other
species'' category, the sum of which must be within the optimum yield
(OY) range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million metric tons (mt)
(Sec. 675.20(a)(2)). Regulations under Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(i) further
require NMFS to publish annually and solicit public comment on proposed
annual TAC amounts, apportionments of each TAC, prohibited species
catch (PSC) allowances, seasonal allowances of the pollock TAC, and
seasonal allowances of the pollock Community Development Quota (CDQ)
reserve. The specifications set forth in Tables 1-7 of this action
satisfy these requirements. For 1996, the proposed sum of TAC amounts
is 2.0 million mt. Under Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(ii), NMFS will publish the
final annual specifications for 1996 after considering: (1) Comments
received within the comment period (see DATES), and (2) consultations
with the Council at its December 1995 meeting.
The specified TAC amounts for each species are based on the best
available biological and socioeconomic information. At its September
and December meetings, the Council, its Advisory Panel, and its
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), annually review biological
information about the condition of groundfish stocks in the BSAI. This
information is compiled by the Council's BSAI Groundfish Plan Team
(Plan Team) and is presented in the SAFE Report. The Plan Team annually
produces such a report as the first step in the process of specifying
TAC amounts. The SAFE Report contains a review of the latest scientific
analyses and estimates of each species' biomass, maximum sustainable
yield (MSY), acceptable biological catch (ABC) and other biological
parameters, as well as summaries of the ecosystem and the economic
condition of groundfish fisheries off Alaska. A preliminary 1996 SAFE
Report, dated September 1995, provides an update on status of stocks.
These preliminary assessments will be updated based on biological
survey work done during the summer of 1995. Assessments will be made
available by the Plan Team in November 1995 and included in the final
edition of the 1996 SAFE Report. Final ABC amounts for the 1996 fishing
year will be based on the most recent stock assessments. The proposed
ABC amounts adopted by the Council for the 1996 fishing year are based
on the best available scientific information, including projected
biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass,
and revised technical methods used to calculate stock biomass.
Regulations at Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(i) require that one-fourth of each
proposed initial TAC (ITAC) amount and apportionment thereof, one-
fourth of each PSC allowance established under Sec. 675.21(b), and the
first seasonal allowances of pollock become effective 0001 hours,
A.l.t., January 1, on an interim basis and remain in effect until
superseded by the final harvest specifications, which will be published
in the Federal Register.
NMFS is publishing, in the Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register issue, interim TAC specifications and apportionments
thereof for the 1996 fishing year that will become available 0001
hours, Alaska local time, January 1, 1996, and remain in effect until
superseded by the final 1996 harvest specifications.
Procedure for Estimating ABC
The Council bases its calculation of ABC on the definition
contained in 50 CFR part 602--Guidelines For Fishery Management Plans
(602 Guidelines). The 602 Guidelines (Sec. 602.11(e)(1)) state that:
ABC is a preliminary description of the acceptable harvest (or
range of harvests) for a given stock or stock complex. Its
derivation focuses on the status and dynamics of the stock,
environmental conditions, other ecological factors, and prevailing
technological characteristics of the fishery.
The 602 Guidelines also provide the Council with the flexibility
needed to define overfishing appropriate to the individual stock or
species characteristics, as long as it is defined in a way that allows
the Council and NMFS to evaluate the condition of the stock relative to
the definition (Sec. 602.11(c)). Application of the overfishing
definition requires some flexibility because the amount of data for
different stocks varies. The calculations used to derive preliminary
overfishing levels for a given stock or stock complex are described in
the preliminary 1996 SAFE Report.
Calculation of ABC varies among species, depending on the quality
of available data and prior knowledge of a species' stock status. The
Plan Team has adopted three steps for estimating ABC amounts. First,
the exploitable biomass of a stock is estimated. Second, the ABC for a
stock is calculated by multiplying an exploitation rate times the
estimated exploitable biomass. Various exploitation rates or fishing
mortality rates (F) may be used in this calculation, depending on the
data available and the degree of risk the Plan Team is willing to
accept. For example, the exploitation rate that would produce MSY
(FMSY) may be used when the stock is known to be in good
condition, high in abundance, and not in danger of drastic decline.
When more conservative stock management is desirable, a F0.1
harvest strategy is used to determine an exploitation rate. This
strategy determines a level of F at which the marginal increase in
yield-per-recruit due to an increase in F is 10 percent of the marginal
yield-per-recruit in a newly exploited fishery. Recruitment refers to
the growth of juvenile fish into the adult or exploitable population.
Generally, F0.1 is a more conservative exploitation rate than
FMSY. Another alternative is to use historical exploitation rates
when historical fishery data indicate that a stock is not affected
adversely by such rates. A switch in harvest strategy from F.35 to
F=natural mortality rate (M) can be used when current maturity
parameter estimates are unreliable. Finally, an empirical estimation of
ABC based on historical catch levels may be used when information is
insufficient to estimate the biomass of a stock. Details of
overfishing, ABC, and other calculation procedures are discussed in
[[Page 62375]]
the preliminary 1996 SAFE Report. This report is available from the
Council (see ADDRESSES).
The Plan Team's recommendations for preliminary ABC amounts for
each species for 1996 and other biological data are provided in the
preliminary 1996 SAFE Report. At its September 1995 meeting, the
Council's SSC reviewed the Plan Team's preliminary recommendations for
1996 ABC amounts. The SSC concurred with the Plan Team's
recommendations except for Aleutian Basin (Bogoslof) pollock and
Greenland turbot. The SSC's revisions to the ABC amounts for these two
species are discussed below.
Bogoslof Pollock. The Plan Team indicated in the preliminary 1996
SAFE Report that the current estimate of biomass of Aleutian Basin
pollock (1,020,000 mt) is conservative. This biomass estimate is based
on the preliminary results from the 1995 hydroacoustic survey of the
southeastern Aleutian Basin near Bogoslof Island, which indicated that
the 1995 biomass is sustained almost entirely by 1988 and 1989 year
classes. The Plan Team estimated an ABC for Bogoslof pollock of 265,000
mt using the biomass estimate and a target exploitation rate of 26
percent. However, the SSC used a more conservative exploitation
strategy, based on a natural mortality rate of M=0.2 divided by 2 to
derive an ABC of 102,000 mt.
Greenland Turbot. The Plan Team used the stock synthesis model to
estimate the ABC, which was updated with 1995 catch and survey data.
The Plan Team maintained the 1996 ABC at the level recommended by the
Plan Team last year (18,500 mt). However, the SSC recommended a
continuation of the present 7,000 mt ABC for this species in
recognition of continued poor recruitment and stock abundance levels
since the early 1980's. The SSC's recommendation will be reevaluated in
December, after an updated assessment analysis containing results from
the bottom trawl survey for the 1996 estimate becomes available.
The Council adopted the ABC amounts recommended by the SSC (Table
1).
Table 1.--Proposed 1996 Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), Proposed Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Initial TAC
(ITAC), and Overfishing Levels (OFL) of Groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (AI)\1\\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species ABC TAC ITAC=DAP/3/ OFL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock:
BS.......................................... 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,062,500 1,500,000
AI.......................................... 56,600 56,600 48,110 60,400
Bogoslof District........................... 102,000 1,000 850 102,000
Pacific cod..................................... 328,000 250,000 212,500 390,000
Sablefish:\4\
BS.......................................... 1,600 1,600 680 ..............
AI.......................................... 2,200 2,200 468 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 3,800 3,800 1,148 4,900
===============================================================
Atka mackerel:
Western AI.................................. 71,600 41,520 35,292 ..............
Central AI.................................. 19,300 11,200 9,520 ..............
Eastern AI/BS............................... 47,100 27,280 23,188 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 138,000 80,000 68,000 164,000
===============================================================
Yellowfin sole.................................. 277,000 190,000 161,500 319,000
Rock sole....................................... 347,000 60,000 51,000 388,000
Greenland turbot:
BS.......................................... 4,690 4,690 3,987 ..............
AI.......................................... 2,310 2,310 1,963 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 7,000 7,000 5,950 27,200
===============================================================
Arrowtooth flounder............................. 113,000 10,227 8,693 138,000
Flathead sole................................... 138,000 30,000 25,500 167,000
Other flatfish\5\............................... 117,000 19,540 16,609 137,000
Pacific ocean perch:
BS.......................................... 1,850 1,850 1,573 2,910
AI.......................................... 10,500 10,500 8,925 15,900
Other red rockfish:\6\ BS....................... 1,400 1,260 1,070 1,400
Sharpchin/Northern AI........................... 5,670 5,103 4,338 5,670
Shortraker/Rougheye AI.......................... 1,220 1,098 933 1,220
Other rockfish:\7\
BS.......................................... 365 329 280 365
AI.......................................... 770 693 589 770
Squid........................................... 3,110 1,000 850 3,110
Other Species\8\................................ 27,600 20,000 17,000 136,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................... 2,929,885 2,000,000 1,697,918 3,564,845
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Amounts are in metric tons. These amounts apply to the entire Bering Sea (BS) and Aleutian Islands (AI) area
unless otherwise specified. With the exception of pollock, and for the purpose of these specifications, the BS
includes the Bogoslof District.
\2\Zero amounts of groundfish are specified for Joint Venture Processing and Total Allowable Level of Foreign
Fishing.
\3\Except for the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line and pot gear, 0.15 of each TAC is put
into a reserve. The ITAC for each species is the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of these reserves.
[[Page 62376]]
\4\Twenty percent of the sablefish hook-and-line gear or pot gear final TAC amount will be reserved for use by
Community Development Quota (CDQ) participants. (See Sec. 676.24(b)) Regulations at Sec. 675.20(c) do not
provide for the establishment of an ITAC for the hook-and-line and pot gear allocation for sablefish. The ITAC
for sablefish reflected in Table 1 is for trawl gear only.
\5\``Other flatfish'' includes all flatfish species except for Pacific halibut (a prohibited species), flathead
sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.
\6\``Other red rockfish'' includes shortraker, rougheye, sharpchin, and northern.
\7\``Other rockfish'' includes all Sebastes and Sebastolobus species except for Pacific ocean perch, sharpchin,
northern, shortraker, and rougheye.
\8\``Other species'' includes sculpins, sharks, skates, eulachon, smelts, capelin, and octopus.
Proposed TAC Specifications
The Council recommended adopting the Advisory Panel's
recommendation for the 1996 BSAI TAC amounts, which equalled the 1995
TAC amounts and apportionments with one exception. The apportionment of
the Atka mackerel TAC among the Aleutian Island districts and the
Bering Sea was proposed to be revised as follows: Western Aleutians--
41,520 mt (51.9 percent); Central Aleutians--11,200 (14.0 percent); and
Eastern Aleutians and Bering Sea--27,280 mt (34.1 percent).
The 1,000 mt TAC proposed for pollock of the Bogoslof subarea was
intended by the Council only to provide sufficient amounts of pollock
to meet bycatch needs in other fisheries. The Council will consider
updated information on the status of this resource at its December 1995
meeting to decide whether to allow a directed fishery under the final
1996 specifications.
The Council developed its TAC recommendations based on the
preliminary ABC amounts as adjusted for other biological and
socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the total TAC
within the required OY range of 1.4-2.0 million mt. Each of the
Council's recommended TAC amounts for 1996 is equal to or less than the
final 1996 ABC for each species category. Therefore, NMFS finds that
the recommended proposed TAC amounts are consistent with the biological
condition of groundfish stocks. The preliminary ABC and TAC amounts,
initial TAC (ITAC) amounts, overfishing levels, and initial
apportionments of groundfish in the BSAI area for 1996 are given in
Table 1 of this action. The apportionment of TAC amounts among
fisheries and seasons is discussed below.
Apportionment of TAC
As required by Sec. 675.20(a)(3) and Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(i), each
species' TAC initially is reduced by 15 percent, except the hook-and-
line and pot gear allocation for sablefish. The sum of these 15-percent
amounts is the reserve. The reserve is not designated by species or
species group, and any amount of the reserve may be reapportioned to a
target species or the ``other species'' category during the year,
providing that such reapportionments are consistent with
Sec. 675.20(a)(2)(i) and do not result in overfishing.
The ITAC for each target species and the ``other species'' category
at the beginning of the year is apportioned between the domestic annual
harvest (DAH) category and the total allowable level of foreign fishing
(TALFF), if any. Each DAH amount is further apportioned between two
categories of U.S. fishing vessels. The domestic annual processing
(DAP) category includes U.S. vessels that process their catch on board
or deliver it to U.S. fish processors. The joint venture processing
(JVP) category includes U.S. fishing vessels working in joint ventures
with foreign processing vessels authorized to receive catches in the
exclusive economic zone.
In consultation with the Council, the initial amounts of DAP and
JVP are determined by the Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional
Director). Consistent with the final 1991-95 initial specifications,
the Council recommended that 1996 DAP specifications be set equal to
ITAC and that no groundfish be allocated to JVP and TALFF. In making
this recommendation, the Council considered the capacity of DAP
harvesting and processing operations and anticipated that 1996 DAP
operations would harvest the full TAC specified for each BSAI
groundfish species category. The proposed ABC amounts, proposed TAC and
ITAC amounts, overfishing levels, and initial apportionments of
groundfish in the BSAI area for 1996 are given in Table 1.
These proposed specifications are subject to change as a result of
public comment, analysis of the current biological condition of the
groundfish stocks, new information regarding the fishery, and
consultation with the Council at its meeting scheduled for December 4-
11, 1995.
Seasonal Allowances of Pollock TAC
Under Sec. 675.20(a)(2)(ii), the TAC of pollock for each subarea or
district of the BSAI area is divided, after subtraction of reserves
(Sec. 675.20(a)(3)), into two seasonal allowances. The first allowance
will be available for directed fishing from January 1 to April 15 (roe
season) and the second allowance will be available from August 15
through the end of the fishing year (non-roe season). In 1995, the
opening of the pollock roe season was delayed for the offshore
component fishery to January 26th (Sec. 675.23(e)(2)). On September 18,
1995, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 48087) that, if approved by NMFS, would continue to
authorize a delay of the offshore component roe fishery.
The Council recommended that the seasonal allowances for the Bering
Sea pollock roe and non-roe seasons be specified at 45 percent and 55
percent of the ITAC amounts, respectively (Table 2). These seasonal
apportionments are unchanged from 1995. As in past years, the pollock
TAC amounts specified for the Aleutian Islands subarea and the Bogoslof
District are not seasonally apportioned.
When specifying seasonal allowances of the pollock TAC, the Council
and NMFS consider the following nine factors as specified in section
14.4.10 of the FMP:
1. Estimated monthly pollock catch and effort in prior years;
2. Expected changes in harvesting and processing capacity and
associated pollock catch;
3. Current estimates of, and expected changes in, pollock biomass
and stock conditions; conditions of marine mammal stocks; and biomass
and stock conditions of species taken as bycatch in directed pollock
fisheries;
4. Potential impacts of expected seasonal fishing for pollock on
pollock stocks, marine mammals, and stocks and species taken as bycatch
in directed pollock fisheries;
5. The need to obtain fishery-related data during all or part of
the fishing year;
6. Effects on operating costs and gross revenues;
7. The need to spread fishing effort over the year, minimize gear
conflicts, and allow participation by various elements of the
groundfish fleet and other fisheries;
8. Potential allocative effects among users and indirect effects on
coastal communities; and
9. Other biological and socioeconomic information that affects the
consistency
[[Page 62377]]
of seasonal pollock harvests with the goals and objectives of the FMP.
The publication of the final 1995 initial groundfish and PSC
specifications (60 FR 8479; February 14, 1995) summarizes Council
findings with respect to each of the FMP considerations set forth
above. At this time, the Council's findings are unchanged from those
set forth for 1995.
Apportionment of the Pollock TAC to the Inshore and Offshore
Components
Regulations at Sec. 675.20(a)(2)(iii) require that the proposed
pollock ITAC amounts specified for the BSAI be allocated between the
inshore and offshore processing components. These regulations are
scheduled to expire at the end of 1995 although the Council has adopted
Amendment 38 to the FMP and NMFS approved that amendment. Amendment 38
would continue apportionment of the pollock ITAC amounts between the
inshore and offshore components. NMFS published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register (60 FR 48087; September 18, 1995)
that would extend these regulations and a final rule will be issued
shortly. Consequently, in these proposed specifications, the pollock
ITAC is apportioned between the inshore and offshore sectors as
specified in the proposed rule. For the purpose of this action, the
inshore and offshore components would be apportioned 35 percent and 65
percent, respectively, of the pollock ITAC specified for each subarea
or district (Table 2).
Table 2.--Seasonal Allowances of the Inshore and Offshore Component Allocations of Pollock TAC Amounts\1\\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subarea TAC ITAC\3\ Roe season Non-roe season
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bering Sea:\4\\5\
Inshore..................................... .............. 371,875 167,344 204,531
Offshore.................................... .............. 690,625 310,781 379,844
---------------------------------------------------------------
1,250,000 1,062,500 478,125 584,375
Aleutian Islands:
Inshore..................................... .............. 16,838 16,838 (\6\)
Offshore.................................... .............. 31,272 31,272 (\6\)
---------------------------------------------------------------
56,600 48,110 48,110 (\6\)
Bogoslof:
Inshore..................................... .............. 298 298 (\6\)
Offshore.................................... .............. 552 552 (\6\)
---------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 850 850 (\6\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\TAC = total allowable catch.
\2\Based on an offshore component allocation of 0.65(TAC) and an inshore component allocation of 0.35(TAC).
\3\ITAC = initial TAC = 0.85 of TAC.
\4\January 1 through April 15--based on a 45/55 split (roe = 45 percent).
\5\August 15 through December 31--based on a 45/55 split (non-roe = 55 percent).
\6\Remainder.
Pollock CDQ Allocations
Regulations at Sec. 675.20(a)(3)(ii) require that one-half of the
pollock TAC placed in the reserve for each subarea or district, or 7.5
percent of each TAC, be assigned to a Community Development Quota (CDQ)
reserve for each subarea or district. These regulations expire on
December 31, 1995, although the Council has adopted Amendment 38 to the
FMP and NMFS has approved that amendment. Amendment 38 would extend the
CDQ Program for 3 additional years. A notice of proposed rulemaking was
published in the Federal Register on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48087)
and a final rule is expected to be issued shortly. If the pollock TAC
amount remains as specified in Table 1, the 1996 CDQ reserve amounts
for each subarea would be as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSAI Subarea Pollock CDQ Roe season Non-roe season
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bering Sea.................... 93,750 mt................. 42,188 mt................ 51,562 mt.
Aleutian Islands.............. 4,245 mt.................. 4,245 mt................. Remainder.
Bogoslof...................... 75 mt..................... 75 mt.................... Remainder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed regulations that would govern the CDQ program,
NMFS may allocate the 1996 pollock CDQ reserves to eligible Western
Alaska communities or groups of communities that have an approved
Community Development Plan (CDP). The State of Alaska received six CDP
applications pursuant to Sec. 675.27 and State of Alaska regulations at
6 AAC 93. All six applications were submitted in conformance with both
sets of regulations and have been fully reviewed by the State and the
Council. The NMFS-approved allocations of the 1996 CDQ reserve to the
successful CDP recipients are expected to be published in the Federal
Register prior to the 1996 fishing year.
Apportionment of Pollock TAC to the Nonpelagic Trawl Gear Fishery
Regulations at Sec. 675.24(c)(2) authorize NMFS, in consultation
with the Council, to limit the amount of pollock TAC that may be taken
in the directed fishery for pollock using nonpelagic trawl gear. This
authority is intended to reduce the amount of halibut and crab
[[Page 62378]]
bycatch that occurs in nonpelagic trawl operations.
The Council did not propose to limit the amount of pollock TAC that
may be taken in the 1996 directed fishery for pollock by vessels using
nonpelagic trawl gear. However, the Council will consider limiting the
pollock TAC amounts that may be harvested by vessels using nonpelagic
trawl gear at its December 1995 meeting, pending information on
prohibited species bycatch amounts in the 1995 pelagic and nonpelagic
trawl gear fisheries and an assessment of the effectiveness of
regulations at Sec. 675.7(n) to reduce halibut and crab bycatch in the
pelagic trawl fishery.
Proposed Allocation of the Pacific Cod TAC
Under Sec. 675.20(a)(2)(iv), 2 percent of the Pacific cod ITAC is
allocated to vessels using jig gear, 44 percent to vessels using hook-
and-line gear or pot gear, and 54 percent to vessels using trawl gear.
At its September 1995 meeting, the Council proposed to roll over the
1995 seasonal apportionments of the portion of the Pacific cod TAC
allocated to the hook-and-line and pot gear fisheries. The seasonal
apportionments are intended to provide for the harvest of Pacific cod
when flesh quality and market conditions are optimum and Pacific
halibut bycatch rates are low. The Council's recommendations for
seasonal apportionments are set out in Table 3 and are unchanged from
the percentages of seasonal apportionments specified for 1995 (60 FR
8479; February 14, 1995). These seasonal apportionments were based on:
(1) Seasonal distribution of Pacific cod relative to prohibited species
distributions, (2) expected variations in prohibited species bycatch
rates experienced in the Pacific cod fisheries throughout the year, and
(3) economic effects of any seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod on
the hook-and-line and pot gear fisheries.
Table 3.--1996 Gear Shares of the BSAI Pacific Cod Initial TAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal Apportionment
Gear Percent Share of ----------------------------------------------------
of TAC ITAC (mt) Date Percent Amount (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jig................................ 2 4,250 Jan. 1-Dec. 31............. 100 4,250
Hook-and-line...................... 44 93,500 Jan. 1-Apr. 30............. 73 \1\68,000
Pot gear........................... ......... ........... May 1-Aug. 31.............. 19 18,000
......... ........... Sep. 1-Dec. 31............. 8 7,500
Trawl gear......................... 54 114,750 Jan. 1-Dec. 31............. 100 114,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 100 212,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Any portion of the first seasonal apportionment that is not harvested by the end of the first season will
become available on September 1, the beginning of the third season.
Sablefish Gear Allocation and Sablefish CDQ Allocations
Regulations under Sec. 675.24(c)(1) require that sablefish TAC
amounts for BSAI subareas be divided between trawl and hook-and-line/
pot gear types. Gear allocations of TAC amounts are specified in the
following proportions: Bering Sea subarea: Trawl gear--50 percent;
hook-and-line/pot gear--50 percent; and Aleutian Islands subarea: Trawl
gear--25 percent; hook-and-line/pot gear--75 percent. In addition,
regulations under Sec. 676.24(b) require NMFS to withhold 20 percent of
the hook-and-line and pot gear sablefish allocation as a sablefish CDQ
reserve. Gear allocations of sablefish TAC amounts and CDQ reserve are
specified in Table 4.
Table 4.--1996 Gear Shares and CDQ Reserve Of BSAI Sablefish TAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial
Subarea Gear Percent of Share of TAC (mt) TAC CDQ Share
TAC (mt) (mt)\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bering Sea\2\...................... Trawl 50 800........................ 680 N/A
Hook-and- 50 800........................ N/A 160
line/pot
gear\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ ......... ........... ........................... 680 ...........
Aleutian Islands................... Trawl 25 550........................ 468 N/A
Hook-and- 75 1,650...................... N/A 330
line/pot
gear\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ ......... ........... ........................... 468 490
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Except for the sablefish hook-and-line and pot gear allocation, 0.15 of TAC is apportioned to reserve. The
ITAC is the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of these reserves.
\2\Includes Bogoslof District.
\3\For the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear, 0.20 of the
allocated TAC is reserved for use by CDQ participants. Regulations at Sec. 675.20(a)(3) do not provide for the
establishment of an ITAC for sablefish hook-and-line or pot gear.
[[Page 62379]]
Allocation of PSC Limits for Crab, Halibut, and Herring
PSC limits of red king crab and C. bairdi Tanner crab in Bycatch
Limitation Zones (50 CFR 675.2) of the BS subarea, and for Pacific
halibut throughout the BSAI area are specified under Sec. 675.21(a). At
this time, the 1996 PSC limits are:
1. Zone 1 trawl fisheries, 200,000 red king crabs;
2. Zone 1 trawl fisheries, 1 million C. bairdi Tanner crabs;
3. Zone 2 trawl fisheries, 3 million C. bairdi Tanner crabs;
4. BSAI trawl fisheries, 3,775 mt mortality of Pacific halibut;
5. BSAI nontrawl fisheries, 900 mt mortality of Pacific halibut;
and
6. BSAI trawl fisheries, 1,861 mt Pacific herring.
The PSC limit of Pacific herring caught while conducting any trawl
operation for groundfish in the BSAI is 1 percent of the annual eastern
Bering Sea herring biomass. At this time, the best estimate of 1996
herring biomass is 186,000 mt. This amount was derived using 1994
survey data and an age-structured biomass projection model developed by
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Therefore, the proposed
herring PSC limit for 1996 is 1,861 mt. This value is subject to
change, pending an updated forecast analysis of 1995 herring survey
data that will be presented to the Council by the ADF&G during the
Council's December 1995 meeting.
Regulations under Sec. 675.21(b) authorize the apportionment of
each PSC limit into PSC allowances for specified fishery categories.
Regulations at Sec. 675.21(b)(1)(iii) specify seven fishery categories
(midwater pollock, Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/sablefish, rock
sole/flathead sole/other flatfish, yellowfin sole, rockfish, Pacific
cod, and bottom pollock/Atka mackerel/``other species''). Regulations
at Sec. 675.21(b)(2) authorize the apportionment of the nontrawl
halibut PSC limit among three fishery categories (Pacific cod hook-and-
line fishery, groundfish pot gear fishery, and other nontrawl
fisheries). The PSC allowances for trawl and nontrawl are listed in
Table 5. In general, the preliminary 1996 fishery bycatch allowances
listed in Table 5 reflect the recommendations made to the Council by
its Advisory Panel. These recommendations are unchanged from 1995,
except for halibut in the Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/
sablefish category. A halibut bycatch allowance equal to zero is
proposed for this fishery category in 1996. This means that directed
fisheries for these species by vessels using trawl gear would be
prohibited. This action is proposed for the following reasons.
First, the management of the halibut bycatch allowance specified
for the Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/sablefish fishery category
in past years has proved very difficult. In 1995, NMFS had provided for
only a 3-day fishery for Greenland turbot to maintain halibut bycatch
mortality within the specified allowance of 120 mt. After the fishery
had closed, NMFS determined that the halibut bycatch mortality
experienced during this 3-day fishery totaled 282 mt, or 235 percent of
the specified allowance.
Second, existing regulations allow Greenland turbot, sablefish, or
arrowtooth to be retained as bycatch in other trawl fisheries provided
that retained amounts do not exceed maximum retainable bycatch amounts
as calculated under Sec. 675.20(h). Last, the halibut bycatch mortality
that had been apportioned to this fishery category in 1995 (120 mt) is
proposed to be equally redistributed among the yellowfin sole, rock
sole/flathead sole/other flatfish and the Pacific cod fishery
categories. The intent of this action is to better optimize the amount
of total groundfish catch harvested under the halibut PSC limit
established for the trawl gear fisheries.
The proposed apportionments of the PSC limits among specified trawl
and nontrawl fisheries were based on last year's final recommendations
that incorporated 1993 and 1994 bycatch amounts, anticipated 1996
harvest of groundfish by trawl gear and fixed gear, and assumed halibut
mortality rates in the different groundfish fisheries based on analyses
of 1993-1994 observer data.
Regulations at Sec. 675.21(b)(2) authorize exemption of specified
nontrawl fisheries from the halibut PSC limit. As in 1995, the Council
proposes to exempt pot gear and the hook-and-line sablefish fishery
from the nontrawl halibut limit for 1996. The Council proposed this
exemption because of the low halibut bycatch mortality experienced in
the pot gear fisheries (7 mt in 1995) and because of the 1995
implementation of the sablefish and halibut IFQ program, which would
allow legal-sized halibut to be retained in the sablefish fishery.
Table 5.--Preliminary 1996 Prohibited Species Bycatch Allowances for the BSAI Trawl and Nontrawl Fisheries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl fisheries Zone 1 Zone 2 BSAI-wide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red king crab, number of animals:
yellowfin sole.............................................. 50,000
rcksol/otherflat/flathead sole.............................. 10,000
rockfish.................................................... 0
turb/arrow/sab/rockfish\1\.................................. 0
Pacific cod................................................. 10,000
plck/Atka/other\2\.......................................... 30,000
-----------------
Total..................................................... 200,000
C. bairdi Tanner crab, number of animals:
yellowfin sole.............................................. 225,000 1,525,000
rcksol/oth.flat/flathead sole............................... 475,000 510,000
turb/arrow/sabl............................................. 0 5,000
rockfish.................................................... 0 10,000
Pacific cod................................................. 225,000 260,000
plck/Atka/other............................................. 75,000 690,000
---------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,000,000 3,000,000
Pacific halibut, mortality (mt):
yellowfin sole.............................................. 790
rcksol/oth.flat............................................. 730
turb/arrow/sabl............................................. 0
[[Page 62380]]
rockfish.................................................... 110
Pacific cod................................................. 1,590
plck/Atka/other............................................. 555
---------------
Total..................................................... 3,775
Pacific herring, mt:
midwater pollock............................................ 1,345
yellowfin sole.............................................. 315
rcksol/oth.flat............................................. 0
turb/arrow/sabl............................................. 0
rockfish.................................................... 8
Pacific cod................................................. 24
plck/Atka/other\3\.......................................... 169
---------------
Total..................................................... 1,861
Nontrawl fisheries:
Pacific halibut, mortality (mt)............................. 725
Pacific cod Hook-and-line................................... 175
Other nontrawl:
Sablefish hook-and-line gear................................ \4\
Groundfish pot gear......................................... \4\
Groundfish jig gear......................................... \4\
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Greenland turbot, arrowtooth flounder, and sablefish fishery category.
\2\Pollock, Atka mackerel, and ``other species'' fishery category.
\3\Pollock other than midwater pollock, Atka mackerel, and ``other species'' fishery category.
\4\Exempt.
At its September 1995 meeting, the Council recommended that the
proposed halibut bycatch allowances listed in Table 5 be apportioned
seasonally as shown in Table 6. The prohibited species bycatch
allowances and the seasonal apportionment of those allowances will be
subject to change at the December 1995 Council meeting, pending public
comments, year-to-date information on bycatch performance and updated
information on anticipated fishing patterns in 1996.
For purposes of monitoring the fishery halibut bycatch mortality
allowances specified in Table 6, the Regional Director will use
observed halibut bycatch rates and reported and observed groundfish
catch to project when a fishery's halibut bycatch mortality allowance
is reached. The Regional Director monitors the fishery bycatch
mortality allowances using assumed mortality rates that are based on
the best information available.
Table 6.--Proposed Seasonal Apportionments of the 1996 Pacific Halibut
Bycatch Allowances for the BSAI Trawl and Nontrawl Fisheries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal
bycatch
allowances
(mt halibut)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishery Trawl Gear:
Yellowfin sole:
Jan. 20-Jul. 31..................................... 295
Aug. 1-Dec. 31...................................... 495
---------------
Total............................................. 790
===============
Rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'':
Jan. 20-Mar. 31..................................... 453
Apr. 1-Jun. 30...................................... 190
Jul. 1-Dec. 31...................................... 87
---------------
Total............................................. 730
===============
Turbot/arrowtooth flounder/sablefish:
Total............................................. 0
Rockfish:
Jan. 20-Mar. 31..................................... 30
Apr. 1-Jun. 30...................................... 60
Jul. 1-Dec. 31...................................... 20
---------------
Total............................................. 110
===============
[[Page 62381]]
Pacific cod:
Jan. 20-Jun. 30..................................... 1,487
Jul. 1-Dec. 31...................................... 103
---------------
Total............................................. 1,590
===============
Pollock/Atka mackerel/``other species'':
Jan. 20-Apr. 15..................................... 455
Apr. 16-Dec. 31..................................... 100
---------------
Total............................................. 555
===============
Total Trawl Halibut Mortality................... 3,775
===============
Fishery Nontrawl Gear:
Pacific cod:
Jan. 1-Apr. 30...................................... 475
May. 1-Aug. 31...................................... 40
Sep. 1-Dec. 31...................................... 210
---------------
Total............................................. 725
Other nontrawl.......................................... 175
Sablefish hook-and-line................................. (\1\)
Groundfish pot.......................................... (\1\)
Groundfish jig gear..................................... (\1\)
---------------
Total Nontrawl Halibut Mortality................ 900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Exempt.
Preliminary assumed halibut mortality rates recommended by the
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) for the 1996 BSAI
groundfish fisheries are listed in Table 7. These mortality rates are
based on an average of mortality rates determined from NMFS observer
data collected during 1993 and 1994, except for the BSAI trawl
arrowtooth flounder fishery, which is based on data from 1991 and 1992,
the 2 most recent years the fishery operated. The Council proposed that
revised halibut discard mortality rates recommended by the IPHC be
adopted for purposes of monitoring halibut bycatch mortality limits
established for the 1996 groundfish fisheries.
For most fisheries, the 1993-94 averages, on which the 1996
recommendations are based, are somewhat lower than the actual rates
used in 1995. After the December 1995 Council meeting, NMFS will
consider all available data and public comments and will publish
preseason assumed halibut mortality rates in the Federal Register as
part of the final 1996 initial specifications of groundfish TAC
amounts. However, the Council noted that the sablefish hook-and-line
halibut fishery bycatch mortality rate is based on the fishery before
the IFQ program was initiated and that the IPHC may have new data at
the December 1995 meeting that would help reassess the halibut
mortality rate in this fishery.
Table 7.--Assumed Pacific Halibut Mortality Rates Proposed for the BSAI
Fisheries During 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed
mortality
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hook-and-Line Gear Fisheries:
BSAI sablefish............................................. 27
BSAI rockfish.............................................. 24
BSAI Greenland turbot...................................... 18
BSAI Pacific cod........................................... 13
Trawl Gear Fisheries:
midwater pollock........................................... 86
Rockfish................................................... 77
bottom pollock............................................. 77
Pacific cod................................................ 77
yellowfin sole............................................. 74
rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish..................... 74
Atka mackerel.............................................. 61
Greenland turbot........................................... 51
arrowtooth................................................. 49
Pot Gear Fisheries--Pacific cod.............................. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundfish PSC Limits
Section 675.20(a)(6) authorizes NMFS to specify PSC limits for
groundfish species or species groups for which the TAC will be
completely harvested by domestic fisheries. These PSC limits apply only
to JVP or TALFF fisheries. At this time, no groundfish are allocated to
either JVP or TALFF and specifications of groundfish PSC limits are
unnecessary.
Classification
This action is authorized under 50 CFR 611.93(b), 675.20, and
676.20 and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
A draft environmental assessment (EA) on the allowable harvest
levels set forth in the final 1996 SAFE Report will be available for
public review at the December 4-8, 1995, Council meeting. After the
December meeting, a final EA will be prepared on the final 1996 TAC
amounts recommended by the Council.
Consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
has been initiated for the 1996 BSAI initial specifications.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 1, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-29722 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29719 Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62360-62361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29719]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915 and 1926
[Docket No. H-071B]
Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; Limited reopening of the rulemaking record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 24, 1995, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) reopened the record (60 FR 54462) for the
proposed revision of the regulation of methylene chloride (MC) (56 FR
57036, November 7, 1991) to incorporate recently concluded research on
MC carcinogenicity.
[[Page 62361]]
The studies incorporated in the October 24 notice address the
mechanism by which MC metabolites induce lung and liver cancer in mice
and draw conclusions regarding the relevance of the mouse data to the
assessment of human cancer risk. OSHA determined that those studies are
relevant to full consideration of concerns raised by the MC rulemaking
and reopened the record until November 24, 1995, to allow the public an
opportunity to comment.
The October 24 notice generated substantially more interest than
OSHA anticipated and the Agency is concerned that the initial 30 days
was insufficient to allow full participation by interested parties.
Accordingly, OSHA is reopening the comment period until December 29,
1995.
DATES: Written comments on the materials incorporated through the
October 24, 1995 notice of reopening must be postmarked by December 29,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket
Office, Docket No. H-071B, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-2634, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 219-
7894. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less in length also may
be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided that the
original and 3 copies are sent to the Docket Office thereafter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne C. Cyr, Office of Information and
Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 219-8148. For electronic copies
of this Federal Register notice, contact the Labor News Bulletin Board
(202) 219-4784; or OSHA's WebPage on Internet at http://www.osha.gov/.
For news releases, fact sheets, and other short documents, contact OSHA
FAX at (900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per minute.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 7, 1991, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(56 FR 57036) to address the significant risks of MC-induced health
effects. The proposed rule required employers to reduce occupational
exposure to MC and to institute ancillary measures, such as employee
training and medical surveillance, for further protection of MC-exposed
workers.
OSHA convened public hearings (57 FR 24438, June 9, 1992) in
Washington, DC on September 16-24, 1992 and in San Francisco, CA on
October 14-16, 1992. The post-hearing period for the submission of
additional briefs, arguments and summations ended on March 15, 1993.
On March 11, 1994, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record for 45 days
(59 FR 11567) to obtain public input on three documents incorporated
into the rulemaking record, one of which examined the relationship
between MC exposure and human carcinogenesis. The limited reopening,
which ended on April 25, 1994, generated 37 comments.
The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) subsequently
submitted several recently completed studies which address the
mechanism for MC-induced cancer in mice and which assert that species
differences in the metabolism of MC preclude the use of mouse data to
characterize human cancer risk. The utility of the mouse data in
assessing human risk is a critical issue in this rulemaking. Therefore,
OSHA concluded that it was appropriate, even at this late stage of the
rulemaking process, to consider the HSIA-submitted studies in the
drafting of the final rule. Accordingly, on October 24, 1995, the
Agency reopened the rulemaking record to incorporate those studies and
to provide the public with an opportunity to comment.
OSHA has been considering the impact of species differences on the
MC risk assessment throughout this rulemaking, and has generated an
extensive record over the nearly four years since the proposal was
published. While the Agency has agreed with the HSIA that the new
materials should be taken into account, the Agency still believes that
every effort should be made to conclude this rulemaking expeditiously.
To that end, OSHA reopened the record for 30 days to receive any
additional comments and information regarding this issue. While the
record was open, OSHA received many requests for the studies. Due to
the substantial interest generated by the October 24 notice, the Agency
has decided to allow interested parties additional time in which to
submit their comments. Therefore, OSHA is extending the comment period
until December 29, 1995.
OSHA will provide interested parties with copies of the materials
incorporated into the methylene chloride record through the October 24,
1995 reopening notice, upon request, to facilitate full and timely
public participation. Requests for copies of the studies should be
addressed to the Christine Whittaker, Room N-3718, Health Standards
Programs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 219-7174. Fax: (202) 219-7125.
II. Public Participation
Comments
Written comments regarding the materials incorporated into the
methylene chloride record through the October 24, 1995 reopening notice
must be postmarked by December 29, 1995. Four copies of these comments
must be submitted to the Docket Office, Docket No. H-071B, U.S.
Department of Labor, room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. (202) 219-7894. All materials submitted will be
available for inspection and copying at the above address. Materials
previously submitted to the Docket for this rulemaking need not be
resubmitted.
III. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210.
It is issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of December 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 95-29719 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29712 Truth in Savings
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62349-62351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29712]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 230
[Regulation DD; Docket No. R-0904]
Truth in Savings
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed rule; official staff interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is publishing for comment proposed revisions to the
official staff commentary to Regulation DD (Truth in Savings). The
commentary applies and interprets the requirements of Regulation DD.
The proposed revisions would clarify regulatory provisions or provide
further guidance on issues of general interest, such as when credited
interest becomes part of principal and how leap years affect the
calculation of the annual percentage yield.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. R-0904, and may be
mailed to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20551.
[[Page 62350]]
Comments also may be delivered to Room B-2222 of the Eccles Building
between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. weekdays, or to the guard station in
the Eccles Building courtyard on 20th Street, NW. (between Constitution
Avenue and C Street) at any time. Comments may be inspected in Room MP-
500 of the Martin Building between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, except
as provided in 12 CFR 261.8 of the Board's rules regarding the
availability of information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Ahrens, Senior Attorney, or Obrea
O. Poindexter, or Michael L. Hentrel, Staff Attorneys, Division of
Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, at (202) 452-3667 or 452-2412. For users of
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, please contact
Dorothea Thompson, at (202) 452-3544.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The purpose of the Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.) is
to assist consumers in comparing deposit accounts offered by depository
institutions. The act requires institutions to disclose fees, the
interest rate, the annual percentage yield (APY), and other account
terms whenever a consumer requests the information and before an
account is opened. Fees and other information also must be provided on
any periodic statement the institution sends to the consumer. Rules are
set forth for deposit account advertisements and advance notices to
account holders of adverse changes in terms. The act restricts how
institutions must determine the account balance on which interest is
calculated. The act is implemented by the Board's Regulation DD (12 CFR
part 230). The regulation authorizes the issuance of official staff
interpretations of the regulation.
The Board is publishing proposed amendments to the commentary to
Regulation DD, which provides guidance to depository institutions in
applying the regulation to specific transactions and is a substitute
for individual staff interpretations. The commentary is updated
periodically to address significant questions that arise. The Board
expects to adopt the commentary in final form by April 1996 with a six-
month time period for optional compliance and a mandatory compliance
date of October 1996.
On January 26, 1995, the Board published a proposal to amend the
regulation's rules for calculating the APY (60 FR 5142). The Congress
is considering legislation that would repeal several provisions of the
Truth in Savings Act, including those calling for an APY. The Board has
deferred action on the proposal, pending the Congress's resolution of
the legislative proposals.
II. Proposed Commentary
Section 230.2--Definitions
(2)(f) Bonus
Comment 2(f)-2 provides additional guidance regarding bonuses. The
proposed comment clarifies the treatment of coupons. It also codifies
guidance provided in the supplementary information accompanying the
initial rulemaking (57 FR 43337, published September 21, 1992)
concerning items given or offered to third parties.
2(u) Time Account
Proposed comment 2(u)-3 clarifies that an interest-bearing account
meets the definition of a time account if the amount of the early
withdrawal penalty is equal to at least seven days' interest for
withdrawals during the first six days the account is opened and the
account has a maturity of at least seven days. Thus, the Board believes
that where a depository institution imposes a dollar amount as its
early withdrawal penalty (assessed during the first six days an account
is opened) on an interest-bearing account, rather than applying a
periodic rate to a balance (``interest,''), the fixed-dollar penalty is
the functional equivalent of interest.
Section 230.7--Payment of Interest
7(b) Crediting and Compounding Policies
Comment 7(b)-4 addresses crediting and compounding policies. The
Board believes institutions may choose any crediting frequency.
However, once interest is credited by posting interest to an account it
becomes part of the principal, and if interest remains in the account,
interest must accrue on those funds. The Board believes the act
requires that once interest is credited to an account, institutions
must calculate interest on the full principal in the account. For
example, assume a consumer earns $5 in interest on a $1,000 balance for
the month of January. If the institution credits interest monthly (in
the example, at the end of January) and does not pay the interest by
check or transfer to another account, the institution must accrue
interest on $1,005 for the month of February. Comment 7(b)-4 would
clarify that interest cannot be credited by posting to a consumer's
account without becoming part of the principal.
Appendix A--Annual Percentage Yield Calculation
Part I. Annual Percentage Yield for Account Disclosures and Advertising
Purposes
Part II. Annual Percentage Yield Earned for Periodic Statements
Comment app. A.II.A.-2 provides additional guidance on rounding the
interest earned figure of the annual percentage yield earned. Proposed
comment app. A.II.-3 provides additional guidance on calculating
interest and the annual percentage yield earned in a leap year.
III. Form of Comment Letters
Comment letters should refer to Docket No. R-0904, and, when
possible, should use a standard courier typeface with a type size of 10
or 12 characters per inch. This will enable the Board to convert the
text into machine-readable form through electronic scanning, and will
facilitate automated retrieval of comments for review. Comments may
also be submitted on 3\1/2\ inch or 5\1/4\ inch computer diskettes in
any IBM-compatible DOS-based format, if accompanied by an original
document in paper form.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 230
Advertising, Banks, banking, Consumer protection, Federal Reserve
System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Truth in savings.
Certain conventions have been used to highlight the proposed
revisions to the regulation. New language is shown inside bold-faced
arrows, while language that would be deleted is set off with bold-faced
brackets. Comments are numbered to comply with new Federal Register
publication rules.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to
amend 12 CFR part 230 as follows:
PART 230--TRUTH IN SAVINGS (REGULATION DD)
1. The authority citation for part 230 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.
2. In Supplement I to part 230, under Section 230.2 Definitions.,
the following amendments would be made:
a. Under (f) Bonus, paragraph 1. would be revised, paragraphs 2.
through 4. would be redesignated as paragraphs 3. through 5.,
respectively, and a new paragraph 2. would be added; and
b. Under (u) Time account, a new paragraph 3. would be added.
The revisions and additions would read as follows:
[[Page 62351]]
Supplement I to Part 230--Official Staff Interpretations
* * * * *
Section 230.2 Definitions
* * * * *
(f) Bonus.
1. General Rule [Examples] Bonuses
include items of value, other than interest, offered as incentives
to consumers, such as an offer to pay the final installment deposit
for a holiday club account. [Items that are not a bonus include
discount coupons for goods or services at restaurants or stores.]
2. Examples of Excluded Items. Items that are not
bonuses include:
i. Discount coupons distributed by institutions for goods or
services at restaurants or stores where the consumer must pay a sum
to the restaurant or store to receive the benefit of the coupon
ii. Items of value given to a third party by an institution when
a consumer opens, maintains, or renews an account--such as donations
made to a charitable organization.
* * * * *
(u) Time account
* * * * *
3. Fee for early withdrawal. Time accounts include
interest-bearing accounts with a maturity of at least seven days
that impose a dollar amount for withdrawals during the first six
days after the account is opened that is equal to at least seven
days' interest.
* * * * *
3. In Supplement I to part 230, under Section 230.7 Payment of
interest, the following amendments would be made:
a. Under (a)(1) Permissible methods, paragraph 4. would be
revised; and
b. Under (b) Compounding and crediting policies, a new paragraph 4.
would be added.
The revisions and additions would read as follows:
* * * * *
Section 230.7 Payment of Interest
* * * * *
(a)(1) Permissible methods.
* * * * *
4. Leap year. Institutions may apply a daily rate of 1/366 or 1/
365 of the interest rate for 366 days in a leap year, if the account
will earn interest for February 29. ``Leap year'' is a
calendar year in which February 29 occurs. For example, if the term
of a time account includes days in a nonleap year but extends
through February 29 of a leap year, the institution must use a daily
rate of 1/365 (or a greater daily rate such as 1/360) each day the
account is open in the nonleap year.
* * * * *
(b) Compounding and crediting policies.
* * * * *
4. Crediting and accrual of interest. Once interest
is credited to an account it becomes part of the principal on which
an institution must accrue interest.
* * * * *
4. In Supplement I to part 230, under Appendix A, the following
amendments would be made:
a. Under Part I. Annual Percentage Yield for Account Disclosures
and Advertising Purposes, a new paragraph 2. would be added; and
b. Under Part II. Annual Percentage Yield Earned for Periodic
Statements, under A. General Formula, paragraph 2. would be revised,
and a new paragraph 3. would be added.
The additions and revisions would read as follows:
* * * * *
Appendix A to Part 230--Annual Percentage Yield Calculation
Part I. Annual Percentage Yield for Account Disclosures and
Advertising Purposes
* * * * *
2. Leap year. Institutions that use a daily rate of
1/366 to pay interest on an account during a leap year may calculate
the annual percentage yield using 365 or 366 days in a leap year, as
follows:
i. Institutions may use 365 days in all cases.
ii. For time accounts, institutions must use 365 if the account
term includes days in a nonleap year.
Part II. Annual Percentage Yield Earned for Periodic Statements
* * * * *
A. General Formula
* * * * *
2. Rounding. The interest earned figure used to calculate the
annual percentage yield earned must be rounded to two decimals and
reflect the amount actually paid, if at the end of the statement period
the institution only accrues interest on two decimals. For
example:[, if]
i. If the interest earned for a statement
period is $20.074 and the institution pays the consumer $20.07, the
institution must use $20.07 (not $20.074) to calculate the annual
percentage yield earned if the institution does not
accrue interest on the $20.074 if interest is credited to the
account, or on the $.004 if interest is paid by check or transfer to
another account for the next statement period.
ii. If an institution accrues interest on the .004
for the next statement period, $20.074 may be used to calculate the
annual percentage yield earned for the statement period.
iii. For accounts paying interest based on the daily
balance method that compound and credit interest quarterly, and send
monthly statements, the institution may, but need not, round accrued
interest to two decimals for calculating the annual percentage yield
earned on the first two monthly statements issued during the
quarter. [However, on the quarterly statement the interest earned
figure must reflect the amount actually paid].
3. Leap year. Institutions that use a daily rate of
1/366 to pay interest on an account during a leap year may calculate
the annual percentage yield earned using 365 or 366 days during the
leap year.
* * * * *
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority,
December 1, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-29712 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29706 Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62369-62373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29706]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA-7163]
Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the
proposed base (1% annual chance) flood elevations and proposed base
flood elevation modifications for the communities listed below. The
base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are the basis
for the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order
to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
DATES: The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second
publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation
in each community.
ADDRESSES: The proposed base flood elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the following
table.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief,
Hazard
[[Page 62370]]
Identification Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
proposes to make determinations of base flood elevations and modified
base flood elevations for each community listed below, in accordance
with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed base flood and modified base flood elevations,
together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR
60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed
to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are
more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The
community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or
pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional
entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain
management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after
these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these
buildings.
National Environmental Policy Act
This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements
of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this
proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because proposed or modified base flood elevations are
required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,
and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the
NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
Regulatory Classification
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism
implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26,
1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Section
2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 67--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 67.4 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Depth in feet above
ground. *Elevation
State City/town/county Source of Location in feet. (NGVD)
flooding ---------------------
Existing Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona....................... Flagstaff (City), Clay Avenue Wash At Milton Road....... *6,895 *6,894
Coconino County.
Approximately 450 *6,897 *6,899
feet upstream of
Malpais Lane.
Approximately 80 feet *6,900 *6,901
upstream of
Blackbird Forest
Street.
At Chateau Drive..... *6,905 *6,905
Approximately 980 *6,929 *6,930
feet upstream of
Chateau Drive.
Approximately 1,300 *6,931 *6,931
feet upstream of
Chateau Drive.
Maps are available for inspection at the City of Flagstaff, City Hall, 211 West Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff,
Arizona.
Send comments to The Honorable Christopher J. Bavasi, Mayor, City of Flagstaff, 211 West Aspen Avenue,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho......................... Ada County, Cottonwood Gulch Approximately 7,615 None *2,896
(Unincorporated feet above Garrison
Areas). Road at the City of
Boise corporate
limits.
Approximately 9,100 None *2,930
feet above Garrison
Road.
Approximately 100 None *2,953
feet upstream of
Shaw Mountain Road.
Approximately 1,280 None *2,980
feet above Shaw
Mountain Road.
Approximately 2,280 None *3,010
feet above Shaw
Mountain Road.
Stuart Gulch.... Approximately 2,000 None *2,796
feet downstream of
Cartwright Road at
the City of Boise
corporate limits.
Approximately 1,360 None *2,840
feet downstream of
Cartwright Road.
Approximately 500 None *2,861
feet downstream of
Cartwright Road.
[[Page 62371]]
Hulls Gulch..... Approximately 700 None *2,864
feet downstream of
McCord Lane at the
City of Boise
corporate limits.
At McCord Lane....... None *2,903
Approximately 2,300 None *2,971
feet upstream of
McCord Lane.
Maps are available for inspection at the Ada County Development Services Office, 650 Main Street, Boise,
Idaho.
Send comments to The Honorable Vern Bisterfeldt, Chairman, Ada County Board of Commissioners, 650 Main Street,
Boise, Idaho 83702.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho......................... Boise (City), Ada Stuart Gulch.... Approximately 100 None *2,692
County. feet upstream of
Stuart Gulch Road.
Approximately 3,000 None *2,745
feet upstream of
Stuart Gulch Road at
an unnamed road.
Approximately 4,600 None *2,785
feet upstream of
Stuart Gulch Road at
an unnamed road.
Approximately 5,000 *2,800 *2,795
feet upstream of
Stuart Gulch Road.
Approximately 6,910 None *2,825
feet upstream of
Stuart Gulch Road at
the City of Boise
corporate limits.
Stuart Gulch At the convergence None *2,725
Split Flow with Stuart Gulch,
Channel. approximately 2,350
feet upstream of
Stuart Gulch Road.
Approximately 2,200 None *2,775
feet upstream of the
convergence with
Stuart Gulch at an
unnamed road.
At the divergence None *2,800
from Stuart Gulch.
Crane Gulch..... At Hill Road......... None *2,732
................ Just upstream of None *2,750
Parkhill Drive.
Just upstream of None *2,773
Cottonwood Court.
Just upstream of None *2,795
Ranch Road.
Just downstream of None *2,865
Curling Drive.
Hulls Gulch..... Just upstream of the None *2,735
intersection of 9th
Street and Heron
Street.
Approximately 1,400 None *2,761
feet downstream of
Mile High Road at
9th Street.
Approximately 1,000 None *2,826
feet upstream of
Mile High Road.
Approximately 2,300 None *2,864
feet upstream of
Mile High Road at
the City of Boise
corporate limits.
Cottonwood Gulch Approximately 1,100 None *2,748
feet upstream of
Garrison Road.
At confluence with None *2,793
Freestone Creek.
Approximately 4,300 None *2,878
feet upstream of
confluence with
Freestone Creek at
the City of Boise
corporate limits.
Approximately 5,085 None *2,898
feet upstream of
confluence with
Freestone Creek at
the City of Boise
corporate limits.
Maps are available for inspection at the Office of Community Planning and Development, City Hall, 150 North
Capitol Boulevard, Boise, Idaho.
Send comments to The Honorable Brent H. Coles, Mayor, City of Boise, City Hall, P.O. Box 500, Boise, Idaho
83701-0500.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas......................... Uvalde (City), Cooks Slough.... Approximately 500 *900 *899
Uvalde County. feet downstream of
West Main Street.
Just downstream of *903 *901
Fort Clark Street.
Approximately 4,300 *911 *908
feet downstream of
Benson Road.
Approximately 300 *915 *917
feet downstream of
Benson Road.
[[Page 62372]]
Maps are available for inspection at Uvalde City Hall, Highway 90, Uvalde, Texas.
Send comments to The Honorable George Horner, Mayor, City of Uvalde, P.O. Box 799, Uvalde, Texas 78801.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas......................... Uvalde County, Cooks Slough.... Approximately 1,100 *891 *893
(Unincorporated feet upstream of
Areas). U.S. Highway 83 (or
100 feet upstream of
South Grove Street).
Just downstream of *906 *904
the grade control
structure.
Approximately 2,470 *918 *920
feet upstream of
Benson Road (FM
1052).
Maps are available for inspection at the County Judge's Office, Uvalde County Courthouse, Courthouse Square,
Corner of Main and Getty Streets, Uvalde, Texas.
Send comments to The Honorable William R. Mitchell, County Judge, Uvalde County Courthouse, Uvalde, Texas
78801.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington.................... Ferry County, Kettle Approximately 73.96 None *1,806
(Unincorporated RiverReach 7. miles upstream of
Areas). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 74.66 None *1,810
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 75.17 *1,813 *1,812
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 75.52 *1,814 *1,814
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 75.84 *1,816 *1,815
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Kettle Approximately 9.87 None *1,306
RiverReach 1 miles upstream of
(Near Barstow). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 10.36 None *1,309
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 10.85 None *1,312
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Kettle Approximately 18.62 None *1,389
RiverReach 2 miles upstream of
(Near Orient). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 18.77 None *1,390
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 19.17 None *1,391
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Kettle Approximately 27.24 None *1,435
RiverReach 3 miles upstream of
(Near Laurier). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 27.53 None *1,438
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 28.00 None *1,441
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 28.27 None *1,443
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Kettle Approximately 58.0 None *1,732
RiverReach 4 miles upstream of
(Near Danville). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 58.43 None *1,733
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Kettle Approximately 64.87 None *1,764
RiverReach 5 miles upstream of
(Near Curlew). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 65.17 None *1,765
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 65.45 None *1,766
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Kettle Approximately 84.78 None *1,864
RiverReach 8 miles upstream of
(Near Ferry). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 85.15 None *1,866
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 85.78 None *1,868
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Maps are available for inspection at the Ferry County Planning Department, 146 North Clark, Suite 7,
Republic, Washington.
Send comments to The Honorable Ed F. Windson, Chairperson, Ferry County Commissioners, County Courthouse, 350
East Delaware, Republic, Washington 99166.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Stevens County, Kettle Approximately 9.87 None *1,306
(Unincorporated RiverReach 1 miles upstream of
Areas). (Near Barstow). confluence with the
Columbia River.
[[Page 62373]]
Approximately 10.5 None *1,310
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 10.86 None *1,312
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Kettle Approximately 18.62 None *1,389
RiverReach 2 miles upstream of
(Near Orient). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 19.17 None *1,392
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Kettle Approximately 27.24 None *1,435
RiverReach 3 miles upstream of
(Near Laurier). confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 27.8 None *1,440
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Approximately 28.26 None *1,443
miles upstream of
confluence with the
Columbia River.
Maps are available for inspection at the Stevens County Planning Department, 260 South Oak Street, Colville,
Washington.
Send comments to The Honorable Alan L. Mack, Chairperson, Stevens County Commissioners, County Courthouse, 215
South Oak Street, Colville, Washington 99114.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance.'')
Dated: November 29, 1995.
Richard T. Moore,
Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 95-29706 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29697 Consumer Leasing; Extension of Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29697]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 213
[Regulation M; Docket No. R-0892 and Docket No. R-0893]
Consumer Leasing; Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed rule and official staff interpretation; extension of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 20, 1995, the Board published a request for
comment on proposed amendments to Regulation M, which implements the
Consumer Leasing Act (60 FR 48752). At that time, the Board also
proposed revisions to the official staff commentary to Regulation M,
which were published in the same issue of the Federal Register (60 FR
48769). The Consumer Leasing Act and Regulation M require lessors to
provide uniform cost and other disclosures about consumer lease
transactions. The Board's proposal contains several substantive
amendments to the regulation and would also simplify and clarify its
provisions. In order to obtain additional views on the proposal from
individual consumers, the Board has extended the public comment period
for 90 days. The comment period for the proposed revisions to the
commentary is similarly extended for 90 days.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. R-0892 and Docket No. R-
0893, and be mailed to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20551. Comments also may be delivered to room B-2222 of
the Eccles Building between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. weekdays, or to the
guard station in the Eccles Building courtyard on 20th Street NW.,
(between Constitution Avenue and C Street) any time. Comments may be
inspected in room MP-500 of the Martin Building between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. weekdays, except as provided in 12 CFR 261.8 of the Board's rules
regarding the availability of information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyung H. Cho-Miller, Obrea O.
Poindexter, or W. Kurt Schumacher, Staff Attorneys, Division of
Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, at (202) 452-2412 or 452-3667.
For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD), please
contact Dorothea Thompson at (202) 452-3544.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), 15 U.S.C.
1667-1667e, was enacted into law in 1976 as an amendment to the Truth
in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. The Board was given
rulewriting authority, and its Regulation M (12 CFR part 213)
implements the CLA. An official staff commentary that interprets the
regulation has also been published (Supplement I-CL-1 to 12 CFR 213).
The CLA generally governs consumer leases of personal property
involving $25,000 or less and a term of more than four months. An
automobile lease is the most common type of consumer lease covered by
the CLA. Like the credit provisions of the TILA, the CLA requires
lessors to provide uniform cost and other disclosures in consumer lease
transactions and lease advertising. Prior to entering into a lease
agreement, lessors must give consumers fifteen to twenty disclosures,
including the amount of initial charges to be paid, an identification
of leased property, a payment schedule, the responsibilities for
maintaining the leased property, and the liability for terminating a
lease early.
The Board's Regulatory Planning and Review Program calls for the
periodic review of Board regulations with four goals in mind: To
clarify and simplify regulatory language; to determine whether
regulatory amendments are needed to address technological and other
developments; to reduce undue regulatory burden on the industry; and to
delete obsolete provisions. On September 20, 1995, the Board published
proposed revisions to Regulation M for comment (60 FR 48752). The
proposal contains several substantive revisions to the regulation, for
example: additional disclosure requirements about early termination
charges, the gross cost of leases, the residual value, and the
estimated lease charge; a requirement that certain leasing disclosures
be segregated from other information; and pursuant to a statutory
change, revisions to the advertising provisions for radio and
television. The proposal also simplifies the language and format of the
regulation to state the requirements more clearly.
The Board is extending the comment period until February 15, 1996,
in order to obtain views on the proposals from consumers who have
experience in leasing or are interested in leasing, by inviting certain
individuals to participate in focus groups. The focus group
participants will be asked to address key elements of the Board's
proposed amendments to Regulation M and to provide comments on the
proposed consumer leasing forms.
During the extension period, the Board's staff will undertake its
review and analysis of the comments that have already been filed. The
comment period is being extended primarily for the purpose of
conducting these focus group interviews. Other members of the public
may submit comments during this period, but they are encouraged to
submit them as soon as possible. The Board does not expect this
extension to delay the implementation of the final rule. The Board
anticipates that revisions to Regulation M and the official staff
commentary will be adopted in final form in the second quarter of 1996.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 30,
1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-29697 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29656 Radio Broadcasting Services; Calhoun City, MS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29656]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-173; RM-8725]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Calhoun City, MS
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition by WKZU Radio,
licensee of Station WKZU(FM), Channel 272A, Ripley, Mississippi,
proposing the deletion of vacant Channel 272A at Calhoun City,
Mississippi. Any party wishing to express an interest in Channel 272A
at Calhoun City, Mississippi, should file their expression of interest
by the initial comment deadline specified herein.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before January 22, 1996, and reply
comments on or before February 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Harry
Holliday, WKZU Radio, P.O. Box 572, Ripley, Mississippi 38663
(petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-173, adopted November
8, 1995, and released November 30, 1995. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc.,
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-29656 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29647 Elimination of Regulations Concerning the Public Lands Highways Discretionary Funds Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62359-62360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29647]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 667
[FHWA Docket No. 95-28]
RIN 2125-AD69
Elimination of Regulations Concerning the Public Lands Highways
Discretionary Funds Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to remove a regulation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is proposing to eliminate its regulations outlining
the procedures to be followed in administering the Public Lands
Highways (PLH) discretionary funds program. These provisions have
become outdated and unnecessary as a result of amendments made by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub.
L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914) to the statutory provisions in title 23 of
the United States Code (U.S.C.) which authorize distribution of some of
the funds appropriated for Public Lands Highways among the States on
the basis of need. These amendments to title 23, U.S.C., significantly
modify and clarify the eligibility criteria and selection process of
the PLH discretionary program; as a result, the FHWA regulations
concerning the PLH discretionary program have become obsolete.
Consequently, in the interests of streamlining FHWA regulations and
providing more flexibility in the administration of this program, the
FHWA is proposing to eliminate these regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 95-28,
Federal Highway Administration, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief
Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. All comments
received will be available for examination at the above address between
8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Those desiring notice of receipt of comments must include a
self-addressed, stamped postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mohan P. Pillay, Office of
Engineering, HNG-12, (202) 366-4655 or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of
the Chief Counsel, HCC-32, (202) 366-1397, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Office
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through the PLH Discretionary Program, the
FHWA administers the allocation of Federal funds in the manner
authorized by Sec. 202(b) of title 23 of the U.S.C. ``among those
States having unappropriated or unreserved public lands, nontaxable
Indian lands or other Federal reservations.'' Approximately $56 million
was made available to the States for the PLH Discretionary Program in
FY 1995. The statute directs that 34 percent of the sums appropriated
for public lands highways in a given fiscal year is to be allocated on
the basis of need among qualifying States that apply for such funds
through their State highway departments. (23 U.S.C. 202(b).) The
statute also provides that these PLH funds are available for any kind
of transportation project eligible for assistance under title 23,
U.S.C., that is within or adjacent to or provides access to public
lands areas. (23 U.S.C. 204(b).)
Although Congress did not direct that regulations be promulgated to
implement the funding scheme established by this statute, the FHWA did
promulgate regulations which outline the procedures for administering
the PLH discretionary program. These regulations, for the most part,
merely reiterate the application process and selection criteria
outlined in the statute. For instance, the statute establishes that PLH
discretionary funds are to be distributed on the basis of need among
the States that apply through their State highway departments and that
preference is to be given to those projects which are significantly
impacted by Federal land and resource management activities. Part 667
restates these provisions, but it also supplements the statutory
provisions with overly detailed descriptions of factors to be
considered in the selection process and of the steps taken in the
application and selection procedure. In addition, part 667 restates
some of the factors established in the statute as defining the
eligibility of certain projects for these funds.
The eligibility criteria and selection process of the PLH
discretionary program were modified and greatly clarified by amendments
to title 23, U.S.C., that were enacted as part of the ISTEA (Pub. L.
102-240, 105 Stat. 1914). One change resulting from these amendments is
that title 23, U.S.C., now provides a more detailed explanation of the
kinds of projects which are eligible for PLH discretionary funds. The
regulation delineating eligibility criteria in part 667 states that
funds may be used for ``engineering and construction of the mainline
roadway including adjacent vehicular parking areas and construction
elements related to scenic easements.'' (Sec. 667.7.) After the ISTEA
amendments, title 23, U.S.C., now includes a provision entitled
``Eligible Projects'' which lists adjacent vehicular parking areas and
acquisition of necessary scenic easements as two of seven types of
projects qualifying for PLH funds.
These PLH regulations have also now become inconsistent with title
23, U.S.C., as a result of the ISTEA amendments. Section 667.7 of the
regulations states that ``funds may not be used for right-of-way costs,
maintenance or other ancillaries such as sanitary, water and fire
control facilities''; however, the list of eligible projects added to
title 23, U.S.C. by the ISTEA includes, ``construction and
reconstruction of roadside rest areas including sanitary and water
facilities.'' Thus, in general, the provisions regarding eligibility
for PLH discretionary funds currently included in the FHWA regulations
have become both outdated and unnecessary.
Amendments to title 23, U.S.C., added by the ISTEA also modify the
selection process and the factors that will be taken into account in
allocating PLH discretionary funds among the States. As a result of the
ISTEA amendments, title 23, U.S.C., now states that preference will
still be given to projects which are significantly impacted by Federal
land and resource management activities, but now such preference will
be given only if these projects are proposed by a State which contains
at least 3 percent of the total public lands in the Nation. In light of
this statutory change, the regulations in part 667 have become outdated
because they provide that all projects which significantly benefit or
improve Federal land and resource management will be given preference.
Consequently, as this examination of part 667 reveals, these
regulations concerning the PLH discretionary program are unnecessary
and in many instances either straightforwardly redundant or outdated
because they have become inconsistent with the
[[Page 62360]]
authorizing statute. Therefore, the FHWA is proposing to eliminate part
667 as opposed to amending it to account for the changes brought about
by the ISTEA amendments. Elimination of these regulations would provide
more flexibility in administration of the PLH discretionary program. In
addition, elimination of part 667 would have the effect of further
streamlining FHWA regulations in accordance with the objectives of the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a final
rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to
late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket
relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing
date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for
new material.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures)
The FHWA has considered the impact of this document and has
determined that it is neither a significant rulemaking action within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866 nor a significant rulemaking under
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Transportation. This rulemaking would result in the elimination of FHWA
regulations regarding administration of the PLH discretionary program.
These regulations have become outdated and are unnecessary in light of
the fact that the statutory provisions authorizing allocation of these
funds adequately delineate the procedures to be used and the factors to
be considered in selecting the States that will receive funding. This
rulemaking eliminating these obsolete regulations would not cause any
significant changes to the amount of funding available under the PLH
Discretionary Program or to the process by which applicants are
selected to receive funding. Thus, it is anticipated that the economic
impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. In addition, it will not
create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; nor will elimination of these regulations raise
any novel legal or policy issues. Therefore, a full regulatory
evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities
and has determined that elimination of the FHWA regulations regarding
administration of PLH discretionary funds will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Elimination
of these regulations will not affect the amount of funding available to
the States through the PLH Discretionary Program or the procedures used
to select the States eligible to receive these funds. Furthermore,
States are not included in the definition of ``small entity'' set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the FHWA hereby certifies that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this action does not raise sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Elimination of
these obsolete FHWA regulations concerning the PLH Discretionary
Program would not preempt any State law or State regulation. No
additional costs or burdens would be imposed on the States as a result
of this action, and the States' ability to discharge traditional State
governmental functions would not be affected by this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12372
Catalog of Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway
Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order
12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not create a collection of information requirement
for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C.
3501-3520.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this rulemaking for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of
the environment. Therefore an environmental impact statement is not
required.
Regulatory Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 667
Highways and roads, Public lands highway funds.
Issued on: November 27, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing and under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 202, 204, and 315, the FHWA proposes to remove and reserve part
667 of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
PART 667--PUBLIC LANDS HIGHWAYS FUNDS [REMOVED AND RESERVED]
1. Part 667 is removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 95-29647 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29541 Review of Regulations and Written Policies
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62345-62349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29541]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62345]]
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Chapter III
Review of Regulations and Written Policies
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is conducting
a systematic review of each its regulations and written policies.
Section 303(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRI) requires the federal banking agencies to
identify and revise regulations and written policies that may be
inefficient, cause unnecessary burden or contain outmoded, duplicative
or inconsistent provisions; and to work jointly to make uniform all
regulations and policies that implement common statutory or regulatory
schemes. As part of this systematic review, the FDIC is seeking public
comment to identify ways in which its regulation and written policies
can be streamlined and made uniform with the other banking agencies.
Comments and suggestions should be as specific as possible, citing the
particular part of the regulation or policy statement recommended for
revision or recission, and, if a revision is recommended, stating
specifically the revision proposed. The FDIC already has undertaken
various measures since the passage of section 303 to streamline its
regulations and policies, as well as to work jointly with the other
federal banking agencies to make uniform regulations and guidelines
implementing common statutory and supervisory policies.
DATES: The FDIC anticipates that many of the reviews will result in the
publication of proposals to revise specific regulations and statements
of policy, with dates for comments identified at the time of
publication. While comments may be submitted at any time through the
due dates identified when those proposals are published, the FDIC urges
interested parties to submit comments as soon as possible. Those
submitted before the tentatively scheduled completion dates for the
reviews, as displayed in the schedule at the end of this document are
more likely to be considered during the early stages of the development
of recommendations.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of the
Executive Secretary, FDIC, 550 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20429.
Comments may be hand delivered to Room F-402, 1776 F Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20439, on business days between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Comments may be sent fax to: (202) 898-3838 or by the Internet to:
[email protected]. Comments will be available for inspection at the
FDIC's Reading Room, Room 7118, 550 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days. All comments should
reference CDRI section 303, and identify the regulation or policy
statement which they concern.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven F. Hanft, Assistant Executive
Secretary (Administration), Office of the Executive Secretary, (202)
898-3907; or Judith Bailey, Counsel, Legal Division (202) 898-6955;
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC is conducting a systematic review
of its regulations and written policies. Section 303(a) of the CDRI (12
U.S.C. 4803(a)) requires that each federal banking agency shall,
consistent with the principles of safety and soundness, statutory law
and policy, and the public interest:
(1) Conduct a review of the regulations and written policies of
that agency to--
(A) streamline and modify those regulations and policies in order
to improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs, and eliminate
unwarranted constraints on credit availability;
(B) remove inconsistencies and outmoded and duplicative
requirements; and
(C) with respect to regulations prescribed pursuant to section
18(o) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(o), (real
estate lending standards), consider the impact that such standards have
on the availability of credit for small business, residential, and
agricultural purposes, and on low-and moderate-income communities;
(2) work jointly with the Federal banking agencies to make uniform
all regulations and guidelines implementing common statutory or
supervisory policies; and
(3) submit a joint report to Congress at the end of such 2-year
period detailing the progress of the agencies in carrying out this
subsection.
Thus, there are two parts to the review required by section 303(a).
First, the FDIC, like the other federal banking agencies, must review
and streamline all its regulations and written policies to improve
efficiency, to remove unnecessary costs and burdens, and to eliminate
inconsistent, outmoded or duplicative provisions. Second, the FDIC is
required to work with the other banking agencies to make uniform those
regulations and guidelines that implement common statutory or
supervisory policies. The federal banking agencies must report to
Congress detailing the progress they have made in both the streamlining
and uniformity reviews by September 23, 1996. To date, the FDIC has
received some comments and uniformity reviews by September 23, 1996. To
date, the FDIC has received some comments and suggestions for
regulatory reform from interested parties, but the FDIC would like to
encourage wider public involvement.
The FDIC has place a high proprity on regulatory review. In
testimony on May 18, 1995 before the Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman
Helfer stated that the FDIC would test regulations against specific
criteria:
(1) Whether the regulations are necessary to ensure a safe and
sound banking system, (2) whether the regulations enhance the
functioning of the marketplace, or (3) whether the regulations can
be justified on strong public grounds related to consumer
protection.
The FDIC is devoting considerable resources to regulatory review.
The FDIC has assembled staff teams to review each of its regulations
and policy statements, and those teams already
[[Page 62346]]
have begun this reviews. Further, FDIC staff is coordinating with staff
of the other federal banking agencies to review common regulations,
written policies and guidelines, with the goal of working toward
uniformity. A schedule for reviewing FDIC regulations and policy
statements appears at the end of this notice.
The FDIC seeks to impose the least intrusive and least burdensome
regulations possible while affording maximum flexibility in
implementing its statutory mandates. This approach is evident in recent
changes to assessment regulation (12 CFR Part 327) which automate the
assessment process and permit insured institutions to take advantage of
a more flexible payment schedule, and to the FDIC's regulations on real
estate appraisals (12 CFR Part 323), which reduce costs and encourage
lending by decreasing the number of loans requiring an appraisal.
This approach is also manifested in the implementation of various
provisions of FDICIA in which the FDIC has adopted minimal regulations
together with flexible guidelines, such as the audit regulations (12
CFR Part 363), standards for safety and soundness (12 CFR Part 364),
and real estate lending standards (12 CFR Part 365). Further, the FDIC
is reducing regulatory burden by linking supervision more closely to
risk with the risk-based insurance program, whereby well-capitalized
and well-managed institutions are charged considerably less for deposit
insurance than institutions that are undercapitalized and exhibit
weakness.
The FDIC's is mindful that regulatory burden also may be associated
with examination and supervisory process, and is therefore
investigating and introducing less intrusive examination techniques.
The FDIC has reduced total hours per examination by 10% through pre-
examination planning doing more of the examination work off-site in
FDIC field offices coordinating examinations with sate and other
federal regulators to eliminate supervisory overlap and to extend the
examination cycle when appropriate, and increasing examination
efficiency through automation of the examination process. The FDIC is
beginning to develop an automated loan review program that will reduce
the number of specialized loan reports requested by examiners.
The FDIC is also seeking additional reductions by surveying bankers
to determine what the industry feels is burdensome about the
examination process; and by investigating the use of Internet to permit
electronic submission of applications, and to make available to the
public supervisory materials such as Financial Institution Letters,
examination manuals, and the rules and regulations of the FDIC. The
FDIC has already established procedures for using the Internet to
comment on proposed rules and regulations. Additional regulatory
revisions that are complete or well underway include:
Final revisions to the FDIC's regulations implementing the
Community Reinvestment Act (12 CFR Part 345) have been approved by the
FDIC Board of Directors and were published on May 4, 1995 (60 FR
22156), providing more objective, performance-based assessment
standards that minimize the burden of compliance while improving
performance. The revised regulation provides alternative examination
methods for different sizes and types of institutions, and emphasizes
results rather than paperwork and procedure.
A notice of proposed rulemaking to streamline and clarify
the flood insurance provisions in the FDIC's regulations on ``Loans in
Areas having Special Flood Hazards'' (12 CFR Part 339) was published on
October 18, 1995 (60 FR 53962), with comments due December 17, 1995.
The proposed changes to this regulation would clarify its terms and
standardize recordkeeping and reporting requirements among all insured
institutions.
A notice of proposed rulemaking to simplify the reporting
of suspected criminal activity, ``Reports of Apparent Crimes'' (12 CFR
Part 353), was published on September 14, 1995, with a comment period
that closed November 13, 1995 (60 FR 47719).
A notice of proposed rulemaking on revisions to
``Disclosure of Information'' (12 CFR Part 309) was published on July
6, 1995 (60 FR 35148) with a comment period that closed September 9,
1995. The proposed revisions would make it easier for the public to
obtain information from the FDIC.
As it continues with its regulatory review, the FDIC would like to
provide an opportunity for the earliest possible participation by
consumers, banking industry representatives, and the general public,
before notices of proposed rulemaking and proposed revisions to policy
statements are published by the FDIC Board as part of a notice-and-
comment process. To that end the FDIC is encouraging the public to
provide suggestions early in the review cycle to assist in the
development of specific regulatory proposals. It is anticipated that,
in many cases specific recommendations for modifying the FDIC's
regulations and policies will be brought before the FDIC's Board of
Directors as a result of the reviews. Those recommendations, if adopted
by the FDIC's Board, will be published as formal proposals for comment.
Comments provided at this early stage, however, will permit the
formulation of improved proposals for consideration by the FDIC's Board
of Directors. The request for comments at this early stage is thus
separate from, and in addition to, any future opportunity for comment
on specific proposed revisions to individual regulations and policies
that may result from the work of the reviewing teams.
Comments should be submitted on regulations and written
policies that are unique to the FDIC as well as those that are in
common with the other federal banking agencies.
Comments should focus on and cite particular provisions or
language, and provide particular reasons why such provisions are
burdensome, inefficient or outmoded.
Comments should cite particular provisions or language
that should be revised or eliminated and, where possible or
appropriate, suggest alternative provisions or language.
If the implementation of a comment would require modifying
the statutes that underlie a regulation or policy, the comment should,
if possible, identify the needed statutory change.
Existing FDIC regulations are found in chapter XXII of title 5 and
chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations. FDIC
Statements of Policy are compiled in 2 FDIC Law, Regulations, Related
Acts (FDIC), 5001-5412. As noted above, the FDIC anticipated that many
of the reviews will result in the publication of proposals to revise
specific regulations and statements of policy, with due dates for
comments identified at the time of publication. While comments may be
submitted at any time through the due dates identified when those
proposals are published, the FDIC urges interested parties to submit
comments as soon as possible. Those submitted before the tentatively
scheduled completion dates for the reviews, as displayed in the
schedule below, are more likely to be considered during the early
stages of the development of recommendations. It is hoped that, by
providing this schedule, commenters will have the ability to address
significant regulatory issues in an orderly and focused fashion. Page
numbers in the schedule refer to the location of policy statements in
the FDIC's looseleaf service known as FDIC Law, Regulations, Related
Acts.
Tentative Schedule for Reviewing Regulations and Statements of Policy
of the FDIC Under Section 303(a) of CDRI
[[Page 62347]]
FDIC.--Tentative Schedule of Regulatory Reviews Under Section 303
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part/page No. Regulation/statement of policy Target date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page No. 5241................... Joint Policy Statement on Delayed 2nd Quarter 1995.
Availability of Funds.
Page No. 5271................... Joint Policy Statement on Basic 2nd Quarter 1995.
Financial Services.
310............................. Privacy Act Regulations................. 3rd Quarter 1995.
339............................. Loans in Areas Having Special Flood 4th Quarter 1995.
Hazards.
Page No. 5411................... Statement of Policy Regarding Treatment 4th Quarter 1995.
of Collateralized Letters of Credit
After Appointment of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation as
Conservator or Receiver.
309............................. Disclosure of Information............... 4th Quarter 1995.
307............................. Notification of Changes of Insured 4th Quarter 1995.
Status.
308............................. Rules of Practice and Procedure......... 4th Quarter 1995.
323............................. Appraisals.............................. 4th Quarter 1995.
324............................. Agricultural Loan Loss Amortization..... 4th Quarter 1995.
326............................. Minimum Security Devices and Procedures 4th Quarter 1995.
and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance.
328............................. Advertisement of Membership............. 4th Quarter 1995.
333............................. Extension of Corporate Powers........... 4th Quarter 1995.
335............................. Securities of Nonmember Insured Banks... 4th Quarter 1995.
344............................. Recordkeeping and Confirmation 4th Quarter 1995.
Requirements for Securities
Transactions.
353............................. Reports of Apparent Crimes Affecting 4th Quarter 1995.
Insured Nonmember Banks.
363............................. Annual Independent Audits and Reporting 4th Quarter 1995.
Requirements.
Page No. 5061................... Offering Circular Requirements for 4th Quarter 1995.
Public Issuance of Bank Securities;
Statement of Policy Regarding Use of
Offering Circulars in Connection with
Public Distribution of Bank Securities.
Page No. 5073................... Federal Financial Institutions 4th Quarter 1995.
Examination Council Policy Statement--
Disclosure of Statutory Enforcement
Actions.
Page No. 5145................... FDIC Statement of Policy; Bank Merger 4th Quarter 1995.
Transactions.
Page No. 5209................... Interagency Policy Statement Regarding 4th Quarter 1995.
Advertising of NOW Accounts.
Page No. 5225................... FDIC Statement of Policy on the 4th Quarter 1995.
Applicability of the Glass-Steagall Act
to Securities Activities of
Subsidiaries of Insured Nonmember Banks.
Page No. 5259................... Justice Department Policy on Bank 4th Quarter 1995.
Bribery Prosecution.
Page No. 5277................... Guidelines for Monitoring Bank Secrecy 4th Quarter 1995.
Act Compliance.
Page No. 5289................... Guidelines for Compliance with the 4th Quarter 1995.
Federal Bank Bribery Law.
Page No. 5305................... Interagency Policy on Contingency 4th Quarter 1995.
Planning for Financial Institutions.
Page No. 5317................... FFIEC Supervisory Policy on Large-Scale 4th Quarter 1995.
Integrated Financial Software System
(LSIS).
Page No. 5321................... Risks and Controls in End-User Computing 4th Quarter 1995.
Page No. 5325................... Interagency Statement on EDP Service 4th Quarter 1995.
Contracts.
Page No. 5345................... FFIEC EDP Interagency Examination, 4th Quarter 1995.
Scheduling and Distribution Policy.
Page No. 5371................... Policy Statement to Address the Problem 4th Quarter 1995.
of the Use of Large-Value Funds
Transfers for Money Laundering.
Page No. 5395................... Statement of Policy on Alternative 4th Quarter 1995.
Dispute Resolution.
342............................. Applications for a Stay or Review of 1st Quarter 1996.
Actions of Bank Clearing Agencies.
Page No. 5235................... FDIC Statement of Policy on Assistance 1st Quarter 1996.
to Operating Insured Depository
Institutions.
304............................. Forms, Instructions, and Reports........ 1st Quarter 1996.
Page No. 5039................... Time Limits for Filing Reports of 1st Quarter 1996.
Condition.
343............................. Insured State Nonmember Banks which are 1st Quarter 1996.
Municipal Securities Dealers.
Page No. 5029................... Insured State Nonmember Banks--Statement 1st Quarter 1996.
of Policy and Guidelines for
Investments in ``Leeway Securities''.
311............................. Rules Governing Public Observation of 1st Quarter 1996.
Meetings of the Corporation's Board of
Directors.
329............................. Interest on Deposits.................... 1st Quarter 1996.
348............................. Management Official Interlocks.......... 1st Quarter 1996.
Page No. 5053................... Changes in Control in Insured Nonmember 1st Quarter 1996.
Banks.
Page No. 5065................... Federal Financial Institutions 1st Quarter 1996.
Examination Council on Behalf of its
Constituent Agencies--Joint Notice of
Policy Statement on Discrimination.
Page No. 5113................... FDIC Statement of Policy on Qualified 1st Quarter 1996.
Financial Contracts.
Page No. 5195................... Joint Notice of Adoption of Standard 1st Quarter 1996.
Descriptive Terms to be used in
Competitive Factor Reports Prepared
Pursuant to the Bank Merger Act (12
U.S.C. 1828(c)).
Page No. 5275................... Guidelines for Implementing a Policy of 1st Quarter 1996.
Capital Forbearance.
Page No. 5329................... Policy Statement on Encouragement and 1st Quarter 1996.
Preservation of Minority Ownership of
Financial Institutions.
Page No. 5331................... FDIC Statement of Policy Regarding the 1st Quarter 1996.
Payment of State and Local Property
Taxes.
Page No. 5335................... Statement of Policy Regarding Treatment 1st Quarter 1996.
of Collateralized Put Obligations After
Appointment of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation as Conservator or
Receiver.
Page No. 5369................... Statement Concerning the 1st Quarter 1996.
Responsibilities of Bank Directors and
Officers.
Page No. 5373................... Interagency Policy Statement on 1st Quarter 1996.
Documentation for Loans to Small- and
Medium-sized Businesses and Farms.
Page No. 5377................... Statement of Policy Regarding Treatment 1st Quarter 1996.
of Security Interests After Appointment
of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation as Conservator or Receiver.
Page No. 5381................... Statement of Policy on Contracting With 1st Quarter 1996.
Outside Firms.
Page No. 5387................... Interagency Guidance on Accounting for 1st Quarter 1996.
Dispositions of Other Real Estate Owned.
Page No. 5391................... Policy Statement of Board of Governors 1st Quarter 1996.
of the Federal Reserve System, Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
and Office of Thrift Supervision
Concerning Branch Closing Notices and
Policies.
12 CFR 337.6.................... Brokered Deposits....................... 1st Quarter 1996.
5 CFR 3201...................... Supplemental Standards of Conduct for 2nd Quarter 1996.
Employees of the FDIC.
341............................. Registration of Securities Transfer 2nd Quarter 1996.
Agents.
[[Page 62348]]
Page No. 5175................... National Historic Preservation Act of 2nd Quarter 1996.
1966.
Page No. 5043................... Improper and Illegal Payments by Banks 2nd Quarter 1996.
and Bank Holding Companies.
337............................. Unsafe and Unsound Banking Practices.... 2nd Quarter 1996.
346............................. Foreign Banks........................... 2nd Quarter 1996.
347............................. Foreign Activities of Insured State 2nd Quarter 1996.
Nonmember Banks.
349............................. Reports and Public Disclosure of 2nd Quarter 1996.
Indebtedness of Executive Officers and
Principal Shareholders to a State
Nonmember Bank and its Correspondent
Banks.
360............................. Receivership Rules...................... 2nd Quarter 1996.
362............................. Activities and Investments of Insured 2nd Quarter 1996.
State Banks.
Page No. 5031................... Applications, Legal Fees, and Other 2nd Quarter 1996.
Expenses.
Page No. 5041................... Consent to Service of Persons Convicted 2nd Quarter 1996.
of Offenses Involving Dishonesty or a
Breach of Trust as Directors, Officers
or Employees of Insured Banks.
Page No. 5075................... Interagency Coordination of Formal 2nd Quarter 1996.
Corrective Action by the Federal Bank
Regulatory Agencies.
Page No. 5077................... Interagency Coordination of Bank Holding 2nd Quarter 1996.
Company Inspections and Subsidiary Bank
Examinations.
Page No. 5079................... Uniform Financial Institutions Rating 2nd Quarter 1996.
System.
Page No. 5081................... Uniform Policy for Classification of 2nd Quarter 1996.
Consumer Installment Credit Based on
Delinquency Status.
Page No. 5105................... Applications to Establish a Domestic 2nd Quarter 1996.
Branch (includes Remote Service
Facilities).
Page No. 5125................... Applications to Relocate Main Office or 2nd Quarter 1996.
Branch (includes Remote Service
Facilities).
Page No. 5155................... Applications Under Section 19 of the 2nd Quarter 1996.
Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
Page No. 5185................... National Environmental Policy Act of 2nd Quarter 1996.
1969.
Page No. 5201................... Interagency Policy Regarding the 2nd Quarter 1996.
Assessment of Civil Money Penalties by
the Federal Financial Institutions
Regulatory Agencies.
Page No. 5217................... FDIC Statement of Policy on Retail 2nd Quarter 1996.
Repurchase Agreements.
Page No. 5237................... Statement Regarding Eligibility to Make 2nd Quarter 1996.
Application to Become an Insured Bank
Under Section 5 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act.
Page No. 5249................... Federal Financial Institutions 2nd Quarter 1996.
Examination Council Supervisory Policy--
Securities Lending.
Page No. 5257................... Federal Financial Institutions 2nd Quarter 1996.
Examination Council Supervisory Policy--
The Sale of U.S. Government Guaranteed
Loans and Sale Premiums.
Page No. 5265................... Federal Financial Institutions 2nd Quarter 1996.
Examination Council Supervisory Policy--
Repurchase Agreements of Depository
Institutions With Securities Dealers
and Others.
Page No. 5299................... Statement of Policy Regarding 2nd Quarter 1996.
Independent External Auditing Programs
of State Nonmember Banks.
Page No. 5349................... Applications for Deposit Insurance...... 2nd Quarter 1996.
Page No. 5057................... Development and Review of FDIC Rules and 3rd Quarter 1996.
Regulations.
Page No. 5035................... Gold.................................... 3rd Quarter 1996.
5 CFR 3202...................... Financial Disclosure Requirements for 3rd Quarter 1996.
Employees of the FDIC.
303............................. Applications, Requests, Submittals, 3rd Quarter 1996.
Delegations of Authority, and Notices
Required to be Filed by Statute or
Regulation.
325............................. Capital Maintenance..................... 3rd Quarter 1996.
Page No. 5067................... Statement of Policy Concerning Interest 3rd Quarter 1996.
Rate Futures Contracts, Forward
Contracts and Standby Contracts.
Page No. 5197................... Uniform Guideline on Internal Control 3rd Quarter 1996.
for Foreign Exchange Activities in
Commercial Banks.
Page No. 5293................... Supervisory Policy Statement on 3rd Quarter 1996.
Securities Activities.
Page No. 5327................... Statement of Policy Regarding Liability 3rd Quarter 1996.
of Commonly Controlled Depository
Institutions.
327............................. Assessments............................. 4th Quarter 1996.
338............................. Fair Housing............................ 4th Quarter 1996.
Page No. 5049................... Administrative Enforcement of the Truth 4th Quarter 1996.
in Lending Act--Restitution.
Page No. 5221................... Equal Credit Opportunity and Fair 4th Quarter 1996.
Housing Acts Enforcement Policy
Statement.
Page No. 5303................... Federal Financial Institutions 4th Quarter 1996.
Examination Council Statement on the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
Page No. 5337................... FFIEC Policy Statement Prescreening by 4th Quarter 1996.
Financial Institutions and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Page No. 5397................... Policy Statement on Discrimination in 4th Quarter 1996.
Lending.
330............................. Deposit Insurance Coverage.............. 4th Quarter 1996.
350............................. Disclosure of Financial and Other 4th Quarter 1996.
Information by FDIC-Insured State
Nonmember Banks.
351............................. International Operations................ 4th Quarter 1996.
365............................. Real Estate Lending Standards........... 4th Quarter 1996.
Page No. 5045................... Income Tax Remittance by Banks to 4th Quarter 1996.
Holding Company Affiliates.
Page No. 5063................... Statement of Policy on Supervision of 4th Quarter 1996.
U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign
Banks.
Page No. 5213................... Uniform Interagency Consumer Compliance 4th Quarter 1996.
Rating System.
Page No. 5302.01................ Statement of Policy Providing Guidance 4th Quarter 1996.
on External Auditing Procedures for
State Nonmember Banks.
Page No. 5359................... Statement of Policy on Foreclosure 4th Quarter 1996.
Consent and Redemption Rights.
Page No. 5367................... Interagency Policy Statement on 4th Quarter 1996.
Coordination and Communication Between
External Auditors and Examiners.
Page No. 5165................... Policy Statement on Community 3rd Quarter 1997.
Reinvestment Act.
Page No. 5205................... Community Reinvestment Act Information 3rd Quarter 1997.
Statement.
Page No. 5227................... Revised Uniform Interagency Community 3rd Quarter 1997.
Reinvestment Act Assessment Rating
System.
Page No. 5309................... Statement of the Federal Financial 3rd Quarter 1997.
Supervisory Agencies Regarding the
Community Reinvestment Act.
Page No. 5339................... Federal Financial Institutions 3rd Quarter 1997.
Examination Council Community
Reinvestment Act Policy Statement on
Analyses of Geographic Distribution of
Lending.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62349]]
Dated: November 28, 1995.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Jerry L. Langley,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-29541 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29535 Income Exclusions in the Supplemental Security Income Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62356-62359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29535]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 416
[Regulation No. 16]
RIN 0960-AE22
Income Exclusions in the Supplemental Security Income Program
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These proposed supplemental security income (SSI) regulations
update existing regulations to reflect the statutory amendment of the
exclusion from income of Alaska Longevity Bonus (ALB) payments. They
also update existing regulations to reflect the statutory exclusion
from income of hostile fire pay received by an SSI claimant or
recipient and reflect the current operating procedure of excluding
hostile fire pay when determining the countable income of an ineligible
spouse or ineligible parent. In addition, they update existing
regulations to reflect the current operating procedure of excluding
impairment-related work expenses, interest on excluded burial funds,
appreciation in the value of excluded burial arrangements, and interest
on the value of excluded burial space purchase agreements, when
determining the countable income of an ineligible spouse or ineligible
parent.
DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive
them no later than February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in writing to the Commissioner
of Social Security, P.O. Box 1585, Baltimore, MD 21235, sent by telefax
to (410) 966-2830, sent by E-mail to ``[email protected]'' or
delivered to 3-B-1 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular
business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry D. Lerner, Legal Assistant, 3-B-
1 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235,
(410) 965-1762.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For purposes of the SSI program, income is
defined in our regulations to mean anything that is received in cash or
in kind which can be used to meet an individual's needs for food,
clothing, or shelter. These proposed regulations include certain
provisions which address items that are excluded from income.
Alaska Longevity Bonus Payments
Under section 1612(b)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act),
Alaska Longevity Bonus (ALB) payments are excluded from income under
certain circumstances.
Originally, the ALB program made monthly payments to residents of
Alaska who had attained age 65 and had lived in the State continuously
for at least 25 years. The SSI income exclusion applied to such
payments if made under a program established before July 1, 1973.
However, following a decision by the Alaska State Supreme Court that
the 25-year residency requirement was unconstitutional, in 1984 the
State legislature changed the residency requirement to 1 year.
Concerns were raised that since the revised (1984) ALB program was
established after July 1, 1973, the controlling date of the original
section 1612(b)(2)(B) provision, payments made under the revised ALB
program could no longer be excluded for SSI purposes. Section 2616 of
Public Law 98-369 was enacted on July 18, 1984 to address those
concerns. Section 2616 amended section 1612(b)(2)(B) of the Act in such
a way as to:
Continue the ALB exclusion for persons who, prior to
October 1985, became eligible for SSI and satisfied the 25-year
residence requirement of the program as in effect prior to January 1,
1983; and
Preclude extending the ALB exclusion to ALB payments based
on the 1-year residency requirement.
Current regulations at Secs. 416.1124(c)(7) and 416.1161(a)(12)
follow the wording of the original statutory exclusion in section
1612(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Regulations at Sec. 416.1124(c)(7) presently
provide for excluding from the income of a claimant or recipient
``[p]eriodic payments made by a State under a program established
before July 1, 1973, and based solely on your length of residence and
attainment of age 65 * * *.'' Regulations at Sec. 416.1161(a)(12)
presently provide for excluding from the income of an ineligible spouse
or ineligible parent ``[p]eriodic payments made by a State under a
program established before July 1, 1973, and based solely on duration
of residence and attainment of age 65 * * *.''
The proposed regulations will change the wording of the above
referenced regulations so that they conform to the 1984 legislation.
The proposed regulatory language will not change
[[Page 62357]]
current operating procedures since those procedures already conform to
the 1984 legislation.
Hostile Fire Pay
Although it is unlikely that an active member of the uniformed
services would apply or be eligible for SSI benefits, some military
service members have spouses and children who apply for and receive SSI
benefits.
Under section 209(d) of the Act, basic pay is the only form of
compensation to members of the uniformed services that is treated as
wages for title II purposes. Under section 1612(a)(1) of the Act,
earned income in the form of wages for SSI purposes is the same as
wages for the title II annual earnings test. Therefore, basic pay is
the only form of military compensation that is treated as wages, and
hence, as earned income, for SSI purposes.
All other forms of compensation to members of the uniformed
services are considered unearned income. These other forms of
compensation include allowances paid in cash for food, clothing, and
shelter; free food, clothing, and shelter; and special and incentive
pay.
One form of special pay is hostile fire pay, which is authorized
under 37 U.S.C. 310. Hostile fire pay is a type of special pay to a
service member who, for any month he/she is entitled to basic pay, is:
Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; or
On duty in an area in which he/she is in imminent danger
of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines, and
While on duty in that area, other service members in the same area
are subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; or
Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of
a hostile mine, or any other hostile action.
Section 13733(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
(OBRA), Pub. L. 103-66, amended section 1612(b) of the Act to exclude
from income any hostile fire pay received in or after October 1993.
Current regulations do not reflect the exclusion from income of
hostile fire pay for eligible individuals, but hostile fire pay has
been excluded under SSI operating procedure since October 1, 1993.
Moreover, under these instructions, such pay has been excluded in
determining the income of ineligible spouses and parents whose income
is deemed to eligible individuals.
In addition to adding to the regulations the statutorily required
exclusion of hostile fire pay from an eligible individual's income, we
propose to include the current operating procedure of excluding hostile
fire pay when determining the countable income of an ineligible spouse
or ineligible parent. The proposed inclusion reflects the statutory
authority granted the Commissioner of Social Security under section
1614(f) (1) and (2) of the Act to waive the deeming of income from an
ineligible spouse or parent to an eligible individual when such deeming
is determined by the Commissioner of Social Security to be inequitable
under the circumstances. By specifically singling out hostile fire pay
for exclusion from an eligible individual's income, Congress expressed
its intent that receipt of these monies should not have an adverse
effect on an individual's SSI eligibility or payment amount. This
intent would not be realized if these monies were deemed to an eligible
individual. The statutory exclusion of hostile fire pay would have
little meaning if not applied to ineligible spouses and parents since,
as noted above, it is unlikely that an active member of the uniformed
services would be eligible for SSI.
Impairment-Related Work Expenses
Impairment-related work expenses (IRWE) are expenses for items or
services which are directly related to enabling a person with a
disability to work and which are necessarily incurred by that
individual because of a physical or mental impairment as explained at
regulations Secs. 404.1576 and 416.976.
Prior to December 1, 1990, in determining countable income, an
individual's IRWE were deducted from his/her earned income once
eligibility was established without using this exclusion. Effective
December 1, 1990, section 5033 of Public Law 101-508 amended section
1612(b)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act and liberalized the IRWE exclusion. The
legislation allows an individual to use the IRWE exclusion to establish
eligibility.
Regulations at Sec. 416.1112(c)(6) recently have been revised to
implement changes enacted by section 5033 of Public Law 101-508. These
regulatory revisions were published in the Federal Register on August
12, 1994, at 59 FR 41400, 41405.
Regulations at Sec. 416.1161(a) list the types of income that are
excluded from the income of an ineligible spouse and ineligible parent
for deeming purposes. IRWE are not included in this list, but IRWE have
been excluded from the income of ineligible spouses and ineligible
parents under SSI operating procedures since 1990.
We propose to add to the regulations the current operating
procedure which is to exclude IRWE when determining the countable
income of an ineligible spouse or ineligible parent for deeming
purposes. By specifically singling out IRWE for exclusion from an
eligible individual's income, Congress expressed its intent that
receipt of these monies should not have an adverse effect on an
individual's SSI eligibility or payment amount. This intent would not
be realized if these monies were deemed to an eligible individual. The
proposed regulations would reflect the statutory authority granted the
Commissioner of Social Security under section 1614(f) (1) and (2) of
the Act to waive the deeming of income from an ineligible spouse or
parent to an eligible individual when such deeming is determined by the
Commissioner of Social Security to be inequitable under the
circumstances.
Interest and Appreciation in Value of Excluded Burial Funds and Burial
Space Purchase Agreements
Effective November 1, 1982, section 185 of Public Law 97-248
amended the Act to provide that any interest earned on excluded burial
funds and any appreciation in the value of excluded burial arrangements
left to accumulate, may be excluded from income by regulation.
Effective April 1, 1990, section 8013 of Pub. L. 101-239 amended the
Act to provide that interest earned on the value of agreements
representing the purchase of excluded burial spaces is excluded from
income if left to accumulate.
Regulations at Sec. 416.1124(c)(9) implement the exclusion of
interest earned on excluded burial funds and appreciation in the value
of excluded burial arrangements, effective November 1, 1982.
Regulations at Sec. 416.1124(c)(15) implement the exclusion of any
interest earned on the value of agreements representing the purchase of
excluded burial spaces, effective April 1, 1990.
Regulations at Sec. 416.1161(a) (relating to the treatment of
income of an ineligible spouse or ineligible parent) do not apply these
exclusions for purposes of deeming income, but both types of interest
and appreciation have been excluded from the income of ineligible
spouses and ineligible parents under SSI operating procedure.
We propose to add to the regulations the current operating
procedure which is to exclude interest on burial funds, appreciation in
the value of burial arrangements, and interest on the value of burial
space purchase agreements,
[[Page 62358]]
that are excluded from resources, when determining the countable income
of an ineligible spouse or ineligible parent. The proposed regulations
would reflect the statutory authority granted the Commissioner of
Social Security under section 1614(f) (1) and (2) of the Act to waive
the deeming of income from an ineligible spouse or parent to an
eligible individual when such deeming is determined by the Commissioner
of Social Security to be inequitable under the circumstances. By
specifically singling out these monies for exclusion from an eligible
individual's income, Congress expressed its intent that receipt of
these monies should not have an adverse effect on an individual's SSI
eligibility or payment amount. This intent would not be realized if
these monies were deemed to an eligible individual.
We are making a technical change to conform the language of
Sec. 416.1124(c)(9) to a prior policy change. Effective July 11, 1990,
changes related to the SSI burial fund exclusion were published in the
Federal Register at 55 FR 28373-77. As a result of these changes,
regulations at Sec. 416.1231(b)(1) were amended to require that
excluded burial funds be kept separate from all other resources not
intended for the burial of the individual or spouse. Furthermore,
section 416.1231(b)(7) was revised to provide that interest earned on
excluded burial funds and appreciation in the value of excluded burial
arrangements are excluded from resources if left to accumulate and
become part of the separate burial fund.
Current regulations at Sec. 416.1124(c)(9) provide that we will not
count as income interest earned on excluded burial funds and any
appreciation in the value of an excluded burial arrangement which are
left to accumulate and become part of the separately identifiable
burial fund. We are conforming this regulation to the prior regulatory
change requiring the burial fund to be separate from other nonburial-
related assets and not merely separately identifiable.
The electronic file of this document is available on the Federal
Bulletin Board (FBB) at 9 a.m. on the date of publication in the
Federal Register. To download the file, modem dial (202) 512-1387. The
FBB instructions will explain how to download the file and the fee.
This file is in WordPerfect format and will remain on the FBB during
the comment period.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget and
determined that these rules do not meet the criteria for a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that these rules will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities since these rules
affect only individuals. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis
as provided in Public Law 96-354, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is
not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These regulations will impose no additional reporting and
recordkeeping requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget
clearance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance: Program No. 96.006-
Supplemental Security Income.)
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 416
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability
benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Approved: November 27, 1995.
Shirley Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 416, subpart K, of
chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 416--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND
DISABLED
Subpart K--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart K of part 416 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1602, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614(f),
1621, and 1631 of the Social Security Act; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5),
1381a, 1382, 1382a, 1382b, 1382c(f), 1382j, and 1383; sec. 211 of
Pub. L. 93-66 (87 Stat 154).
2. Section 416.1124 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(7) and
(c)(9), by removing the ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(15) and the
period at the end of paragraph (c)(16) and by adding ``; and'' at the
end of paragraph (c)(16) and new paragraph (c)(19) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.1124 Unearned income we do not count.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) Alaska Longevity Bonus payments made to an individual who is a
resident of Alaska and who, prior to October 1, 1985: met the 25 year
residency requirement for receipt of such payments in effect prior to
January 1, 1983; and, was eligible for SSI;
* * * * *
(9) Any interest earned on excluded burial funds and any
appreciation in the value of an excluded burial arrangement which are
left to accumulate and become a part of the separate burial fund. (See
Sec. 416.1231 for an explanation of the exclusion of burial assets.)
This exclusion from income applies to interest earned on burial funds
or appreciation in the value of excluded burial arrangements which
occur beginning November 1, 1982, or the date you first become eligible
for SSI benefits, if later;
* * * * *
(19) Hostile fire pay received from one of the uniformed services
pursuant to 37 U.S.C. 310.
3. Section 416.1161 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(12), by
removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(20) and adding a semi-
colon in its place and by adding new paragraphs (a)(23), (a)(24) and
(a)(25) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.1161 Income of an ineligible spouse, ineligible parent, and
essential person for deeming purposes.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(12) Alaska Longevity Bonus payments made to an individual who is a
resident of Alaska and who, prior to October 1, 1985: met the 25 year
residency requirement for receipt of such payments in effect prior to
January 1, 1983; and, was eligible for SSI;
* * * * *
(23) Hostile fire pay received from one of the uniformed services
pursuant to 37 U.S.C. 310;
(24) Impairment-related work expenses, as described in
Sec. 404.1576 of part 404, incurred and paid by an ineligible spouse or
parent, if the ineligible spouse or parent receives disability benefits
under title II of the Act; and
(25) Interest earned on excluded burial funds and appreciation in
the value of excluded burial arrangements which are left to accumulate
and become part of separate burial funds, and interest accrued on and
left to accumulate as part of the value of
[[Page 62359]]
excluded agreements representing the purchase of excluded burial spaces
(see Sec. 416.1124(c) (9) and (15)).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-29535 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29533 Living In The Same Household And The Lump-Sum Death Payment
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62354-62356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29533]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 404
[Regulation No. 4]
RIN 0960-AE20
Living In The Same Household And The Lump-Sum Death Payment
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to revise our rules on ``living in the same
household'' (LISH) and the lump-sum death payment (LSDP) to bring them
into accord with legislation that restricted the payment of the LSDP.
This revision will include the removal from our regulations of several
outdated sections and paragraphs. We also propose to incorporate into
our rules the policy established previously in a Social Security Ruling
(SSR) that interpreted the definition of LISH to allow for extended
separations that are based solely on medical reasons.
DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive
them no later than February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in writing to the Commissioner
of Social Security, P.O. Box 1585, Baltimore, MD 21235, sent by telefax
to (410) 966-2830, sent by E-mail to ``[email protected]'', or
delivered to the Division of Regulations and Rulings, Social Security
Administration, 3-B-1 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235, between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. on regular
business days. Comments may be inspected during these same hours by
making arrangements with the contact person shown below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Bridgewater, Legal
Assistant, Division of Regulations and Rulings, Social Security
Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)
965-3298 for information about these rules. For information on
eligibility or claiming benefits, call our national toll-free number,
1-800-772-1213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Prior to passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981,
Public Law (Pub. L.) 97-35, the widow(er) of a deceased worker could
qualify for the LSDP if he/she had been LISH with the deceased at the
time of death or, under certain conditions, if he/she paid the burial
expenses of the deceased. Thus, a widow(er) who was not LISH with the
deceased could still receive the LSDP if he/she paid the deceased's
burial expenses.
Public Law 97-35 redefined who could qualify for the LSDP.
Effective September 1, 1981, the LSDP no longer was payable to any
individuals, other than those described in Pub. L. 97-35, or to funeral
homes.
Under Public Law 97-35, the LSDP is payable to 3 categories of
individuals: (1) the surviving spouse of the deceased who was LISH with
the deceased at the time of death; (2) a person who is entitled to (or
was eligible for) benefits as a widow(er) or mother or father on the
deceased's earnings record for the month of death; or (3) a child of
the deceased who is entitled to (or was eligible for) benefits on the
deceased's earnings record for the month of death.
For those widow(ers) who were not LISH, a possible anomaly was
created by the LSDP limitations in Public Law 97-35 and existing
regulations. An example of such an anomaly is the following situation.
A worker had been living in a nursing home for 3 years prior to his
death because his wife was unable to provide the daily medical care he
needed. Until
[[Page 62355]]
his death, the worker was visited frequently by his wife, who lived in
the house to which the worker would have returned if he were able. The
widow was receiving a Retirement Insurance Benefit (RIB) which exceeded
her late husband's Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). Based on Pub. L. 97-
35 and a strict interpretation of the regulatory definition of LISH,
this widow would not qualify for the LSDP because she was neither LISH
nor entitled to benefits based on her late husband's earnings record.
(However, if the widow's RIB did not exceed her late husband's PIA, she
would qualify for the LSDP.)
Present Policy
Operating instructions, as well as most of the pertinent regulatory
sections, have been changed to reflect the changes in the law
established by Public Law 97-35. To qualify as a LISH spouse, the
widow(er) and the deceased must have ``customarily lived together as
husband and wife in the same residence'' (Sec. 404.347). While
temporary separations do not necessarily preclude the Social Security
Administration (SSA) from considering a couple to be LISH, extended
separations (including most that last 6 months or more) generally
indicate the couple was not LISH.
However, in order to avoid the possible anomaly discussed above,
SSR 82-50 was issued to provide for an exception when an extended
separation is based solely on medical reasons. SSR 82-50 states:
If a husband and wife are (or were) separated and continue(d) to
be separated, solely for medical reasons, SSA may consider them to
be living in the same household even if the separation is (or was)
likely to be permanent and there is (or was) little or no
expectation of the parties again physically residing together. As
long as the spouse who is now applying for the LSDP or spouse's
benefits based on a deemed marriage has continued to demonstrate
strong personal and/or financial concern for the worker, SSA will
assume they would have lived together (absent evidence to the
contrary) had the medical reasons not necessitated their separation,
and will pay the LSDP or spouse's benefits to the spouse.
Proposed Policy
Since there are still some sections of our regulations that refer
to the law on entitlement to the LSDP which predated Public Law 97-35
and since these sections no longer are applicable, we propose to update
or remove them. We will eliminate obsolete Secs. 404.393, 404.394,
404.395, and 404.765, 404.3(a), 404.612(e), 404.615(b), and 404.2
(a)(2) through (a)(6).
Also, we propose to incorporate the LISH policy interpretation
found in SSR 82-50 into our regulations. The proposed policy
interpretation will clearly allow for extended separations due to the
confinement of either spouse in a nursing home, hospital, or other
medical institution. As long as evidence indicates the husband and wife
were initially separated, and continue to be separated, solely for
medical reasons and would otherwise have resided together, they will be
considered to be LISH.
Electronic Version
The electronic file of this document is available on the Federal
Bulletin Board (FBB) at 9 a.m. on the date of publication in the
Federal Register. To download the file, modem dial (202) 512-1387. The
FBB instructions will explain how to download the file and the fee.
This file is in WordPerfect and will remain on the FBB during the
comment period.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and determined that these proposed rules do not meet the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, they
were not subject to OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that these proposed rules will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since these
rules affect only individuals. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility
analysis as provided in Pub. L. 96-354, the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These proposed rules impose no additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB clearance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001 Social
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security--Retirement
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security--Survivors Insurance)
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
Dated: November 27, 1995.
Shirley S. Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, subparts A, D, G, and H of
part 404 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
(1950- )
Subpart A--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart A of part 404 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 203, 205(a), 216(j), and 702(a)(5) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 203, 405(a), 416(j), and 902(a)(5)).
Sec. 404.2 [Amended]
2. Section 404.2 is amended by removing paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(6) and redesignating paragraph (a)(7) as paragraph (a)(2).
Sec. 404.3 [Amended]
3. Section 404.3 is amended by removing paragraph (a) and
redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively.
Subpart D--[Amended]
4. The authority citation for subpart D of part 404 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 203 (a) and (b), 205(a), 216, 223, 225,
228(a)-(e), and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402,
403 (a) and (b), 405(a), 416, 423, 425, 428(a)-(e), and 902(a)(5)).
5. Section 404.347 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 404.347 ``Living in the same household'' defined.
Living in the same household means that you and the insured
customarily lived together as husband and wife in the same residence.
You may be considered to be living in the same household although one
of you is temporarily absent from the residence. An absence will be
considered temporary if:
(a) It was due to service in the U.S. Armed Forces;
(b) It was 6 months or less and neither you nor the insured were
outside of the United States during this time and the absence was due
to business, employment, or confinement in a hospital, nursing home,
other medical institution, or a penal institution;
(c) It was for an extended separation, regardless of the duration,
due to the confinement of either you or the insured in a hospital,
nursing home, or other medical institution, if the evidence indicates
that you were separated solely for medical reasons and you otherwise
would have resided together; or
(d) It was based on other circumstances, and it is shown that you
and the insured reasonably could have
[[Page 62356]]
expected to live together in the near future.
6. Section 404.390 is amended by revising the second sentence to
read as follows:
Sec. 404.390 General.
* * * If the insured is not survived by a widow(er) who meets this
requirement, all or part of the $255 payment may be made to someone
else as described in Sec. 404.392.
7. Section 404.392 is amended by revising the section heading and
the introductory text of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 404.392 Who is entitled to the lump-sum death payment when there
is no widow(er) who was living in the same household.
(a) General. If the insured individual is not survived by a
widow(er) who meets the requirements of Sec. 404.391, the lump-sum
death payment shall be paid as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 404.393 [Removed]
8. Section 404.393 is removed.
Sec. 404.394 [Removed]
9. Section 404.394 is removed.
Sec. 404.395 [Removed]
10. Section 404.395 is removed.
Subpart G--[Amended]
11. The authority citation for subpart G of part 404 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202 (i), (j), (o), (p), and (r), 205(a),
216(i)(2), 223(b), 228(a), and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 402 (i), (j), (o), (p), and (r), 405(a), 416(i)(2),
423(b), 428(a), and 902(a)(5)).
Sec. 404.612 [Amended]
12. Section 404.612 is amended by removing paragraph (e) and
redesignating paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs (e), (f), and
(g), respectively.
Sec. 404.615 [Amended]
13. Section 404.615 is amended by removing paragraph (b) and
redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c),
respectively.
Subpart H--[Amended]
14. The authority citation for subpart H of part 404 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 205(a) and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 405(a) and 902(a)(5)).
Sec. 404.765 [Removed]
15. Section 404.765 is removed.
[FR Doc. 95-29533 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29351 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; North Las Vegas Air Terminal, NV.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62351-62352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29351]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-41]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; North Las Vegas Air
Terminal, NV.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish a Class E airspace area at
North Las Vegas Air Terminal, Las Vegas, NV. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 12 has made this proposal necessary. The
intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled
airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at North Las
Vegas Air Terminal, Las Vegas, NV.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Attn: Manager, System Management Branch, AWP-
530, Docket No. 95-AWP-41, Air Traffic Division, PO Box 92007, Worldway
Postal Center, Los Angeles, California, 90009.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Western Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 6007, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business at
the Office of the Manger, System Management Branch, Air Traffic
Division at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Speer, Airspace Specialist, System Management Branch, AWP-530,
Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation
[[Page 62352]]
Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261,
telephone (310)-725-6533.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comment Invited
Interest parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
AWP-41.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in the light of comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic
Division, at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, both
before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing
each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
System Management Branch, P.O. Box 92007, Worldway Postal Center, Los
Angeles, California 90009. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish a Class E airspace
area at North Law Vegas Air Terminal, Las Vegas NV. The development of
a GPS SIAP at North Las Vegas Air Terminal has made this proposal
necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate
Class E airspace for aircraft executing the GPS RWY 12 SIAP at North
Las Vegas Air Terminal, Las Vegas, NV. Class E airspace designations
for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the
surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
this Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 10034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.09C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth
* * * * *
AWP NV E5 North Las Vegas Air Terminal, NV [New]
North Las Vegas Air Terminal, NV
(Lat. 36 deg.12'45'' N, long. 115 deg.11'49'' W).
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of the North Las Vegas Air Terminal,
excluding that portion within the Las Vegas, NV, Class B airspace
area.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on November 16, 1995.
James H. Snow,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 95-29351 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29250 Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62366-62369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29250]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180 and 186
[PP 3F4169 and FAP 3H5655/P628; FRL-4971-7]
RIN 2070-AC18
Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish permanent tolerances for residues of
the insecticide (1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine) (also known as imidacloprid) and it metabolites in
or on cottonseed and cotton gin byproducts, to revoke the existing feed
additive tolerance for imidacloprid on cotton meal, and to establish a
maximum residue limit for imidacloprid on cottonseed meal. Bayer Corp.
(formerly Miles, Inc.) submitted petitions pursuant to the Federal
Food, Drug Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requesting these regulations to
establish certain maximum permissible levels for residues of the
insecticide.
DATES: Comments, identified by the document control number, [PP 3F4169
and FAP 3H5655/P628], must be received on or before January 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Information submitted
as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set fourth 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed
publicly by EPA without prior notice. All Written comments will be
available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the addressed given
above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
[[Page 62367]]
Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII format. All comments and data in electronic form
must be identified by the docket number [PP 3F4169 and FAP 3H5655/
P628]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted
through e-mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed
online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on
electronic submissions can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Dennis H. Edwards, Jr.,
Product Manager (PM) 19, Registration Division (7505C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 207, CM
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-6386; e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Pursuant to petitions from Miles, Inc., EPA issued final rules
establishing pesticide tolerances under section 408 of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, for residues of
the insecticide (1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine, in or on the raw agricultural commodities apples at
0.5 part per million (ppm), potatoes at 0.3 ppm, and cottonseed at 6.0
ppm. Based on a feed additive petition (FAP) 3H5655 from Miles, Inc.,
EPA established food or feed additive regulations under FFDCA section
409, 21 U.S.C. 348, for the combined residues of imidacloprid and its
metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as
imidacloprid, on apple pomace (wet or dried) at 3 ppm, on potato chips
at 0.4 ppm, on potato waste at 0.9 ppm, and on cottonseed meal at 9.0
ppm. The tolerances for cottonseed and cottonseed meal were established
as time-limited tolerances and are due to expire on November 30, 1996
(see the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61278)).
The reason the cottonseed and cottonseed meal tolerances were
established as 2-year time-limited tolerances was to enable Bayer to
complete additional cotton residue trials and present a final report.
On June 2, 1994, the Agency issued a guidance document on crop residue
trials. Among other things, this document provided guidance on the
number and location of domestic crop field trials for establishment of
pesticide residue trials. Based on this guidance document, the Agency
determined that additional residue trials were needed and residue data
on gin trash were required to fully support the cotton tolerances.
On March 31, 1995, Bayer submitted the additional residue studies.
A request was also submitted to establish a tolerance for cotton gin
byproducts. These data have been reviewed and determined to be adequate
to support both the proposed cotton gin byproducts tolerance and the
removal of the expiration date for the cottonseed and cottonseed meal
tolerances.
EPA, however, has determined a section 409 feed additive tolerance
is no longer necessary to prevent cottonseed meal from being deemed
adulterated, and, therfore, EPA is preparing to revoke the cottonseed
meal tolerance. Addtionally, EPA is proposing to establish a maximum
residue limit for imidacloprid residues in cottonseed meal to simipifly
enforcement.
II. Statutory Background
The FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., authorizes the establishment by
regulation of maximum permissible levels of pesticides in foods. Such
regulations are commonly referred to as ``tolerances.'' Without such a
tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, a food
containing a pesticide residue is ``adulterated'' under section 402 of
the FFDCA and may not be legally moved in interstate commerce. 21
U.S.C. 331, 342. EPA was authorized to establish pesticide tolerances
under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. 5 U.S.C. App. at 1343 (1988).
Monitoring and enforcement of pesticide tolerances are carried out by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
The FFDCA has separate provisions for tolerances for pesticide
residues on raw agricultural commodities and for residues on processed
food. For pesticide residues in or on raw commodities, EPA establishes
tolerances, or exemptions from tolerances when appropriate, under
section 408 of the act. 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA regulates pesticide
residues in processed foods under section 409 which pertains to ``food
additives.'' 21 U.S.C. 348. Maximum residue regulations established
under section 409 are commonly referred to as food additive tolerances.
Section 409 food additive tolerances are needed, however, only for
certain pesticide residues in processed food. Under section 402(a)(2)
of the FFDCA, a pesticide residue in processed food will not render the
food adulterated if the residue results from application of the
pesticide to a raw commodity consistent with a section 408 tolerance
and the residue in the processed food when ``ready to eat'' has been
removed to the extent possible by good manufacturing processes and is
below the tolerance set under section 408. This exemption in section
402(a)(2) is commonly referred to as the ``flow-through'' provision
because it allows the section 408 raw food tolerance to flow through to
the processed food form.
III. Proposed Removal of Expiration Date from Cottonseed Tolerance
and Establishment of Cotton Gin Byproduct Tolerance
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated regarding the Miles' request to remove the
expiration date from the cottonseed tolerance and to establish a
tolerance for cotton gin byproducts. The toxicological data considered
in support of the tolerance include:
1. A three-generation rat reproduction study with a no-observed-
effect level (NOEL) of 100 ppm (8 mg/kg/bwt); rat and rabbit teratology
studies were negative at doses up to 30 mg/kg/ bwt and 24 mg/kg/bwt,
respectively.
2. A 2-year rat feeding/carcinogenicity study that was negative for
carcinogenic effects under the conditions of the study and had a NOEL
of 100 ppm (5.7 mg/kg/bwt in male and 7.6 mg/kg/bwt female) for
noncarcinogenic effects that included decreased body weight gain in
females at 300 ppm and increased thyroid lesions in males at 300 ppm
and females at 900 ppm.
3. A 1-year dog feeding study with a NOEL of 1,250 ppm (41/mg/kg/
bwt).
4. A 2-year mouse carcinogenicity study that was negative for
carcinogenic effects under conditions of the study and that had a NOEL
of 1,000 ppm (208/mg/kg/day).
There is no cancer risk associated with exposure to this chemical.
Imidacloprid has been classified under ``Group E'' (no evidence of
carcinogenicity for humans) under EPA's cancer Assessment Guidelines by
the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Reference Dose (RFD) Committee.
The reference dose (RfD), based on the 2-year rat feeding/
carcinogenic study with a NOEL of 5.7 mg/kg/bwt and 100-fold
uncertainty factor, is calculated to be 0.057 mg/kg/bwt. The
theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) from published uses is
0.008088 mg/kg/day. This represents 14% of the RfD for the overall U.S.
population. For exposure of the most highly exposured subgroup in the
population, children
[[Page 62368]]
(ages 1 to 6 years), the TMRC is 0.016735 mg/kg/day. This is equal to
30% of RfD. The proposed cotton gin byproduct tolerance will not
increase the TMRC. Dietary exposure from the existing uses and proposed
uses will not exceed the reference dose for any subpopulation
(including infants and children) based on the information available
from EPA's Dietary Risk Evaluation System.
The nature of the residue in plants and livestock is adequately
understood. The residues of concern are imidacloprid and its
metabolites that contain the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all calculated
as imidacloprid. The analytical methods are common moiety methods for
imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety using permanganate oxidation, silyl derivatization, and
capillary GC-MS selective ion monitoring. Adequate geographically
representative magnitude of the residue crop field trial data for
imidacloprid on cotton indicate that residues of total imidacloprid
will not exceed the proposed tolerances when the formulation is used as
directed. Based on the results of the imidacloprid bovine and poultry
feeding studies, finite imidacloprid residues will occur in meat, milk,
poultry, and eggs from feeding of imidacloprid-treated feed items, or
their processed feed items, when the formulations are used as directed.
Appropriate secondary tolerances are established.
There are currently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
This pesticide is considered useful for the purposes for which the
tolerances are sought. Based on the information and data considered,
the Agency has determined that the tolerances established by amending
40 CFR part 180 would protect the public health. Therefore, it is
proposed that the tolerances be established as set forth below.
IV. Proposed Revocation of the Feed Additive Tolerance for
Cottonseed Meal
In June 1995 (60 FR 31300, June 14, 1995), EPA issued a revised
policy concerning when section 409 food and feed additive tolerances
were needed to prevent the adulteration of foods and animal feeds.
Under EPA's revised policy, a section 409 tolerance is necessary for
pesticide residues in processed food when it is likely that the level
of some residues of the pesticide will exceed the section 408 tolerance
level in ``ready to eat'' processed food. Of particular relevance to
the imidacloprid feed additive tolerance is EPA's decision to interpret
the term ``ready to eat'' processed food as food ready for consumption
``as is'' without further preparation. For foods that are found to be
not ``ready to eat,'' EPA takes into account the dilution of residues
that occurs in preparing a ``ready to eat'' food.
EPA has determined that cottonseed meal is not a ``ready to eat''
animal feed. EPA has found no evidence that cottonseed meal is fed to
livestock as a stand-alone feedstock. Rather, cottonseed meal is used
as an ingredient in animal feeds. As such, cottonseed meal can
constitute up to 50 percent of an animal feed.
The section 408 tolerance for imadicloprid on cottonseed is 6 parts
per million (ppm). The highest residue found in crop field trials for
imidacloprid on cotton was 5.2 ppm. A processing study showed that in
producing cottonseed meal residues concentrated 50 percent (a
concentration factor of 1.5X). Thus, given this information, it is
likely that imadicloprid residues of 7.8 ppm (1.5 X 5.2) could occur in
cottonseed meal. However, to project what residues are likely in
``ready to eat'' animal feed containing cottonseed meal the 7.8 ppm
level must be divided by 2 to allow for dilution occurring when
cottonseed meal is added to other ingredients in the preparation of
animal feed. Once this dilution is taken into account, the likely
residue of imidacloprid in animal feed would not be expected to exceed
3.9 ppm. Since this is below the section 408 tolerance level, animal
feed containing such residue levels would not be adulterated, and no
section 409 tolerance is needed. Accordingly, EPA proposes to revoke
the section 409 feed additive tolerance for imidacloprid in cottonseed
meal.
V. Proposed Establishment of a Maximum Residue Level of
Imidacloprid Residues in Cottonseed Meal
In the June 1995 policy announcement, EPA noted that it generally
would establish maximum residue levels (MRLs) under FFDCA section 701
for not-ready-to-eat foods where such foods could contain residues
exceeding the section 408 tolerance. EPA's rationale was that such MRLs
are important to the efficient enforcement of the FFDCA. It is far less
resource intensive for FDA and USDA, which are the Federal agencies
which regulate pesticide residue levels in foods, to monitor residue
levels in the bulk commodities used in preparing ready-to-eat foods
than in the myriad of ready-to-eat foods manufactured from such
commodities.
MRLs will enforce the statutory requirements that, where no food
additive tolerance has been established, pesticide residues in
processed food resulting from application of the pesticide to the
precursor raw commodity render the food adulterated unless the
pesticide was used in conformity with the applicable section 408
tolerance and the pesticide residue has been removed to the extent
possible in good manufacturing practice. 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C). Thus,
MRLs will reflect the maximum residue in processed food consistent with
a legal level of residues being present on the precursor raw commodity
and the use of good manufacturing practices. Processed foods not in
compliance with an applicable MRL will be deemed adulterated under
section 402 of the act.
EPA will compute the MRL by multiplying the maximum residue found
in the raw commodity in field trials by the concentration factor
determined in processing studies using good manufacturing practices. As
noted, the maximum residue from the imidacloprid field trials is 5.2
ppm and the concentration factor for processing is 1.5X. Multiplying
5.2 ppm by 1.5 yields a product of 7.8 ppm. EPA believes it is
appropriate to round 7.8 ppm up to 8 ppm and proposes 8 ppm as the MRL
for imidacloprid residues in cottonseed meal. For purposes of
enforcement of the MRL, the same analytical method used for enforcement
of the section 408 tolerances should be used.
EPA is proposing to place this MRL in existing part 186 of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations rather than creating a new part of
title 40. Currently, 40 CFR part 186 contains section 409 feed additive
tolerances organized by pesticide. EPA believes it will be clearer to
the regulated community and to enforcement personnel if all regulations
pertaining to residue levels of a pesticide in animal feeds are located
in the same part of the Code of Federal Regulations. Because EPA is
proposing to expand the type of regulation that would be included in
part 186, EPA proposes modifying the title of part 186 to ``Pesticides
in Animal Feeds'' to reflect that change.
VI. Public Participation
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after
[[Page 62369]]
publication of this document in the Federal Register that the portion
of this rulemaking proposal concerning establishment, amendment, or
revocation of tolerances under section 408 be referred to an Advisory
Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulations. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number, [PP 3F4169 and FAP 35655/P628]. All written
comments filed in response to this petition will be available in the
Public Response and Program Resources Branch, at the address given
above from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal
holidays.
VII. Administrative Matters
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950). EPA has treated
regulations simular to the establishment of tolerances as also not
having a significant economic impact on substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, the proposed MRL is not expected to have such
impact.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 180 and 186
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Pesticides and pests,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 9, 1995.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR parts 180 and 186 be amended
as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. In part 180:
a. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
b. In Sec. 180.472, by amending paragraph (a) by adding and
alphabetically inserting the following new entries and by removing
paragraph (b) and designating it as reserved, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.472 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................... 4
Cottonseed................................................. 6
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
PART 186--[AMENDED]
2. In part 186:
a. By revising the title of part 186 to read as follows:
Part 186--Pesticides in Animal Feed
b. The authority citation for part 186 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 348, and 701.
c. In Sec. 186.900, by revising paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 186.900 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolinimine.
* * * * *
(b) A maximum residue level regulation is established for residues
of the insecticide 1-[(6-choro-3-pryidinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine in or on the following feed resulting from
application of the insecticide to cotton:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Food million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cottonseed meal............................................ 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This regulation reflects the maximum level of residues in cottonseed
meal consistent with use of 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl) methyl]-N-nitro-
2-imidazolidinimine on cotton in conformity with Sec. 180.472 of this
chapter and with the use of good manufacturing practices.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-29250 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28761 Proposed Rule: Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62662-62692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28761]
[[Page 62661]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Consumer Product Safety Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
16 CFR Part 1203
Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62662]]
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1203
Proposed Rule: Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Children's Bicycle Helmet Safety Act of 1994,
the Commission is proposing a safety standard that would require
bicycle helmets to meet impact-attenuation and other requirements. This
proposal modifies the bicycle helmet standard proposed by the
Commission in the Federal Register of August 15, 1994.
The proposed standard establishes requirements derived from one or
more of the voluntary standards applicable to bicycle helmets. In
addition, the proposed standard includes requirements specifically
applicable to children's helmets and requirements to prevent helmets
from coming off during an accident. The proposed standard also contains
testing and recordkeeping requirements to ensure that bicycle helmets
meet the standard's requirements.
DATES: Comments on the proposal should be submitted no later than
February 20, 1996.
Comments on elements of the proposal that, if issued, would
constitute collection of information requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act may be filed with the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB''). OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
collections of information contained in the proposed rule between 30
and 60 days after publication. Thus, although comments will be received
by OMB until February 5, 1996, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments to the Commission should be mailed to the Office of
the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C.
20207, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland
20814-4408, telephone (301)504-0800. Comments also may be filed with
the Commission by facsimile to (301)504-0127, or by electronic mail via
[email protected]. Comments should include a caption or cover indicating
that they are directed to the Office of the Secretary and are comments
on the revised proposed Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets.
Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, D.C. 20503. The Commission
encourages commenters to provide copies of such comments to the
Commission's Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover letter
identifying the materials as comments submitted to OMB on the proposed
collection of information requirements for bicycle helmets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Heh, Project Manager,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301) 504-0494 ext. 1308.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Introduction and Background
Introduction. In this notice, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (``the Commission'' or ``CPSC'') proposes a mandatory safety
standard applicable to bicycle helmets.1 This proposal modifies
the bicycle helmet standard proposed by the Commission in the Federal
Register of August 15, 1994. 59 FR 41719.
\1\The Commission approved this Federal Register notice by a
vote of 2-1. Chairman Ann Brown and Commissioner Thomas H. Moore
voted to approve it as published. Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall
voted to approve the proposed rule with a change, which was not
adopted by the Commission, to give companies more time to comply
with agency requests for records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission seeks comments from interested members of the public
on the revised proposed standard. Comments should be limited to those
aspects of the proposed standard that have changed substantively from
the earlier proposal, or that are affected by a substantive change.
Because of the growing use of helmets, other nations may be
developing or revising safety standards for bicycle helmets.
Accordingly, the Commission invites comments from counterpart agencies
in foreign governments, foreign standards developers, and others who
might be interested in this proposed standard. This invitation is in
addition to the routine international notification of this proposed
rule that is provided by the World Trade Organization Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade.
Background. Head injury is a leading cause of accidental death and
disability among children in the United States, resulting in over
100,000 hospitalizations every year. Studies have shown that children
under the age of 14 are more likely to sustain head injuries than
adults, and that children's head injuries are often more severe than
those sustained by adults.
In general, head injuries fall under one of two main categories--
focal and diffuse. Focal injuries are limited to the area of impact,
and include injuries such as contusions, hematomas, lacerations, and
fractures. Diffuse brain injuries (also known as diffuse axonal injury)
involve trauma to the neural and vascular elements of the brain at the
microscopic level. The effects of such diffuse damage may vary from a
completely reversible injury, such as a mild concussion, to prolonged
coma and death.
Based on data from CPSC's National Electronic Injury Surveillance
System (``NEISS''), an estimated 606,000 bicycle-related injuries were
treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms in 1994. In addition, about
1,000 bicycle-related fatalities occur each year, according to the
National Safety Council.
A Commission study of bicycle use and hazard patterns in 1993
indicated that almost one-third of the injuries involved the
head.2 Published data indicate that, in recent years, almost two-
thirds of all bicycle-related deaths involved head injury.3
\2\Gregory B. Rodgers, Deborah K. Tinsworth, Curtis Polen,
Suzanne Cassidy, Celestine M. Trainor, Scott R. Heh, Mary F.
Donaldson, ``Bicycle Use and Hazard Patterns in the United States,''
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (June 1994) (``Bicycle Use
Study'').
\3\Jeffrey J. Sachs, MPH; Patricia Holmgreen, M.S.; Suzanne M.
Smith, M.D.; and Daniel M. Sosin, M.D., ``Bicycle-Associated Head
Injuries and Deaths in the United States from 1984 through 1988,''
Journal of the American Medical Association 266 (December 1991):
3016-3018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Younger children are at particular risk of head injury. The
Commission's 1993 study indicated that when other factors were held
constant statistically, the injury risk for children under age 15 was
over 5 times the risk for older riders. About one-half of the injuries
to children under the age of 10 involved the head, compared to about
one-fifth of the injuries to older riders. Children were also less
likely to have been wearing a helmet at the time of a bicycle-related
incident than were adults.
Research has shown that helmets may reduce the risk of head injury
to bicyclists by about 85 percent, and the risk of brain injury by
about 88 percent.4 The Commission's Bicycle Use Study
[[Page 62663]]
found that about 18 percent of bicyclists wear helmets.5
\4\Robert S. Thompson, M.D.; Frederic P. Rivara, M.D.; and Diane
C. Thompson, M.S., ``A Case Control Study of the Effectiveness of
Bicycle Safety Helmets,'' The New England Journal of Medicine 320
(May 1989): 1361-1367.
\5\Supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 16, 1994, the Children's Bicycle Helmet Safety Act of 1994
(the ``Act'' or ``the Bicycle Helmet Safety Act'') was enacted. 15
U.S.C. 6001-6006. Section 205 of this Act provides that bicycle helmets
manufactured more than 9 months from that date shall conform to at
least one of the following interim safety standards: (1) The American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard designated as Z90.4-1984,
(2) the Snell Memorial Foundation standard designated as B-90, (3) the
ASTM (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) standard
designated as F 1447, or (4) any other standard that the Commission
determines is appropriate. 15 U.S.C. 6004 (a)-(b). On March 23, 1995,
the Commission published its determination that five additional
voluntary safety standards for bicycle helmets are appropriate as
interim mandatory standards. 60 FR 15,231. These standards are ASTM F
1447-1994, Snell B-90S, N-94, and B-95, and the Canadian voluntary
standard CAN/CSA-D113.2-M89. In that notice, the Commission also
clarified that the ASTM standard F 1447 referred to in the Act is the
1993 version of that standard. The interim standards are codified at 16
CFR 1203.
Section 205(c) of the Act directed the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to begin a proceeding under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, to:
1. Review the requirements of the interim standards described above
and establish a final standard based on such requirements;
2. Include in the final standard a provision to protect against the
risk of helmets coming off the heads of bicycle riders;
3. Include in the final standard provisions that address the risk
of injury to children; and
4. Include additional provisions as appropriate. 15 U.S.C. 6004(c).
Section 205(c) the Act provides that the final standard shall take
effect 1 year from the date it is issued. 15 U.S.C. 6004(c). Section
205(d) of the Act provides that failure to conform to an interim
standard shall be considered a violation of a consumer product safety
standard issued under the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''), 15
U.S.C. 2051-2084. Section 205(d) also provides that the final standard
shall be considered to be a consumer product safety standard issued
under the CPSA. However, section 205(c) of the Act provides that the
provisions of the CPSA regarding rulemaking procedures, statutory
findings, and judicial review (15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058, 2060, and 2079(d))
shall not apply to this proceeding or to the final standard. 15 U.S.C.
6004(c). When the final standard becomes effective, it will be codified
at 16 CFR 1203 and will replace the interim standards. 15 U.S.C.
6004(d).
B. Originally Proposed Standard
The Commission reviewed the bicycle helmet standards identified in
the Act (ANSI, ASTM, and Snell), as well as international bicycle
helmet standards and draft revisions of the ANSI, ASTM, and Snell
standards that were then under consideration. Based on this review, the
Commission developed a proposed final safety standard for bicycle
helmets. 59 FR 41,719 (August 15, 1994).
The major features of the originally proposed standard were as
follows:
1. Impact attenuation. The originally proposed standard measures
the ability of the helmet to protect the head in a collision by
securing the helmet on a headform and dropping the helmet/headform
assembly from various heights onto a fixed steel anvil. The original
proposal specified a constant mass of 5 kg for the drop assembly (not
including the helmet). However, the Commission requested comment on the
alternative of specifying a different drop mass for each headform size.
Under the proposed standard, the helmet is tested with three types
of anvils (flat, hemispherical, and ``curbstone,'' as shown in Figures
11, 12, and 13 of the revised proposed standard published in this
notice). These anvils represent types of surfaces that may be
encountered in actual riding conditions. Instrumentation within the
headform records the headform's impact in multiples of the acceleration
due to gravity (``g''). Impact tests are performed on different
helmets, each of which has been subjected to one of four environmental
conditions. These environments are: ambient (room temperature), high
temperature (117-127 deg.F), low temperature (3-9 deg.F), and
immersion in water for 4-24 hours.
Impacts are specified on a flat anvil from a height of 2 meters and
on hemispherical and curbstone anvils from a height of 1.2 meters.
Consistent with the requirements of the ANSI, Snell, and ASTM
standards, the peak headform acceleration of any impact shall not
exceed 300 g for an adult helmet, the value originally proposed for
both adult and child helmets. In addition, maximum time limits of 6
milliseconds (``ms'') and 3 ms were originally proposed for the
allowable duration of the impact at the 150-g and 200-g levels,
respectively.
One difference from the ANSI, ASTM, and Snell standards that was
originally proposed for the mandatory standard was the designation for
the area of the helmet that must provide impact protection. The
originally proposed area of impact protection for the CPSC standard was
reached by combining the ANSI and ASTM procedures. The procedure for
defining the area of the helmet subject to impact attenuation testing
is described at Sec. 1203.11.
2. Children's helmets. The originally proposed mandatory standard
specified an increased area of head coverage for small children. A
study by Biokinetics & Associates Ltd. found differences in
anthropometric characteristics between young children's heads and older
children's and adult heads.6 This study led to an ASTM proposal to
change the position of the basic plane (an anthropometric reference
plane that includes the external ear openings and the bottom edges of
the eye sockets) on the smallest test headform to be more
representative of children ages 4 years and under. Originally,
Sec. 1203.11(b) proposed an extent-of-protection requirement for
helmets intended for children 4 years and under based on the adjusted
basic plane.
\6\Heh. S., Log of ASTM F08.53 Headgear Subcommittee Meeting
held May 21, 1992, Date of Entry--June 17, 1992. Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C.
20207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Retention system. The dynamic strength of the retention system
test addresses the strength of the chin strap to ensure against
breakage or excessive elongation of the strap that may contribute to a
helmet coming off the head during an accident.
The test requires that the chin strap remain intact and not
elongate more than 30 mm (1.2 inches) when subjected to a ``shock
load'' of a 4-kg (8.8-lb) weight falling a distance of 0.6 m (2 ft)
onto a steel stop anvil (see Figure 8). This test is performed on one
helmet under ambient conditions and on three other helmets after each
is subjected to one of the different hot, cold, and wet environments.
4. Peripheral vision. Section 1203.14 of the originally proposed
mandatory standard requires that a helmet shall allow a field of vision
of 105 degrees to both the left and right of straight ahead. This
requirement is consistent with the ANSI, ASTM, and Snell standards.
5. Labels and instructions. Section 1203.6 of the proposed
mandatory standard requires certain labels on the helmet, which are
consistent with all
[[Page 62664]]
three U.S. voluntary standards. These labels provide the model
designation and warnings regarding the protective limitations of the
helmet. The labels also provide instructions regarding how to care for
the helmet and what to do if the helmet receives an impact. The labels
also must carry the statement ``Not for Motor Vehicle Use'' and a
warning that for maximum protection the helmet must be fitted and
attached properly to the wearer's head in accordance with the
manufacturer's fitting instructions.
The proposed mandatory standard also requires that helmets be
accompanied by fitting and positioning instructions, including graphic
representation of proper positioning. As noted above, the proposed
mandatory standard has performance criteria for the effectiveness of
the retention system in keeping a helmet on the wearer's head. However,
these criteria may not be effective if the helmet is not well matched
to the wearer's head and carefully adjusted to obtain the best fit.
Thus, the proposed mandatory standard contains the labeling requirement
described above to help ensure that users will purchase the proper
helmet and adjust it correctly.
To avoid damaging the helmet by contacting it with harmful common
substances, the helmet must be labeled with any recommended cleaning
agents, a list of any known common substances that will cause damage,
and instructions to avoid contact between such substances and the
helmet.
6. Roll off. The originally proposed mandatory standard specified a
test procedure and requirement for the retention system's effectiveness
in preventing a helmet from ``rolling off'' a head. The procedure
specifies a dynamic impact load of a 4-kg (8.8-lb) weight dropped from
a height of 0.6 m (2 ft) to impact a steel stop anvil. This load is
applied to the edge of a helmet that is placed on a headform on a
support stand (see Figure 7). The helmet fails if it comes off the
headform during the test.
These safety requirements, which are proposed pursuant to the
Bicycle Helmet Safety Act, are found in Subpart A of the proposed
Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets. The comments received in response
to the original proposal, the Commission's responses to these comments,
and other changes to the original proposal are discussed in section C
of this notice.
Under the authority of section 14(a) of the CPSA, the Commission
also proposed certification testing and labeling requirements to ensure
that bicycle helmets meet the standard's safety requirements. These
certification requirements are found in Subpart B of the proposed
Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets and are discussed in section D of
this notice.
Also, under the authority of section 16(b) of the CPSA, the
Commission proposed requirements that records be kept of the required
certification testing. These recordkeeping requirements are found in
Subpart C of the proposed Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets and are
discussed in section E of this notice.
The interim standards, which are currently codified as 16 CFR 1203,
will continue to apply to bicycle helmets manufactured from March 16,
1995, to the date that the final standard becomes effective.
Accordingly, the interim standards will continue to be codified, as
Subpart D of the standard.
As discussed below, although the Commission is proposing certain
changes to the standard, the revised proposal still addresses each of
the elements in the original proposal.
The Commission received 37 comments on the proposed bicycle helmet
standard from 30 individuals and organizations. After considering these
comments and other available information, the Commission decided to
propose certain revisions to the originally proposed standard. The
proposed revisions are discussed in sections C-E of this notice.
C. The Revised Proposed Standard--Comments, Responses and Other
Changes
Comment: Definition of bicycle helmet. The original proposal
defined bicycle helmet as ``any headgear marketed as suitable for
providing protection from head injuries while riding a bicycle.'' One
comment suggested that the definition of a product should not be in
terms of how it is marketed.
Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment. It is
important that all products marketed as suitable for providing
protection from head injuries while bicycling meet the applicable
safety standard. However, the Commission proposes to amend the
definition to include not only products specifically marketed for use
as a bicycle helmet but also those products that can be reasonably
foreseen to be used for that purpose.
Comment: Compliance with third-party standards as compliance with
the rule. The Snell Memorial Foundation urged that the following
statement be added to the certification portion of the rule that
describes a reasonable testing program: ``Helmets that are certified by
the Snell Memorial Foundation to the Snell B-95 or Snell N-94 Standards
are considered to be in compliance with this regulation.''
Response: One of the objectives of the Children's Bicycle Helmet
Safety Act of 1994 is to establish a unified bicycle helmet safety
standard that is recognized nationally by all manufacturers and
consumers. The Commission believes it would be contrary to the intent
of the Act to provide that certified conformance to any particular
existing voluntary standard is compliance with the mandatory rule.
Allowing third-party certification to a voluntary standard to serve
as compliance to the mandatory rule would not adequately deal with the
issue of recalls or other corrective actions if defective helmets are
nonetheless produced. A third party can only decertify helmets that do
not meet its standard and can only request that the responsible firm
take appropriate corrective action for previously produced helmets.
CPSC, on the other hand, has the authority to order a firm to take
corrective actions if necessary and to assess penalties where
appropriate. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adopt the language
requested by this commenter.
Comment: Multiple-activity helmets. Some commenters recommended
that the CPSC include provisions for children's bicycle helmets so that
helmets would provide protection in activities in addition to
bicycling, such as skateboarding, skating, sledding, and the like. Two
commenters recommended that the CPSC bike helmet standard also apply to
helmets for roller skating and in-line skating. Other comments stated
that the Commission should not delay promulgation of the bike helmet
standard while multi-activity issues are explored.
Response: Recent forums on head protection concluded that there is
a need to develop helmets that are suitable for use in a number of
recreational activities, not just bicycling.\7\ However, the CPSC's
authority under the Children's Bicycle Helmet Safety Act of 1994 is to
set mandatory requirements for bicycle helmets. Establishing criteria
for products other than bicycle helmets would require the Commission to
follow the procedures and make the findings
[[Page 62665]]
prescribed by the CPSA or the Federal Hazardous Substances Act
(``FHSA'').
\7\Forum on Head Protection in Recreational Sports, Harborview
Injury Prevention and Research Center (February 18, 1994);
Chairman's Roundtable, Multi-Activity Helmets, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (September 19, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 1994, Snell established the N-94 Standard For Protective
Headgear For Use in Non-Motorized Sports. This standard provides
greater head coverage than current bicycle helmet standards, tests for
multiple impacts at a single location on the helmet, and tests to see
if the helmet will roll off on impact. However, the Commission lacks
data that multiple impacts at a single location are a factor in
injuries to persons wearing bicycle helmets or that greater helmet
coverage is needed for bicycle accidents. Furthermore, the use of an
additional anvil in the Snell N-94 test may preclude the use of some
current vent designs used in bicycle helmets. The Commission is aware
of only a few helmets currently on the market that are certified to
this standard.
Activities like roller skating, in-line skating, and skateboarding
are typically conducted on the same types of surfaces as bicycling and
can generate speeds similar to bicycling. In addition, these other
activities do not put the user at a higher height than when using a
bicycle. Thus, fall heights can be expected to be similar. It is
reasonable to assume that the test requirements in the bicycle helmet
regulation would allow the helmet to provide some protection for other
activities--such as in-line skating, roller skating and skateboarding--
until multiple-activity helmets become widely available. However, the
Commission does not have sufficient data on the benefits and costs of
additional features directed at injuries incurred other than bicycling
to make the findings that would be required by either the CPSA or FHSA.
Also, procedures in addition to those required by the Bicycle Helmet
Safety Act would have to be followed. The Commission does not want to
delay establishment of a mandatory bicycle helmet standard in order to
pursue rulemaking for other types of helmets. Accordingly, this
proposed regulation only addresses bicycle helmets.
Comment: General construction provisions. Section 1203.5 of the
originally proposed mandatory standard included several provisions that
addressed general construction characteristics of a bicycle helmet.
These provisions specified that helmets shall be designed to reduce the
acceleration forces imparted to the wearer's head by an impact and to
remain on the wearer's head during impact. It was also specified that
helmets shall be constructed not to be harmful or potentially injurious
to the wearer. For example, the original proposal stated that the
helmet surface shall not have projections that may increase the
likelihood of injury to the rider during an accident. In addition, the
original proposal provided that construction materials should be
resistant to environmental conditions that may be reasonably expected
during helmet use and storage and shall not be harmful to the wearer.
Some commenters on the proposed rule stated that many of the
requirements in Sec. 1203.5 are subjective, since they have no
performance-related criteria. One respondent suggested that these
sections be located in an informative annex rather than in the body of
the standard.
Response: Sections 1203.5(a) and (d) of the original proposal--
titled ``General'' and ``Materials,'' respectively--contained no
objective performance criteria to establish compliance. Section
1203.5(c)--``Retention System''--was redundant since it merely
referenced test requirements elsewhere in the standard. Accordingly,
the Commission is eliminating these paragraphs from the revised
proposal.
The first proposed standard required that external projections must
``readily break away'' and internal projections shall be protected by
``some means of cushioning.'' In response to the comments that this
language was subjective, the Commission is revising the language to
define more objective performance criteria. The revised requirement is
that the helmet be examined after impact testing to determine whether
there are any rigid internal projections that could contact the
wearer's head.
Comment: Children's peak g-value. Some comments recommended that
the peak g-value for children be dropped from 300 g to 250 g or 200 g.
Some commenters suggested that no change be made in the g-value.
Response: Despite the high incidence of head injury among children,
studies addressing mechanisms of injury and recovery are lacking.
Therefore, even though children make up the majority of the population
at risk for head injury, children's helmets sold on the market today
generally are designed to meet the attenuation and absorption criteria
established for the adult helmeted-headform drop tests. The criteria
for testing and evaluating the performance of helmets have been
established primarily on the basis of data derived from injury
tolerance studies conducted on adults. This is a matter of some
concern, since studies indicate that the type of head injury resulting
from blunt trauma may differ significantly between adults and children.
The skull is the brain's primary protection against blunt force
trauma. The properties of the skull change significantly as a child
matures. Cranial capacity reaches adult size by 5 years of age. At 18
months, the brain has attained almost 70% of its adult size and, by 5-8
years, it is 90% of adult size.
Most of the head growth beyond the first 5 years involves hardening
of the skull and thickening of the soft tissue around the brain.
Children appear to be at greater risk of diffuse brain injury because
their skulls have a lower degree of calcification, which provides a
reduced capacity to absorb an impact. This results in a greater
transfer of the kinetic energy from the impact site to the brain
tissue.
The differences in the type of head injuries sustained by children
and adults should have some bearing on helmet design. Currently, no
compensation has been made for the differences between adults and
children in head injury tolerance levels regarding the bending strength
of the skull.
Current United States bicycle helmet voluntary standards recommend
that helmets limit an attenuation impact to below 300 g in order to
reduce the risk of severe injury. However, for the reasons described
above, this may be inadequate to protect children. Published reports
have suggested reducing the g-value for children from 300 g to 150 to
250 g.8
\8\Corner JP, Whitney CW, O'Rourke N, and Morgan DE. Motorcycle
and Bicycle Protective Helmets--Requirements. Dept. of Trans. and
Comm., Federal Office of Road Safety, Australia, May 1987. Lane JC.
Helmets for Child Bicyclists, Some Biomedical Considerations.
Federal Dept. of Transport, Office of Road Safety, Australia, CR 47,
1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A helmet may partially compensate for the flexibility of a child's
skull. However, the interior dimensions of the helmet will not
perfectly fit the skull. In an accident, point contact is likely to
occur between the skull and the helmet, which will tend to flex the
child's skull more than an adult's. Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that a differential in the g criteria is needed between
adults' and children's standards. The Commission proposes to lower the
g-value to 250 g. This will provide a substantial extra margin of
safety to account for the increased flexibility of children's skulls,
without making the criterion so stringent that it is either not cost
effective or results in helmets that are so heavy or bulky that their
use would be discouraged.
[[Page 62666]]
Comment: Drop mass. Several commenters favored a variable drop mass
instead of the originally proposed 5 kg drop mass, which would have
been used for testing both adults' and children's helmets. (The
helmet's mass is not included in the drop mass.) Some respondents felt
a reduced drop mass is especially important for testing young
children's helmets. One respondent opposed lowering the drop mass,
stating that there is no benefit in different drop masses for each
headform.
Response: A 1979 study found that in head-first free fall, a
child's body mass and orientation at impact have little influence on
head loading (g-forces) during impact.9 The study also explains
that head loading in adult falls is influenced by a more complex
relationship between head mass and body mass. This suggests that the
actual head mass of a child is an important factor in determining head
loading during impact.
\9\Mohan D, Bowman B, Snyder RG, and Frost, DR. A Biomechanical
Analysis of Head Impact Injuries to Children. J. Biomechanical Eng.
101, pp. 250-260, U.S., Nov. 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The helmet liner is designed to absorb the energy of impact by
deformation, and to deform at force levels below that which would cause
head injury. However, children's heads have less mass and their skulls
are more flexible than those of adults. Therefore, a child's head may
not deform the helmet's foam padding during impact if the foam is
designed to protect the heavier adult head. This lack of deformation
may result in greater kinetic energy being transferred to a child's
brain, possibly resulting in a greater likelihood of intracranial
injury. This strongly suggests that children's helmets should be tested
with a lower headform mass than helmets for adults.
The Commission's Directorate for Epidemiology and Health Sciences
concluded that the head mass of children under the age of 5 years
ranges from approximately 2.8 to 3.9 kg. Accordingly, the Commission is
proposing a reduced drop assembly mass of 3.90 kg0.1 kg for
testing helmets for children under 5. The lower mass will better
represent the head mass of children under 5 years of age than the 5 kg
mass specified for testing helmets for older children and adults.
Testing helmets for children under 5 years with a more appropriate
mass should lead to helmets that are better designed to accommodate
maturational differences of a young child's head. An even lower mass is
not feasible with current test rigs, because a drop assembly mass of
less than 3.90 kg would shift the center of gravity on current test
equipment enough to potentially influence test results.
Comment: Extent of protection. Current U.S. voluntary bicycle
helmet standards, and the originally proposed CPSC standard, specify an
extent-of-protection boundary and an impact test line. The extent-of-
protection boundary defines the area of the head that must be covered
by the helmet. The impact line designates the lowest point on the
helmet where the center of the anvil may be aligned for testing. A
clearance is specified between the extent-of-protection boundary and
the impact line to allow for the imprint of the test anvil.
A number of comments on the proposed standard concerned the extent-
of-protection (or extent of coverage) requirements. One commenter
stated that the extent-of-protection requirement was subjective since
no test is applied in these areas. Some commenters believed the
proposed extent-of-protection requirement was design-restrictive, since
some helmets have features like rear vents that may rise above the
extent of coverage line but nevertheless will provide protection if
impacted on the test line.
Response: The Commission believes that a performance test using a
single test line and no extent-of-protection requirement is adequate
for testing the impact-attenuation capabilities of a helmet. Not
requiring specific helmet coverage allows manufacturers the flexibility
to include desirable features such as a central rear vent, provided the
features do not hinder the helmet's ability to meet the impact
requirements if tested anywhere on or above the test line. Accordingly,
the Commission has deleted the extent-of-protection line from the
revised proposed standard.
Comment: Extended coverage for young children's helmets. A number
of commenters favored an extended area of coverage for young children's
helmets. However, one commenter suggested that the coverage lines
defined in the first CPSC-proposed standard were not practical, since
portions of the test line extended lower than the edge of an impact
headform.
Response: As noted above, young children's skulls lack the
calcification of older children's and adult skulls. This is especially
true of children under 5 years old, where the curve of head growth and
skull development is steepest. The temporal region (area above and
around the ear) is much thinner than other parts of the skull. As a
result, a much smaller force at the temporal region can cause a serious
injury than at other regions of the skull. Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that helmets for children under 5 years should have a greater
area of protection than those for older children and adults.
A recent proposal for infant helmet test lines by the ASTM Headgear
Subcommittee Infant/Toddler Working Group specifies a ``two-step'' test
line that is measured directly from the reference plane of the ISO A
and ISO E headforms. The Commission considers the proposed ASTM test
line appropriate for testing helmets for children under 5 years. The
revised test line (Figure 5) provides an increased area of protection,
including the temporal area.
Many young children's helmets on the market already provide an area
of protection comparable to the revised CPSC proposal, though it is not
required by any current U.S. bike helmet standard. The revised CPSC
test line is easier to define and mark on a helmet than the first
proposed CPSC line, which was referenced from an adjusted basic plane
inclined 15 degrees from horizontal. This new test line does not extend
lower than the edge of the headform.
Comment: Determining which helmets are for young children. A
commenter asked for clarification of how to determine whether helmets
are ``intended'' for children 4 years and under. The concern is that
small helmets are often sold to adults with small heads.
Response: Typically, helmets for children are advertised and
promoted with children's themes. The Commission will consider relevant
factors, such as the design and marketing of a helmet, to determine
whether it is intended for young children.
However, it is also important that consumers not mistake adult and
older children's helmets that are the same size as helmets for children
under 5 years of age as complying with the extra coverage and other
special provisions required for helmets intended for children under 5.
Therefore, the proposal provides that helmets specifically designed for
children under 5 years of age be labeled to read: ``Complies with CPSC
Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets for Children Under 5 years.''
Comment: Peripheral vision. One commenter recommended revising the
peripheral vision requirement to specify clearances of two separate
105 deg. arcs from the center of each eye.
Response: The existing requirement of 105 deg. clearance from the
central point K is an established criterion that provides sufficient
peripheral vision and allows for helmet protective coverage to the
[[Page 62667]]
temporal area of the head. The proposed criterion is consistent with
ANSI, ASTM, and Snell bicycle helmet standards, and with the FMVSS 218
motorcycle helmet standard. Therefore, the Commission makes no change
to the proposed rule in response to this comment.
Comment: Vertical vision. One commenter suggested that the
Commission adopt requirements for a vertical field of vision.
Response: The Commission has no information to indicate that
bicycle helmets are posing a risk of injury due to inadequate upward or
downward visual clearance. Accordingly, the Commission is not proposing
a vertical field of vision requirement.
Comment: Dwell time. Several commenters disagreed with the dwell
time specification in the first proposed CPSC standard.
Response: The Commission agrees with these comments, and the impact
attenuation requirements are revised to specify only peak g as the
evaluation criteria. This change was made because of a lack of
scientific evidence to support application of dwell time as a bike
helmet evaluation criterion.
Comment: Point loading requirements. Two commenters recommended
that the Commission explore requirements to limit localized loads on
the head that could be caused by strategically located high-density
foam in helmet liners.
Response: The Commission has no information to indicate that some
helmet designs may pose a risk of injury due to localized loading.
Therefore, the Commission is not adding point loading requirements to
the proposed rule at this time.
Comment: Daytime and nighttime conspicuity. Some comments related
to possible requirements for helmets to improve a bicyclist's
conspicuity in both daytime and nighttime conditions.
Response: Available data do not suggest that requirements to
increase the visibility of bicyclists to others would significantly
reduce daytime incidents. Data do show an increased risk of injury
while bicycling during non-daylight hours.
Commission staff observed informal demonstrations which suggested
that reflective material on bike helmets could enhance the conspicuity
of a nighttime rider. However, at this time, the Commission lacks
information on what requirements might be effective to achieve this
goal.
The Commission intends to study this issue further in conjunction
with planned work on evaluating the bicycle reflector requirements of
CPSC's mandatory requirements for bicycles. 16 CFR part 1512. After
that work is completed, the Commission will decide whether to propose
reflectivity requirements for bicycle helmets under the authority of
the Children's Bicycle Helmet Safety Act of 1994. The Commission does
not intend to delay issuance of the standard proposed in this notice to
coincide with any reflectivity requirements that may be issued later.
Comment: Type of test rig. The originally proposed CPSC standard
and the current interim mandatory standards allow the use of either a
wire- or rail-guided impact test rig. A commenter recommended that the
Commission adopt a free-fall test rig that has no rigid connection
between the headform and the guide system. The Commission also received
a proposal from one respondent to evaluate differences between twin-
wire and monorail test rigs through exhaustive comparison testing.
Response: The Commission has no information to indicate that the
suggested free-fall rig provides a more reliable test system or that it
represents the dynamics of a human head impacting a surface better than
other types of impact test equipment. Accordingly, the Commission is
not proposing a free-fall test rig.
To avoid the possibility that different results would be obtained
with the two types of test rigs, the Commission is specifying only the
monorail test rig in the revised mandatory standard. The suggested
tests would be helpful only if both test rigs were permitted.
For helmet certification testing, the regulation does not require
that the manufacturer follow specifically the procedures of the CPSC
standard. Thus, a manufacturer may chose to certify helmets by testing
with a wire-guided test rig, provided the manufacturer assures that the
helmets will meet the requirements of the CPSC standard when tested on
the standard's monorail test rig.
Comment: Dynamic strength of retention system test--spinning
rollers. A comment suggested that the ``jaw rods'' in the strength of
retention system test rig should be rotatable.
Response: The requested feature is consistent with provisions in
both the ANSI and Canadian standards and should help ensure that the
maximum loading is transmitted to the retention system attachment
points. Accordingly, the Commission has adopted this suggestion, and
the revised proposal states that the ``stirrups'' that represent the
bone structure of the jaw shall be freely spinning cylindrical rollers.
Comment: Dimensions of impact base. Three commenters recommended
revising the standard to allow a smaller impact base. The commenters
claimed that the dimensions specified in the proposed standard are not
consistent with many existing test rigs.
Response: The Commission concludes that there is no known reason to
exclude bases with smaller surface dimensions. Therefore, the
Commission proposes to reduce the minimum surface area specification
from 0.30 m\2\ to 0.10 m\2\. This is consistent with impact base
specifications in Snell helmet standards. The minimum mass of the
impact base will still be the originally proposed 135 kg.
Comment: Instrument system check procedure. One commenter claimed
that the instrument system check procedure specified in the first
proposed rule only tests repeatability and not the accuracy of
calibration. The commenter recommended that the procedure allow using a
test headform, instead of the spherical impactor, for the instrument
system check impacts. The commenter also suggested that the instrument
system check be performed at least once a week.
Response: The commenter is correct that this instrument system
check procedure primarily indicates that the test is producing
repeatable results. The Commission's staff, using the procedures
proposed in the originally proposed CPSC standard, obtained daily test
results on an average of 12 drops of a spherical impactor on a modular
elastomer programmer (``MEP'') pad for 3 months. These tests yielded
peak accelerations that met the originally proposed 3898g
criteria for the specified velocity range. The specific g-level that
will be achieved depends on the MEP pad in use.
The Commission agrees that the instrument system check procedure
should have greater flexibility to allow other laboratories to conduct
testing based on their internal procedures. To help assure that
consistent, reproducible data are obtained, the Commission proposes to
continue the use of an impactor with a spherical impact surface, rather
than impact headforms. The Commission also believes that the system
check interval should not be longer than the beginning and end of each
test day. The revised procedure, however, is not intended to prevent
each laboratory from exercising sound engineering practice in
establishing their specific methodology.
Comment: Distance between impacts. A commenter recommends revising
the minimum distance between impact sites
[[Page 62668]]
from ``one fifth the circumference of the helmet'' to 120 mm.
Response: The Commission believes that 120 mm allows sufficient
distance to minimize the effects of impact site proximity and provides
a more straightforward measurement than the original one-fifth
circumference criteria. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to adopt
this recommendation.
Comment: Impact velocity tolerance. One commenter suggested a
change from 2% to 5% for the tolerance on
impact velocity.
Response: Tests by CPSC staff indicated that helmet impact
velocities sometimes fell outside the proposed 2%
tolerance. However, the impact velocities almost always were within
3% of the specified value. These tests showed that a
3% velocity tolerance is reasonable to maintain a test
procedure that will reliably indicate the equipment is functioning
properly. Accordingly, the velocity tolerance for helmet testing has
been changed to 3% in the revised proposal.
Comment: Number of helmets required for testing. Comments were
submitted requesting clarification of the number of helmet samples
needed if attachments are provided with the helmet and if the helmet
fits two headform sizes.
Response: An additional set of five helmets is needed for each
additional attachment (e.g., visors or shields), or combinations
thereof, sold for use with the helmet. Two additional samples per set
are needed if the helmet fits two headform sizes.
Comment: Fit and testing. A comment stated that the standard needed
to define ``fit'' as it relates to the process of selecting a test
headform. Another comment provided a definition of ``fit'' and
suggested that the language for selecting a test headform should more
clearly explain how a sample set of helmets is divided when a helmet
fits two different headform sizes.
Response: Language addressing these concerns, including a
definition of ``fit,'' has been added to the revised proposed rule.
Comment: Wet-conditioning. A number of commenters suggested that
wet-conditioning by totally immersing the helmet in water is
unrealistically severe. These commenters recommended that the
Commission consider a water-spray environment.
Response: Commission testing of both immersed and water-sprayed
helmets under various time durations showed no consistent trend in
resulting peak acceleration levels. The immersion environment has the
advantages of being easier to define and of subjecting the helmet to a
uniform conditioning exposure. Since testing showed that these
commenters' concerns are unfounded, the Commission is retaining the
immersion method of wet-conditioning in the proposed standard. However,
additional specifications to standardize the wet environment are
included.
Comment: Anvil test schedule. In the originally proposed standard,
helmets 1 through 4 would have been tested with the flat and
hemispherical anvils and the fifth helmet would be tested with the
curbstone anvil. Two commenters suggested that there is no reason for a
curbstone anvil impact to be treated differently from the flat and
hemispherical anvil impacts.
Response: Each anvil has a unique ``imprint'' that could stress
helmet designs differently. Therefore, the proposed standard has been
revised so that each of test helmets 1 through 4 must meet the
standard's impact criteria on four impacts, once with each of the three
anvils and once with the anvil likely to result in the highest g-value.
In the absence of an indication why another anvil would be more
stringent, this fourth impact should be made with the anvil that
produced the highest g-value in the previous three impacts. This is
consistent with the test schedules of the Snell B-90(S), N-94, and B-95
helmet standards. (Under the revised proposal, the fifth helmet is
tested only for positional stability.)
Comment: Helmet straps. A commenter recommended that the test
procedure require that all slack be removed from the helmet straps when
fastening the helmet to the test headform.
Response: The Commission agrees with this comment and has revised
the proposal accordingly.
Comment: Lateral positional stability test. A commenter recommended
the addition of a positional stability test in the lateral direction.
Response: The shape of the head is such that a properly fitted
helmet is more likely to come off to the front or rear than to the
side. Accordingly, the suggested lateral positioning test is
unnecessary and not proposed.
Comment: Dynamic v. static-load positional stability test. One
commenter suggested that the CPSC consider the static load positional
stability test specified in the Canadian Standards Association ('CSA')
bicycle helmet standard.
Response: The Commission believes that a dynamic test provides a
more rigorous and realistic test of the restraint system, and has not
adopted this suggested change.
Comment: Retention system test schedule. Some commenters asked that
the CPSC consider a change to the test schedule so that at least one
impact attenuation drop per sample would be performed prior to testing
the retention system.
Response: CPSC staff testing did not show evidence to warrant a
change in the sequence of retention system strength tests and impact
tests. Accordingly, the Commission did not make this suggested change.
Comment: Use of a Rubber Pad on the Stop Anvil. One commenter
recommended using a rubber pad between the steel drop mass and the stop
anvil.
Response: The current ASTM and ANSI bicycle helmet standards do not
require a rubber pad on the stop anvil. Based on comparison testing
with and without a rubber pad, the Commission believes a rubber pad may
produce a somewhat less stringent test. In the absence of any
compelling reason to allow a rubber pad, therefore, the Commission has
not changed the original proposal in this regard.
Comment: Self-release buckle. One commenter suggested that
consideration be given to requirements for a self-release buckle that
could be used to prevent strangulation if the helmet becomes caught.
The commenter stated that there are now efforts in Europe to develop a
test method that would ensure that buckles release or break away when
subjected to a load equivalent to the weight of a child.
Response: The Commission has received reports of eight or nine
deaths of children in Sweden and Norway that occurred when helmets
became caught in trees or playground equipment, causing the child to
become suspended by the chin strap. The Commission also has received
reports of four nonfatal incidents in the United States since 1990,
involving children of ages from 5 through 7 years, that occurred in the
same fashion.
However, the Commission is not proposing requirements for a self-
release buckle at this time. Considering the frequency and potential
severity of head injuries in bicycle accidents, it is important to
ensure that the helmet retention strength requirements are not
compromised.
Comment: Use labeling. A number of comments concerned what
information should be on a bike helmet label to inform consumers of the
helmet's intended use. Some commenters favored the ``Not For Motor
Vehicle Use'' label that was first proposed in the CPSC standard.
Others felt the helmet should be labeled ``For Bicycle Use Only.''
[[Page 62669]]
Response: Currently, the ANSI and Snell voluntary standards require
the label ``For Bicycle Use Only.'' ASTM requires the label ``Not for
Motor Vehicle Use.'' The ASTM label was originally proposed because
helmets are currently not made specifically for many non-bicycling
activities, and people should not be discouraged from using a helmet
for such activities by a label that states it is for bicycle use
only.10
\10\In fact, despite the ``For bicycle use only'' label, the
U.S. Amateur Confederation of Roller Skating adopted the ANSI and
Snell helmet standards years ago for use in competitive roller
skating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters, however, disagreed. One indicated that labeling
``Not for Motor Vehicle Use'' would stifle the development of separate
helmet standards for other sports by voluntary organizations. The
commenter believed that the ``Not for Motor Vehicle Use'' label
suggests that a bicycle helmet is as effective for any non-motorized
use as a helmet designed specifically for that activity.
The Commission has no evidence to support the contention that the
ASTM label would inhibit the development of voluntary standards for
non-motorized activities, and no evidence that a bicycle helmet is
inadequate for some of these activities. For this reason, the
Commission continues to propose the ASTM label, ``Not for Motor Vehicle
Use.''
Comment: Label language and format. Some commenters suggested that
the labels have specific language and format (e.g., the ANSI Warning
Format).
Response: The Commission concludes that requiring specific language
or format is inappropriate for bicycle helmet labels, because the
variety of helmet styles and limited space on the interior of some
helmets requires more flexibility in labeling.
Comment: Fit information on box. One commenter recommended that
information on how to properly fit a helmet be required on the outside
of the box.
Response: Children frequently report uncomfortable fit as a reason
for not wearing a helmet all the time. It is reasonable to expect that
improper fit was sometimes involved in complaints that helmets are
uncomfortable. A label on the box could inform parents, before they buy
the helmet, that they need to properly fit it to the child's head.
However, the Commission is not aware of any information which indicates
that such a label would be any more effective in assuring proper fit in
use than the originally proposed instructions, which need not be on the
box. Accordingly, the Commission did not adopt this requested change.
Comment: Age-specific fit instructions. A commenter suggested that
instructions on fitting a helmet be age-specific, so that a young child
can read them.
Response: The Commission believes that age-specific instructions
are unnecessary. The Commission lacks data showing that young children
would act on age-specific instructions without urging from their
parents. The originally proposed rule requires that the instruction
sheet have graphics showing proper fit and position of the helmet.
Children who can read may well be able to understand pictures showing
proper fit. If not, the involvement of parents will likely be needed to
convey the information on how to fit the helmet. Parents reading along
with the child and discussing the pictures will likely deliver the
message of proper fit.
Comment: Life of helmets. One commenter was concerned that the
requirement of Sec. 1203.6(a) that labels be legible for the life of
the helmet was indefinite, because the life of a helmet is not known.
Response: Snell N-94 and B-95 helmet standards recommend that
helmets be replaced after 5 years, or less if the manufacturer so
recommends. The Commission concludes that the manufacturer or importer
can determine the life of a particular helmet and assure that the
labels will remain legible for that time. However, to make this
requirement more definite, the Commission has amended the proposal to
state that the labels shall remain legible for the intended design life
of the helmet.
Comment: Helmet label--post-impact instructions. Some commenters
requested that more direct information be provided about what to do
with a helmet that has received an impact. One respondent stated that
the current wording--``after receiving an impact, the helmet should be
returned to manufacturer or be destroyed and replaced''--is ambiguous.
Response: Damage to a helmet from an impact is not always visible
to the user. To describe on a label the circumstances in which helmets
can be used again, can be fixed, or should be destroyed, if feasible at
all, would make the label excessively wordy and likely to be skimmed or
ignored. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the most specific and
appropriate label would state that the helmet be returned to the
manufacturer or destroyed after impact because any damage may not be
visible to the user.
Comment: Neck injury protection. One commenter requested that the
Commission include in this Federal Register notice a statement
encouraging helmet manufacturers to ``undertake the development and
marketing of helmets that protect wearers from paralyzing neck injuries
as a result of bicycle riding.'' The commenter referred to a report
that indicates that bike helmets reduce the risk of head injury, but do
not seem to have any effect in reducing the risk of serious neck
injury.
Response: The Commission is aware of some efforts to reduce the
risks of serious neck injury to bicyclists and participants in other
recreational activities. The Commission always encourages research and
development of safety-related devices. The Commission's staff will
continue to monitor progress in this area. However, such devices are
beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Other changes to the standard:
1. Impact-attenuation test--support assembly mass. The
specification that the mass of the support assembly be no greater than
25 percent of the mass of the total drop assembly has been deleted. The
boundary on the location for the center of gravity at
Sec. 1203.17(a)(3) will adequately limit the mass variance between the
support assembly and the headform assembly.
2. Dynamic strength of retention system test--mass of the test rig.
The ASTM F1446 standard specifies a support assembly mass in the range
of 6 kg to 12 kg (including the drop mass). CPSC considered this range
too wide when developing the first CPSC proposed standard and specified
a mass of 6 kg with a tight tolerance of 0.5 kg.
Subsequent consideration of this issue by the ASTM Headgear
Subcommittee concluded that the assembly mass, excluding the drop
weight, should be specified at 7 kg (11 kg including the drop weight)
with a narrow tolerance. It was agreed that this rig applies a rigorous
test of retention system strength and provides a system better suited
for adapting an electronic displacement transducer to provide an
accurate means for measuring elongation. Accordingly, the mass of the
test rig has been revised to 11 kg 0.5 kg.
3. Dynamic strength of retention system test--deletion of preload
ballast procedure. The procedure to place a preload ballast on top of
the helmet has been deleted, since the more massive test rig in the
revised proposal applies a sufficient preload to the helmet retention
system to set the helmet fit padding against the test headform.
[[Page 62670]]
4. Children's helmets--age range. The age break for special
provisions for children's helmets was originally proposed for
``children 4 years of age and under.'' The Commission has revised this
language to ``children under 5 years of age.'' This language clarifies
the intent to include children until they reach their fifth birthday.
5. Older children and adults test line. The Commission is proposing
a revised test line for adults' and older children's helmets, as shown
in Figure 4. The portion of the test line that extends from the front
of the headform and through its center portion is essentially the test
line specified in the Snell B-90 standard. Compared to the test lines
in other U.S. voluntary bike helmet standards to which bike helmets are
currently certified, the Snell B-90 test line provides the greatest
area of impact protection in the front and central portions of the
head.
The rear step in the revised CPSC test line is derived by using a
20 mm clearance from the extent-of-protection boundary specified in the
August 15, 1994, CPSC-proposed bike helmet standard. The revised test
region provides an acceptable area of head protection while allowing
for certain design flexibility.
6. Definition of Helmet Positioning Index (``HPI''). In the
originally proposed standard, the HPI is defined as a distance that
locates where the brow of the helmet should be positioned on the
headform. In the revised proposal, the HPI is defined (Sec. 1203.4(f))
to be a specified distance from the reference plane (defined at
Sec. 1203.4(l) and Figure 3), rather than from the basic plane (defined
at Sec. 1203.4(a) and Figures 1 and 2). This change is made because
impact headforms are cut away (above the basic plane) at the front brow
area, making it difficult to measure for the HPI from the basic plane.
D. Certification Testing and Labeling
General. Section 14(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a), requires
that every manufacturer (including importers) and private labeler of a
product that is subject to a consumer product safety standard issue a
certificate that the product conforms to the applicable standard, and
to base that certificate either on a test of each product or on a
``reasonable testing program.'' Subpart B of the proposed Safety
Standard for Bicycle Helmets contains these certification requirements.
The originally proposed certification rule. The proposed
certification rule would require manufacturers of bicycle helmets that
are manufactured 1 year after the issue date of the final standard to
affix permanent labels to the helmets. These labels would be the
``certificates of compliance,'' as that term is used in Sec. 14(a) of
the CPSA. In the rule as originally proposed, all helmets would have
had a label stating ``Complies with CPSC Safety Standard for Bicycle
Helmets (16 CFR 1203)''. As explained below, the Commission is
proposing somewhat different language for this label.
In some instances, the label on the bicycle helmet may not be
immediately visible to the ultimate purchaser of the helmet prior to
purchase because of packaging or other marketing practices. In those
cases, it is proposed to advise consumers that the helmet meets the
CPSC standard by a second label that would be on the helmet's container
or, if the container is not visible, on the promotional material used
in connection with the sale of the bicycle helmet.
The proposed certification label also contains the name and address
of the manufacturer or importer, and identifies the production lot and
the month and year the product was manufactured. Some of the required
information may be in code.
The proposed certification rule requires manufacturers and
importers to conduct a reasonable testing program to demonstrate that
their bicycle helmets comply with the requirements of the standard.
This reasonable testing program may be defined by the manufacturers,
but must include either the tests prescribed in the standard or any
other reasonable test procedures that assure compliance with the
standard.
The originally proposed certification rule provides that the
required testing program will test bicycle helmets sampled from each
production lot in such a manner that there is a reasonable assurance
that, if the bicycle helmets selected for testing meet the standard,
all bicycle helmets in the lot will meet the standard.
The rule as originally proposed provided that bicycle helmet
importers may rely in good faith on the foreign manufacturer's
certificate of compliance, provided that a reasonable testing program
has been performed by or for the foreign manufacturer; the importer is
a U.S. resident or has a resident agent in the U.S.; and the required
test records are kept in the U.S. As explained in section E below, the
Commission proposes an exception to the requirement that test records
must be kept in the U.S.
Comments, responses, and other changes to the certification testing
and labeling requirements.
Comment: Production lot. One commenter stated that the rule should
use ``frequency of production'' rather than the originally proposed
``manufacturing lot'' method to define a lot. The commenter explained
that a manufacturing lot may encompass well over a million helmets if
there are no changes in the design and production of a helmet. The
commenter further explained that using frequency of production as the
basis of the required reasonable testing program would require a firm
to test after a specified number of helmets are produced. The commenter
believes this would catch any defects more readily.
Another commenter stated that the production lot should be based on
a monthly or yearly period, as a production lot could include helmets
made well after the qualification testing.
Another commenter stated that the proposed definition of a
production lot is unmanageable and may be expensive if a large number
of helmets is produced and if there are any variations in the materials
or processes in the production of the helmets. The commenter recommends
that the definition of production lot be changed to either
``sequentially labeled helmets bonded and tested separately, or a
continuous production of like models produced in accordance with a
quality system ensuring traceability for all component parts.'' Comment
CC94-2-25.
In addition, a commenter stated that CPSC should allow
manufacturers flexibility to establish their own recognized quality
assurance program, such as Mil Std 105D, ISO 9000, or ASQC.
Response: The proposed rule defines a ``production lot'' as ``a
quantity of bicycle helmets from which certain bicycle helmets are
selected for testing before certifying the lot.'' In the proposed
regulation, the helmets in a lot must be essentially identical in
design, construction, and materials. This definition of a production
lot does not require the lot to be a specified number of helmets or a
set time interval of helmet production, such as weekly or monthly.
However, the definition in the proposed regulation does not prohibit
certification based on testing after a specified number of helmets or
period of time, provided that changes in the design, construction, or
materials of the helmet are not made in that production lot. Firms must
define their production lots in such a fashion that samples collected
for testing represent all the bicycle helmets in a particular lot.
The firms responsible for certification know their products and
manufacturing processes. These firms are in the best
[[Page 62671]]
position to define their production lot and set up a reasonable testing
program in order to assure that their helmets meet the standard.
Furthermore, testing on only a number or time basis could allow changes
in the helmets' specifications during a production lot that might cause
failing results to go undetected until the specified interval occurs.
Accordingly, the Commission is not proposing to require testing after a
specified number of helmets or time period of production.
A firm is not restricted in any way from establishing its own
quality control program, including programs based on Mil Std. 105D, ISO
9000, or ASQC. Therefore, no change in the proposal is required in this
regard.
The Commission believes that the certifying firms can determine,
based on their production lot and methods of manufacture, how best to
sample their lot in order to insure that the helmets meet the standard.
Comment: Sampling. A commenter stated that the testing program
should provide for sampling over the entire production lot in order to
discover the production of noncomplying helmets.
Response: Under the proposed rule, there is no requirement that
sampling be conducted over the entire production lot. The rule states
that the manufacturers and importers may set up their own testing
program, provided the program is reasonable. The testing program is to
insure that the helmets selected for testing represent all the helmets
in the production lot. For the guidance of certifying firms, however,
the Commission notes that a reasonable testing program would include
both prototype and production testing, to provide reasonable assurance
that all of the bicycle helmets in the production lot being tested
comply with the requirements of the standard.
Comment: Certification label. A commenter inquired whether the
content of the certification label could be divided among more than one
label.
Response: The originally proposed regulation did not address
whether the placement should be on one label. However, the restricted
space inside helmets requires that there be flexibility for the format
of the certification labeling.
The Commission's Division of Human Factors believes that the name
and address of the manufacturer, private labeler, or importer, where
required and not in code, should be on one label. This is so the
consumer can associate the address with the name if it is necessary to
contact the manufacturer, private labeler, or importer for repair or
replacement of the helmet. Also, if it is too difficult to find the
information, consumers are less likely to follow through with repair or
replacement of helmets. Accordingly, the Commission is revising the
proposal to require that the name and address of firms required to be
identified uncoded on the label must be on the same label.
However, the Commission now proposes to allow separate labels for
the other required information, including the statement of compliance
with the CPSC standard, the production lot, and the date of
manufacture.
Comment: Third-party testing. A commenter suggested that
certification testing should be conducted by a third party and include
off-the-shelf random testing.
Response: Under the proposed rule, testing may be done by the
manufacturer or importer or by a third party. Regardless of who
performs the test, certifying firms are responsible for insuring
compliance with all requirements of the standard. No data are available
showing that third-party certification would improve compliance with
the standard. Accordingly, there is no reason to change the proposal in
that regard.
Comment: Verification by CPSC. A commenter suggested that the
quality control testing program, testing equipment, and calibration of
the testing equipment should be verified by CPSC.
Response: It would be an inefficient use of Commission resources to
conduct either quality control verification or calibration of industry
equipment, and the need to do this has not been demonstrated.
Accordingly, the proposal is unchanged in this regard.
Comment: Production testing of features unlikely to change. A
commenter stated that, once a model is certified, testing of helmets
for peripheral vision, labeling, and instructions are unnecessary when
performing routine compliance testing.
Response: The proposal allows each firm to establish its own
testing program, provided the testing program is reasonable. No
specific tests are required. When there have not been any changes in
the design of the helmet, the firm may establish simple visual
examination of some attributes of helmets. For example, if the
manufacturer is assured that there has been no change in the physical
dimensions of a helmet, there would be no need to retest the helmet's
peripheral vision.
No change to the proposal is required to accommodate this
commenter's concern.
Comment: Certification label content--coding of foreign
manufacturer. A commenter complained that the true name of the foreign
manufacturer could be coded and not disclosed.
Response: The intent of the certification label is to identify a
party that the consumer or the CPSC can contact concerning the safety
of a helmet. In addition, consumers need to be able to contact someone
in the U.S. for repair or replacement information. Since foreign
manufacturers are not subject to this regulation, there is no need for
consumers to know the identity of the foreign manufacturer.
Accordingly, the importer may code the foreign manufacturer's name.
Similarly, a private labeler may code the U.S. manufacturer or both the
importer and foreign manufacturer.
The identification of the coded information must be available upon
request from the importer or private labeler whose name is required to
appear on the certification label. This adequately protects the
interests the consumer and the CPSC have in this information. In
addition, consumers could be confused if two firms were identified on
the label. Accordingly, no change to the proposal is ma
FR Doc. 95-28761 Proposed Rule: Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets
de in this
regard.
Comment: Certification label content--age of helmet. A commenter
stated that permitting the coding of the product lot number and the
date of manufacture denies consumers important information on the age
of their helmets, as manufacturers commonly recommend replacing the
helmet after 5 years. The commenter contends also that it would be
easier for consumers to recognize recalls of helmets identified by
dates on the helmets rather than by other codes.
Response: Under the proposed rule, the manufacturer, importer, or
private labeler may code the production lot and the date of production.
These codes on the helmets should not place an undue burden on the
consumer in determining the date of manufacture, as this information
can be obtained if necessary.
Manufacturers recommend that helmets be replaced after 5 years of
use. The manufacture date or code would not identify the ``use'' age of
the helmet, which relates more to the date of purchase of the helmet.
During recalls, the affected firms will identify the model of the
helmet, any codes, where it was sold, and the dates of distribution. A
consumer can readily ascertain if his/her helmet is being recalled by
examining the model number and the date of manufacture, which may be
coded. Having the manufacturing date coded would not
[[Page 62672]]
interfere with identifying a recalled helmet. Accordingly, no change in
the proposal is needed in this regard.
Comment: Certification label content--date of manufacture, serial
number, and test date. One firm wants to provide the date of
manufacture, serial number, and test date on the helmet, rather than a
production lot.
Response: The proposed regulation requires the production lot and
the month and year of manufacture to be identifiable from the label,
but does not require or prohibit the serial number or test date. Both
the production lot and the time of manufacture may be in code. The test
date would not add any information for the consumer. The serial number,
however, may serve as a code to identify the production lot and, if so,
may be used in its place.
Accordingly, the proposed rule has been revised to state that a
serial number may be used in place of a production lot identification
if it can serve as a code to identify the production lot.
Comment: Certification label content--telephone number. A commenter
contends that the telephone number of the responsible firm should be on
the certification label.
Response: A telephone number is not required. This might place a
burden on small firms with insufficient staff to handle a large number
of calls. The consumer can contact the responsible firm in writing if
the need arises.
Other change: Compliance labels. Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires
that certifying firms issue a certificate certifying that the product
conforms to all applicable consumer product safety standards. 15 U.S.C.
2063(a). Accordingly, the original proposal would have required the
label statement ``Complies with CPSC Safety Standard for Bicycle
Helmets (16 CFR part 1203)''.
The Commission wants to guard against the possibility that small
adult helmets will be purchased for children. Therefore, the revised
proposed standard requires that helmets that do not comply with the
requirements for young children's helmets be labeled ``Complies with
CPSC Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets for Adults and Children Age 5
and Older (16 CFR 1203)''. Helmets intended for children 4 years of age
and younger would bear a label stating ``Complies with CPSC Safety
Standard for Bicycle Helmets for Children Under 5 Years (16 CFR
1203)''. Helmets that comply with both standards could be labeled
``Complies with the CPSC Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets for
Persons of All Ages'', or equivalent language.
E. Recordkeeping
Section 16(b) of the CPSA requires that: [e]very person who is a
manufacturer, private labeler, or distributor of a consumer product
shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports, and
provide such information as the Commission may reasonably require for
the purposes of implementing this Act, or to determine compliance with
rules or orders prescribed under this Act.
15 U.S.C. 2065(b).
The rule as originally proposed would have required every entity
issuing certificates of compliance for bicycle helmets to maintain
written records that show the certificates are based on a reasonable
testing program. As explained below, the Commission proposes to relax
the requirement that the records be kept in written form.
These records were proposed to be maintained for a period of at
least 3 years from the date of certification of the last bicycle helmet
in each production lot and shall be available to any designated officer
or employee of the Commission upon request in accordance with
Sec. 16(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2065(b).
Comment: Location of test records. The original proposal required
that records be kept by the importer in the U.S. to allow inspection by
CPSC staff within 48 hours of a request by an employee of the
Commission. A commenter inquired whether test records must be kept in
the U.S. in the case of a Canadian firm that is owned by a U.S. firm,
if the records are available to the U.S. company upon request.
Response: The situation described by the commenter would achieve
the result desired by the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission has
revised the proposed regulation to state that if the importer can
provide the records to the CPSC staff within the 48-hour time period,
the records will be considered kept in the U.S.
Comment: Records on disk. The proposed regulation stated that every
person issuing a certificate of compliance for bicycle helmets shall
maintain written records that show certificates are based on a
reasonable testing program. A commenter requested that the
certification test records be allowed to be kept on disk instead of
paper.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter that firms
should be allowed to keep the records on disk, if the records can be
made available upon request in an appropriate format. Accordingly, the
Commission has amended the proposal to state that certification test
record results may be kept on paper, microfiche, computer disk, or
other retrievable media. Where records are kept on computer disk or
other retrievable media, the records shall be made available to the
Commission upon request on paper copies, or via electronic mail in the
same format as paper copies.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
When an agency undertakes a rulemaking proceeding, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires the agency to
prepare proposed and final regulatory flexibility analyses describing
the impact of the rule on small businesses and other small entities.
The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as stated in section
2(b) (5 U.S.C. 602 note), is to require agencies, consistent with their
objectives, to fit the requirements of regulations to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
the regulations. Section 605 of the Act provides that an agency is not
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis if the head of an
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission's Directorate for Economics has prepared a
preliminary economic assessment of the safety standard for bicycle
helmets. The proposed rule would establish performance requirements for
bicycle helmets. The vast majority of helmets now sold conform to one
(or more) of three existing voluntary standards. The one-time costs
associated with the redesign and testing of helmets to the new
performance standards are not known. On a per-unit basis, however,
costs associated with redesign and testing are expected to be small.
The Commission solicits comment on the costs of the redesign and
testing of bicycle helmets that would be required by the proposed
standard.
The vast majority of manufacturers now use third party testing and
monitoring for product liability reasons, and are likely to continue to
do so in the future. The proposed standard allows for self
certification and monitoring, however, which is substantially less
costly than third party testing and monitoring.
The proposed labeling requirement is unlikely to have a significant
impact on small firms, since virtually all bicycle helmets now bear a
permanent label on their inside surface. Industry sources
[[Page 62673]]
report that, given sufficient lead time to modify these labels, any
increased cost of labeling would be insignificant.
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Commission
preliminarily certifies that the proposed Safety Standard for Bicycle
Helmets, if promulgated, will not have any significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities.
G. Environmental Considerations
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and in
accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and
CPSC procedures for environmental review, the Commission has assessed
the possible environmental effects associated with the proposed safety
standard for bicycle helmets.
The Commission's regulations at 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1) and (2) state
that safety standards and product labeling or certification rules for
consumer products normally have little or no potential for affecting
the human environment. Preliminary analysis of the potential impact of
this proposed rule indicates that the rule is not expected to affect
preexisting packaging or materials of construction now used by
manufacturers. Existing inventories of finished products would not be
rendered unusable, since section 9(g)(1) of the CPSA provides that
standards apply only to products manufactured after the effective date.
Changes in coverage areas for helmets may require modification or
replacement of existing injection molds. However, molds are routinely
replaced due to wear or to changes in style, and modified molds could
be incorporated in this replacement process. Thus, the quantity of
discarded molds attributable to the rule is likely to be small.
Especially in view of the statutory 1-year effective date, it is
unlikely that significant stocks of current labels would require
disposal.
The requirements of the standard are not expected to have a
significant effect on the materials used in production or packaging, or
on the amount of materials discarded due to the regulation. Therefore,
no significant environmental effects are expected from the proposed
rule if it is adopted. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is required.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
As noted above, the requirements proposed below, if issued as a
final rule, would require U.S. manufacturers and importers of bicycle
helmets to conduct a reasonable testing program to ensure their
products comply with the standard. They are also required to keep
records of such testing so that the Commission's staff can verify that
the testing was conducted properly. This will enable the staff to
obtain information indicating that a company's helmets comply with the
standard, without having itself to test helmets. U.S. manufacturers and
importers of bicycle helmets would also have to label their products
with specified information.
For these reasons, the proposal published below contains
``collection of information requirements'' subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 3501-3520, Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat.
163 (1995). 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 control number may be
displayed by publication in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the
Commission has submitted the proposed collection of information
requirements to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. The title of the submission is ``Safety Standard
for Bicycle Helmets--Testing and Recordkeeping Requirements.''
The Commission's staff estimates that there are about 30
manufacturers and importers subject to these collection of information
requirements. There are an estimated 200 different models of bicycle
helmets currently marketed in the U.S.
Industry sources advise the Commission's staff that the time that
will be required to comply with the collection of information
requirements will be from 100 to 150 hours per model per year.
Therefore, the total amount of time required for compliance with these
requirements will be 20,000 to 30,000 hours per year. However, these
estimates are based on the amount of time that is currently expended in
complying with the similar requirements that are in the various
voluntary standards. Thus, the net burden of the proposed final
collection of information requirements is expected to be insignificant,
or at least a small fraction of the total hours given above. The
Commission would like to receive comments on the activities and time
required to comply with these requirements and how these differ from
usual and customary current industry practices, on the accuracy of the
Commission's burden estimate, and on how that burden could be reduced.
It is possible that firms will consider some of the records
required to be provided to the Commission upon request to be trade
secret or other confidential commercial information. Under section
6(a)(2) of the CPSA, the Commission may not disclose information that
contains or relates to a trade secret, or is of a type referred to in
18 U.S.C. 1905 or subject to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 15 U.S.C. 2055(a)(2).
Under this section and 16 CFR 1015.18-.19, persons desiring
confidential treatment for information must request that it not be
disclosed. If the Commission's staff nevertheless determines that the
information may be disclosed because it is not confidential, the person
submitting the information will be given written notice at least 10
working days before the information is released. Thus, the submitter
has an opportunity to seek judicial review of the Commission's
determination before the information is released. Also, see 16 CFR part
1101. These procedures also apply to rulemaking comments for which the
commenter seeks confidentiality.
Any person may also submit comments to OMB on these proposed
collection of information requirements. OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the collections of information contained in the
proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication. Thus, although
comments will be received by OMB until February 5, 1996, a comment to
OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by
January 5, 1996. Comments should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for
the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Persons filing comments with
OMB are encouraged to send copies to the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, with a caption or cover letter identifying the materials as
comments submitted to OMB on the proposed collection of information
requirements for bicycle helmets.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1203
Consumer protection, Bicycles, Incorporation by reference, Infants
and children, Safety.
For the reasons given above, the Commission proposes to revise Part
1203 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as
follows:
PART 1203--SAFETY STANDARD FOR BICYCLE HELMETS
Subpart A--The Standard
Sec.
1203.1 Scope and effective date.
1203.2 Purpose.
1203.3 Referenced documents.
1203.4 Definitions.
1203.5 Construction requirements - projections.
1203.6 Labeling and instructions.
[[Page 62674]]
1203.7 Samples for testing.
1203.8 Conditioning environments.
1203.9 Test headforms.
1203.10 Selecting the test headform.
1203.11 Marking the test line.
1203.12 Test requirements.
1203.13 Test schedule.
1203.14 Peripheral vision test.
1203.15 Positional stability test (roll-off resistance).
1203.16 Dynamic strength of retention system test.
1203.17 Impact attenuation test.
1203.18 Reflectivity. [Reserved]
Subpart B--Certification
1203.30 Purpose and scope.
1203.31 Effective date.
1203.32 Definitions.
1203.33 Certification testing.
1203.34 Product certification and labeling by manufacturers
(including importers).
Subpart C--Recordkeeping
1203.40 Effective date.
1203.41 Recordkeeping requirements.
Subpart D--Bicycle Helmets Manufactured From March 16, 1995, Through
Date That Is 1 Year After The Final Rule Is Issued
1203.51 Purpose.
1203.52 Scope and effective date.
1203.53 Interim safety standards.
Figures to Part 1203
Authority: Secs. 201-207, Pub. L. 103-267, 108 Stat. 726-729, 15
U.S.C. 6001-6006.
Subpart A--The Standard
Sec. 1203.1 Scope and effective date.
This standard describes test methods and defines minimum
performance criteria for protective headgear used by bicyclists. The
values stated in International System of Units (``SI'') measurements
are the standard. The inch-pound values stated in parentheses are for
information only. The standard shall become effective 1 year after
publication of the final rule and shall apply to all bicycle helmets
manufactured after that date. Bicycle helmets manufactured between
March 16, 1995, and the date that is 1 year after publication of the
final rule, inclusive, are subject to the requirements of Subpart D,
rather than this Subpart A.
Sec. 1203.2 Purpose.
The purpose and basis of this standard is to reduce the likelihood
of serious injury and death to bicyclists resulting from impacts to the
head, as provided in 15 U.S.C. 6001-6006.
Sec. 1203.3 Referenced documents.
The following documents are referenced in this standard.
(a) Draft ISO/DIS Standard 6220-1983--Headforms for Use in the
Testing of Protective Helmets.1
\1\Available from American National Standards Institute, 11 W.
42nd St., 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, Motorcycle
Helmets.2
\2\Available from the Department of Transportation, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, 400 7th St. S.W., Washington D.C. 20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) SAE Recommended Practice SAE J211 OCT88, Instrumentation for
Impact Tests.3
\3\Available from Society of Automotive Engineers, 400
Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1203.4 Definitions
(a) Basic plane means an anatomical plane that includes the
auditory meatuses (the external ear openings) and the inferior orbital
rims (the bottom edges of the eye sockets). The ISO headforms are
marked with a plane corresponding to this basic plane (see Figures 1
and 2 to this part).
(b) Bicycle helmet means any headgear that either is marketed as,
or has a reasonably foreseeable use as, a device intended to provide
protection from head injuries while riding a bicycle.
(c) Comfort or fit padding means resilient lining material used to
configure the helmet for a range of different head sizes. This padding
has no significant effect on impact attenuation.
(d) Coronal plane is an anatomical plane perpendicular to both the
basic and midsagittal planes and containing the midpoint of a line
connecting the right and left auditory meatuses. The ISO headforms are
marked with a transverse plane corresponding to this coronal plane (see
Figures 1 and 2).
(e) Field of vision is the angle of peripheral vision allowed by
the helmet when positioned on the reference headform.
(f) Helmet positioning index (HPI) is the vertical distance from
the brow of the helmet to the reference plane, when placed on a
reference headform. The vertical distance shall be specified by the
manufacturer for each size of headform the helmet fits.
(g) Midsagittal plane is an anatomical plane perpendicular to the
basic plane and containing the midpoint of the line connecting the
notches of the right and left inferior orbital ridges and the midpoint
of the line connecting the superior rims of the right and left auditory
meatuses. The ISO headforms are marked with a longitudinal plane
corresponding to the midsagittal plane (see Figures 1 and 2 to this
part).
(h) Modular elastomer programmer (MEP) is a cylindrical pad,
typically consisting of a polyurethane rubber, used as a consistent
impact medium for the systems check procedure.
(i) Preload ballast is a ``bean bag'' filled with lead shot placed
on the helmet to secure its position on the headform. The mass of the
preload ballast is 5 kg (11 lb).
(j) Projection is any part of the helmet, internal or external,
that extends beyond the faired surface.
(k) Reference headform is a headform used as a measuring device and
contoured in the same configuration as one of the test headforms A, E,
J, M, and O defined in DRAFT ISO DIS 6220-1983. The reference headform
shall include surface markings corresponding to the basic, coronal,
midsagittal, and reference planes (see Figures 1 and 2 to this part).
(l) Reference plane is a plane marked on the ISO headforms at a
specified distance above and parallel to the basic plane (see Figure 3
to this part).
(m) Retention system is the complete assembly that secures the
helmet in a stable position on the wearer's head.
(n) Shield means optional equipment for helmets that is used in
place of goggles to protect the eyes.
(o) Spherical impactor is a 146 mm (5.75 in.) diameter aluminum
sphere, with a mass of 4005 5 g (8.83 1.10
lb), that is specifically machined for mounting onto the ball-arm
connector of the drop-test assembly. The impactor is used to check the
electronic equipment (see Sec. 1203.17).
(p) Test headform is a solid model in the shape of a human head of
sizes A, E, J, M, and O as defined in DRAFT ISO/DIS 6220-1983.
Headforms used for the impact attenuation test shall be constructed of
K-1A magnesium alloy or functionally equivalent metal. The test
headforms shall include surface markings corresponding to the basic,
coronal, midsagittal, and reference planes (see Figure 2 to this part).
(q) Test region is the area of the helmet, on and above a specified
test line, that is subject to impact testing.
(r) Visor (peak) is optional helmet equipment for protection
against sun or glare, and is sometimes used as a rock or dirt
deflector.
Sec. 1203.5 Construction requirements--projections.
Any unfaired projection extending more than 7 mm (0.28 in.) from
the helmet's outer surface shall break away or collapse when impacted
with forces equivalent to those produced by the applicable impact-
attenuation tests in Sec. 1203.17 of this standard. Rigid
[[Page 62675]]
projections on the inner surface shall not exceed 2 mm (0.08 in.) and
shall not make contact with the test headform after testing in
accordance with Sec. 1203.17.
Sec. 1203.6 Labeling and instructions.
(a) Labeling. Each helmet shall be marked so that the following
information is legible and easily visible to the user and is likely to
remain on the helmet and legible throughout the intended design life of
the helmet:
(1) Model designation.
(2) A warning to the user that no helmet can protect against all
possible impacts.
(3) A warning that for maximum protection the helmet must be fitted
and attached properly to the wearer's head in accordance with the
manufacturer's fitting instructions.
(4) A warning to the user that the helmet may, after receiving an
impact, be damaged to the point that it is no longer adequate to
protect the head against further impacts, and that this damage may not
be visible to the user. This label shall also state that a helmet that
has sustained an impact should be returned to the manufacturer for
competent inspection, or be destroyed and replaced.
(5) A warning to the user that the helmet can be damaged by contact
with common substances (for example, certain solvents, cleaners, etc.),
and that this damage may not be visible to the user. This label shall
also state any recommended cleaning agents and procedures, list any
known common substances that damage the helmet, and warn against
contacting the helmet with these substances.
(6) The statement ``Not For Motor Vehicle Use''.
(b) Instructions. Each helmet shall have fitting and positioning
instructions, including graphic representation of proper positioning.
Sec. 1203.7 Samples for testing.
(a) General. Helmets shall be tested in the condition in which they
are offered for sale. They must pass all tests, both with and without
any attachments that may be offered by the helmet's manufacturer, and
with all possible combinations of such attachments.
(b) Number of samples. Five samples of each size for each model and
combination of attachments offered for sale are required to test
conformance to this standard. If a helmet fits more than one size of
test headform, two additional samples are needed for each additional
headform size for the testing described in Sec. 1203.10--Selecting the
test headform.
Sec. 1203.8 Conditioning environments.
Helmets shall be conditioned to one of the following environments
prior to testing in accordance with the test schedule at Sec. 1203.13.
The barometric pressure in all conditioning environments shall be 75 to
110 kPa (22.2 to 32.6 inches of Hg). All test helmets shall be
stabilized within this ambient range for at least 4 hours prior to
further conditioning and testing. Storage or shipment within this
ambient range satisfies this requirement.
(a) Ambient condition. The ambient condition of the test laboratory
shall be within 17 deg.C to 27 deg.C (63 deg.F to 81 deg.F), and 20
to 80 percent relative humidity. The ambient test helmet does not need
further conditioning.
(b) Low temperature. The helmet shall be kept at a temperature of
-16 deg.C to -13 deg.C (3 deg.F to 9 deg.F) for 4 to 24 hours prior
to testing.
(c) High temperature. The helmet shall be kept at a temperature of
47 deg.C to 53 deg.C (117 deg.F to 127 deg.F) for 4 to 24 hours
prior to testing.
(d) Water immersion. The helmet shall be fully immersed ``crown''
down in potable water at a temperature of 17 deg.C to 27 deg.C (63
deg.F to 81 deg.F) to a crown depth of 305 mm25 mm (12
in.1 in.) for 4 to 24 hours prior to testing.
Sec. 1203.9 Test headforms.
The headforms used for testing shall be sizes A, E, J, M, and O, as
defined by DRAFT ISO/DIS 6220-1983. Headforms used for impact testing
shall be constructed of K-1A magnesium alloy or other functionally
equivalent metal and must have no resonant frequencies below 3000 hz.
Sec. 1203.10 Selecting the test headform.
A helmet shall be tested on the appropriate size(s) of headform(s)
on which it fits. Fit means that it is not physically difficult to put
the helmet on the headform, and that the helmet's comfort or fit
padding is partially compressed. A complete set of five helmets of each
size and model shall be tested on the smallest size test headform on
which they fit. Two additional helmets shall be tested on each of the
larger headforms the helmets fit. Testing on the larger headform(s)
will include at least one peripheral vision test, dynamic retention
test, positional stability test, and impact attenuation test (complete
set of four impacts) using the conditioning environment that produced
the highest g value in the impact attenuation tests on the smallest
headform the helmet fit.
Sec. 1203.11 Marking the test line.
Prior to testing, the test line shall be determined for each helmet
in the following manner.
(a) Position the helmet on the appropriate headform as specified by
the manufacturer's head positioning index (HPI), with the brow parallel
to the basic plane. Place a 5-kg (11-lb) preload ballast on top of the
helmet to set the comfort or fit padding.
(b) Draw a test line on the outer surface of the helmet coinciding
with the intersection of the surface of the helmet with the impact line
planes defined from the reference headform as shown in:
(1) Figure 4 to this part for helmets intended for adults and for
children 5 years of age and older.
(2) Figure 5 for helmets intended for children under 5 years of
age.
(c) The center of the impact sites shall be selected at any point
on the helmet on or above the test line.
Sec. 1203.12 Test requirements.
(a) Peripheral vision. The helmet shall allow unobstructed vision
through a minimum of 105 deg. to the left and right sides of the
midsagittal plane when measured in accordance with Sec. 1203.14 of this
standard.
(b) Positional stability. The helmet shall not release from the
test headform when tested in accordance with Sec. 1203.15 of this
standard.
(c) Dynamic strength of retention system. The retention system
shall remain intact without elongating more than 30 mm (1.2 in.) when
tested in accordance with Sec. 1203.16 of this standard.
(d) Impact attenuation criteria. (1) For bicycle helmets intended
for adults and children 5 years and older. The peak acceleration of any
impact shall not exceed 300 g when the helmet is tested in accordance
with Sec. 1203.17 of this standard.
(2) For bicycle helmets intended for children under 5 years. The
peak acceleration of any impact shall not exceed 250 g when the helmet
is tested in accordance with Sec. 1203.17 of this standard.
Sec. 1203.13 Test schedule.
(a) One of the set of five helmets shall be tested for peripheral
vision in accordance with Sec. 1203.14 of this standard.
(b) Helmet samples 1 through 4 shall be conditioned in the ambient,
high temperature, low temperature, and water immersion environments,
respectively. Helmet 5 shall be conditioned in the ambient condition.
(c) Testing must begin within 2 minutes after the helmet is removed
[[Page 62676]]
from the conditioning environment. The helmet shall be returned to the
conditioning environment within 3 minutes after it was removed for a
minimum of 2 minutes before testing is resumed. If the helmet is out of
the conditioning environment for longer than 3 minutes, it shall be
reconditioned for 5 minutes for each minute it is out of the
conditioning environment beyond the allotted 3 minutes before testing
is resumed.
(d) Helmets shall be tested for dynamic strength of the retention
system prior to being tested for impact attenuation. Helmets 1 through
4 (conditioned in ambient, high temperature, low temperature, and water
immersion environments) shall be tested in accordance with the dynamic
retention system strength test at Sec. 1203.16. Helmets 1 through 4
shall then be tested in accordance with the impact attenuation tests on
the flat, hemispherical, and curbstone anvils in accordance with the
procedure at Sec. 1203.17. Helmet 5 (conditioned in an ambient
environment) shall be tested in accordance with the positional
stability tests at Sec. 1203.15. Table 1203.13 summarizes the test
schedule.
Table 1203.13.--Test Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1203.17
Sec. 1203.14 Sec. 1203.15 Sec. 1203.16 Impact tests--4
Peripheral Positional Retention impacts per
vision stability system strength helmet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helmet 1--Ambient......................... X ............... X 1 Flat X
1Hemi. X
1 Curb. X
1 TBD* X
Helmet 2--High Temperature................ ............... ............... X 1 Flat X
1 Hemi. X
1 Curb. X
1 TBD* X
Helmet 3--Low Temperature................. ............... ............... X 1 Flat X
1 Hemi. X
1 Curb. X
1 TBD* X
Helmet 4--Water Immersion................. ............... ............... X 1 Flat X
1 Hemi. X
1 Curb. X
1 TBD* X
Helmet 5--Ambient......................... X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To Be Determined. The fourth impact can be on any of the anvils, at the discretion of the test personnel.
Sec. 1203.14. Peripheral vision test.
Position the helmet on a reference headform in accordance with the
HPI and place a 5-kg (11-lb) preload ballast on top of the helmet to
set the comfort or fit padding. (Note: Peripheral vision clearance may
be determined when the helmet is positioned for marking the test
lines.) Peripheral vision is measured horizontally from each side of
the midsagittal plane around the point K (see Figure 6 to this part).
Point K is located on the front surface of the reference headform at
the intersection of the basic and midsagittal planes. The vision shall
not be obstructed within 105 degrees on each side of the midsagittal
plane from point K.
Sec. 1203.15 Positional stability test (roll-off resistance).
(a) Test equipment. (1) Headforms. The geometry of the test
headforms shall comply with the dimensions of the full chin ISO
reference headforms sizes A, E, J, M, and O.
(2) Test fixture. The headform shall be secured in a test fixture
with its vertical axis pointing downward and 45 degrees to the
direction of gravity (see Figure 7 to this part). The test fixture
shall permit rotation of the headform about its vertical axis and
include means to lock the headform in the face up and face down
positions.
(3) Dynamic impact apparatus. A dynamic impact apparatus shall be
used to apply a shock load to a helmet secured to a test headform. The
dynamic impact apparatus shall allow a 4-kg (8.8-lb) drop weight to
slide in a guided free fall to impact a rigid stop anvil (see Figure
7). The entire mass of the dynamic impact assembly, including the drop
weight, shall be no more than 5 kg (11 lb).
(4) Strap or cable. A hook and flexible strap or cable shall be
used to connect the dynamic impact apparatus to the helmet. The strap
or cable shall be of a material having an elongation of no more than 5
mm (0.20 in.) per 300 mm (11.8 in.) when loaded with a 22-kg (48.5 lb)
weight in a free hanging position.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Orient the headform so that its face is
down, and lock it in that orientation.
(2) Place the helmet on the appropriate size full chin headform in
accordance with the HPI and fasten the retention system in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions. Adjust the straps to remove any
slack.
(3) Suspend the dynamic impact system from the helmet by
positioning the flexible strap over the helmet along the midsagittal
plane and attaching the hook over the edge of the helmet as shown in
Figure 7.
(4) Raise the drop weight to a height of 0.6 m (2 ft) from the stop
anvil and release it, so that it impacts the stop anvil.
(5) The test shall be repeated with the headform face pointing
upwards, so that the helmet is pulled from front to rear.
Sec. 1203.16 Dynamic strength of retention system test.
(a) Test equipment. (1) ISO headforms without the lower chin
portion shall be used.
(2) The retention system strength test equipment shall consist of a
dynamic impact apparatus that allows a 4-kg (8.8-lb) drop weight to
slide in a guided free fall to impact a rigid stop anvil (see Figure
8). Two cylindrical rollers that spin freely, with a diameter of
12.50.5 mm (0.49 in.0.02 in.) that have a
center-to-center distance of 76.01 mm (3.00.04
in.), shall make up a stirrup that represents the bone structure of the
[[Page 62677]]
lower jaw. The entire dynamic test apparatus hangs freely on the
retention system. The entire mass of the support assembly, including
the 4-kg (8.8-lb) drop weight, shall be 11 kg0.5 kg (24.2
lb1.1 lb).
(b) Test procedure. (1) Place the helmet on the appropriate size
headform on the test device according to the HPI. Fasten the strap of
the retention system under the stirrup.
(2) Mark the pre-test position of the retention system, with the
entire dynamic test apparatus hanging freely on the retention system.
(3) Raise the 4-kg (8.8-lb) drop weight to a height of 0.6 m (2 ft)
from the stop anvil and release it, so that it impacts the stop anvil.
(4) Record the maximum elongation of the retention system during
the impact. A marker system or a displacement transducer, as shown in
Figure 8, are two methods of measuring the elongation.
Sec. 1203.17 Impact attenuation test.
(a) Test instruments and equipment. (1) Measurement of impact
attenuation. Impact attenuation is determined by measuring the
acceleration of the test headform during impact. Acceleration is
measured with a uniaxial accelerometer that is capable of withstanding
a shock of at least 1000 g. The helmet is secured onto the headform and
dropped in a guided free fall, using a monorail test apparatus (see
Figure 9), onto an anvil fixed to a rigid base. The base shall consist
of a solid mass of at least 135 kg (298 lb), the upper surface of which
shall consist of a steel plate at least 12 mm (0.47 in.) thick and
having a surface area of at least 0.10 m\2\ (1.08 ft\2\).
(2) Accelerometer. A uniaxial accelerometer is mounted at the
center of gravity of the test headform, with the sensitive axis aligned
within 5 degrees of vertical when the test headform is in the impact
position. The acceleration data channel and filtering shall comply with
SAE Recommended Practice J211 OCT88, Instrumentation for Impact Tests,
Requirements for Channel Class 1000.
(3) Headform and drop assembly--centers of gravity. The center of
gravity of the test headform is located at the center of the mounting
ball on the support assembly and lies within an inverted cone with its
axis vertical, and forming a 10 degree included angle with the vertex
at the point of impact. The location of the center of gravity of the
drop assembly (combined test headform and support assembly) must meet
FMVSS 218 S7.1.8. The center of gravity of the drop assembly lies
within the rectangular volume bounded by x = -6.4 mm (-0.25 in.), x =
21.6 mm (0.85 in), y = 6.4 mm (0.25 in.), and y = -6.4 mm (-0.25 in),
with the origin located at the center of gravity of the test headform.
The rectangular volume has no boundary along the z-axis. The x-y-z axes
are mutually perpendicular and have positive or negative designations
in accordance with the right-hand rule. The origin of the coordinate
axes is located at the center of the mounting ball on the support
assembly. The x-y-z axes of the test headform assembly on monorail
impact-test equipment are oriented as follows: From the origin, the x-
axis is horizontal with its positive direction going toward and passing
through the vertical centerline of the monorail. The positive z-axis is
downward. The y-axis also is horizontal, and its direction is decided
by the z- and x-axes, using the right-hand rule. See Figure 10 for an
overhead view of the x-y boundary of the location of the center of
gravity.
(4) Drop assembly. The center of gravity of the headform shall be
at the center of the mounting ball.
(i) Mass of the drop assembly for testing helmets for adults and
children 5 years of age and older. The combined mass of the
instrumented test headform and support assembly (excluding the test
helmet) for the impact test shall be 5.0 0.1 kg (11.00
0.22 lb).
(ii) Mass of the drop assembly for testing helmets for children
under 5 years. The combined mass of the instrumented test headform (ISO
A or ISO E) and support assembly (excluding the test helmet) for the
impact test shall be 3.9 0.1 kg (8.60 0.22 lb).
(5) Impact anvils. Impact tests shall be performed against the
three different anvils described below. All of the anvils shall be
constructed of steel and shall be solid (i.e., without internal
cavities).
(i) Flat Anvil. The flat anvil shall have a flat surface area with
an impact face having a minimum diameter of 125 mm (4.92 in.) and shall
be at least 24 mm (0.94 in.) thick (see Figure 11).
(ii) Hemispherical anvil. The hemispherical anvil shall have an
impact surface with a radius of 48 1 mm (1.89
0.04 in.). The profile of the impact surface shall be one
half the surface of a sphere (see Figure 12).
(iii) Curbstone anvil. The curbstone anvil shall have two flat
faces making an angle of 105 degrees and meeting along a striking edge
with a radius of 15 mm 0.5 mm (0.59 0.02 in.).
The height of the curbstone anvil shall not be less than 50 mm (1.97
in.), and the length shall not be less than 200 mm (7.87 in.) (see
Figure 13).
(b) Test Procedure. (1) Instrument system check. The impact-
attenuation test instrumentation shall be checked before and after each
series of tests (at least at the beginning and end of each test day) by
dropping an impactor with a spherical impact surface onto an
elastomeric test medium (MEP). The impactor shall be dropped onto the
MEP at a specified impact velocity (2% of a central value)
that is representative of helmet testing drop heights. Before
conducting a series of drops, the center vertical axis of the
accelerometer (see Sec. 1203.17(a)(2)) shall be aligned with the
geometric center of the MEP pad. Six impacts, at intervals of 75
15 seconds, shall be performed at the beginning and end of
the day. The first three impacts at the beginning and end of the day
shall be considered warm-up drops and shall be discarded from the
series. The test parameters selected at each laboratory shall produce
impact accelerations shown to be repeatable within 2% of a
central value.
(2) Impact sites. Each of helmets 1 through 4 (one helmet for each
conditioning environment) shall impact at four different sites, one
impact on the flat anvil, one impact on the hemispherical anvil, one
impact on the curbstone anvil, and one impact on an anvil chosen at the
discretion of the test personnel.4 The center of any impact may be
on or anywhere above the test line, provided it is at least 120 mm
(4.72 in), measured on the surface of the helmet, from any prior impact
center. Rivets and other mechanical fasteners, vents, and any other
helmet feature within the test region are valid test sites.
\4\The intent of this requirement is that the fourth impact will
be on the anvil likely to result in the highest g-value. In the
absence of an indication why another anvil would be more stringent,
this fourth impact should be made with the anvil that produced the
highest g-value in the previous three impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Impact velocity. The helmet shall be dropped onto the flat
anvil from a theoretical drop height of 2 meters (6.56 ft) to achieve
an impact velocity of 6.2 m/s 3% (20.34 ft/s
3%). The helmet shall be dropped onto the hemispherical and
curbstone anvils from a theoretical drop height of 1.2 meters (3.94 ft)
to achieve an impact velocity of 4.8 m/s 3% (15.75 ft/s
3%). The impact velocity shall be measured during the last
40 mm (1.57 in) of free-fall for each test.
(4) Helmet position. Prior to each test, the helmet shall be
positioned on the test headform in accordance with the HPI. The helmet
shall be secured so that it does not shift position prior to impact.
The helmet retention system shall be secured in a manner that does not
interfere with free-fall or impact.
[[Page 62678]]
(5) Data. Record the maximum acceleration in g's during impact.
Sec. 1203.18 Reflectivity. [Reserved]
Subpart B--Certification
Sec. 1203.30 Purpose and scope.
(a) Purpose. Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act
(CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2063(a), requires every manufacturer (including
importers) and private labeler of a product which is subject to a
consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate that the
product conforms to the applicable standard. Section 14(a) further
requires that the certificate be based either on a test of each product
or on a ``reasonable testing program.'' The purpose of this subpart is
to establish requirements that manufacturers and importers of bicycle
helmets subject to the Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets (Subpart A
of this Part 1203) shall issue certificates of compliance in the form
specified.
(b) Scope. The provisions of this subpart apply to all bicycle
helmets that are subject to the requirements of the Safety Standard for
Bicycle Helmets.
Sec. 1203.31 Effective date.
Any bicycle helmet manufactured more than 1 year after publication
of a final rule must meet the standard and must be certified as
complying with the standard in accordance with this Subpart B.
Sec. 1203.32 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to this subpart:
(a) Foreign manufacturer means an entity that manufactured a
bicycle helmet outside the United States.
(b) Manufacturer means the entity that either manufactured a helmet
in the United States or imported a helmet manufactured outside the
United States.
(c) Private labeler means an owner of a brand or trademark that is
used on a bicycle helmet subject to the standard and which is not the
brand or trademark of the manufacturer of the bicycle helmet, provided
the owner of the brand or trademark caused, authorized, or approved its
use.
(d) Production lot means a quantity of bicycle helmets from which
certain bicycle helmets are selected for testing prior to certifying
the lot. All bicycle helmets in a lot must be essentially identical in
those design, construction, and material features that relate to the
ability of a bicycle helmet to comply with the standard.
(e) Reasonable testing program means any tests which are identical
or equivalent to, or more stringent than, the tests defined in the
standard and which are performed on one or more bicycle helmets
selected from the production lot to determine whether there is
reasonable assurance that all of the bicycle helmets in that lot comply
with the requirements of the standard.
Sec. 1203.33 Certification testing.
(a) General. Manufacturers, as defined in Sec. 1203.32(a), shall
conduct a reasonable testing program to demonstrate that their bicycle
helmets comply with the requirements of the standard.
(b) Reasonable testing program. This paragraph provides guidance
for establishing a reasonable testing program.
(1) Manufacturers and importers may define their own reasonable
testing programs. Reasonable testing programs may, at the option of
manufacturers and importers, be conducted by an independent third party
qualified to perform such testing programs. However, manufacturers, as
defined in Sec. 1203.32(a), are responsible for insuring compliance
with all requirements of this standard.
(2) To conduct a reasonable testing program, the bicycle helmets
shall be divided into production lots. Sample bicycle helmets from each
production lot shall be tested in accordance with the reasonable
testing program. Whenever there is a change in parts, suppliers of
parts, or production methods that could affect the ability of the
bicycle helmet to comply with the requirements of the standard, the
manufacturer shall establish a new production lot for testing.
(3) The Commission will test for compliance with the standard by
using the standard's test procedures. However, a reasonable testing
program need not be identical to the tests prescribed in the standard.
(4) If the reasonable testing program shows that a bicycle helmet
may not comply with one or more requirements of the standard, no
bicycle helmet in the production lot can be certified as complying
until all noncomplying bicycle helmets in the lot have been identified
and destroyed or altered by repair, redesign, or use of a different
material or components to the extent necessary to make them conform to
the standard.
(5) The sale or offering for sale of a bicycle helmet that does not
comply with the standard is a prohibited act and a violation of
Sec. 19(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2068(a)), regardless of whether the
bicycle helmet has been validly certified.
Sec. 1203.34 Product certification and labeling by manufacturers
(including importers).
(a) Form of permanent label of certification. Manufacturers, as
defined in Sec. 1203.32(a), shall issue certificates of compliance for
bicycle helmets manufactured after the effective date of the standard
in the form of a legible and readily visible label which can reasonably
be expected to remain on the bicycle helmet and legible for the
intended design life of the helmet. Such labeling shall be deemed to be
a certificate of compliance, as that term is used in Sec. 14 of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063.
(b) Contents of certification label. The certification labels
required by this section shall contain the following:
(1) The statement ``Complies with CPSC Safety Standard for Bicycle
Helmets for Adults and Children Age 5 and Older (16 CFR 1203)'' or
``Complies with CPSC Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets for Children
Under 5 Years (16 CFR 1203)'', as appropriate (for a helmet that meets
the criteria for both an adult helmet and a helmet for children under
age 5, the label may state ``Complies with the CPSC Safety Standard for
Bicycle Helmets for Persons of All Ages'', or equivalent language);
(2) The name of the U.S. manufacturer or importer responsible for
issuing the certificate;
(3) The address of the U.S. manufacturer or importer responsible
for issuing the certificate or, if the name of a private labeler is on
the label, the address of the private labeler;
(4) The name and address of the foreign manufacturer, if the helmet
was manufactured outside the United States;
(5) An identification of the production lot; and
(6) The month and year the product was manufactured.
(c) Coding. (1) The information required by paragraphs (b) (4)
through (6) of this section may be in code, provided:
(i) the person or firm issuing the certificate maintains a written
record of the meaning of each symbol used in the code, and
(ii) the record shall be made available to the distributor,
retailer, consumer, and Commission upon request.
(2) A serial number may be used in place of a production lot
identification on the helmet if it can serve as a code to identify the
production lot. If a bicycle helmet is manufactured for sale by a
private labeler, and if the name of the private labeler is on the
certification label, the name of the manufacturer or importer issuing
the certificate, and the name and address of any foreign
[[Page 62679]]
manufacturer, may also be in such a code.
(d) Placement of the label(s). The information required by
paragraphs (b) (2) through (3) must be on one label, unless allowed to
be in code. The other required information may be on separate labels.
The label(s) required by this section must be affixed to the bicycle
helmet. If the label(s) are not immediately visible to the ultimate
purchaser of the bicycle helmet prior to purchase because of packaging
or other marketing practices, a second label is required. That label
shall state, as appropriate, ``Complies with CPSC Safety Standard for
Bicycle Helmets for Adults and Children Age 5 and Older'', or
``Complies with CPSC Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets for Children
Under 5 Years''. The additional label must appear on the container or,
if the container is not visible before purchase, on the promotional
material used with the sale of the bicycle helmet. (For a helmet that
meets the criteria for both an adult helmet and a helmet for children
under age 5, the label may state ``Complies with the CPSC Safety
Standard for Bicycle Helmets for Persons of All Ages'', or equivalent
language.)
(e) Additional provisions for importers.
(1) General. The importer of any bicycle helmet subject to the
standard in Subpart A of this Part 1203 must issue the certificate of
compliance required by Sec. 14(a) of the CPSA and this section.
(i) If a reasonable testing program meeting the requirements of
this subpart has been performed by or for the foreign manufacturer of
the product, the importer may rely in good faith on such tests to
support the certificate of compliance provided:
(A) the importer is a resident of the United States or has a
resident agent in the United States,
(B) the records of such tests required by Sec. 1203.41 of Subpart C
of this part are maintained in the United States, and
(C) such records are available to the Commission upon request to
the importer.
(ii) Test records may be maintained outside of the United States if
they will be provided to the Commission within 48 hours of a request
for the records.
(2) Responsibility of importer. If the importer relies on tests by
the foreign manufacturer to support the certificate of compliance, the
importer shall--in addition to complying with paragraph (e(1)of this
section--examine the records supplied by the manufacturer to determine
that they comply with Sec. 1203.41 of Subpart C of this part.
Subpart C--Recordkeeping
Sec. 1203.40 Effective date.
The recordkeeping requirements in this subpart are effective [1
year after publication of the final rule] and apply to bicycle helmets
manufactured after that date.
Sec. 1203.41 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General. Every person issuing certificates of compliance for
bicycle helmets subject to the standard in Subpart A of this part shall
maintain records which show that the certificates are based on a
reasonable testing program. The records shall be maintained for a
period of at least 3 years from the date of certification of the last
bicycle helmet in each production lot. These records shall be
available, upon request, to any designated officer or employee of the
Commission, in accordance with Sec. 16(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2065(b).
(b) Contents of records. Complete test records shall be maintained.
Records shall contain the following information.
(1) An identification of the bicycle helmets tested;
(2) An identification of the production lot;
(3) The results of the tests, including the precise nature of any
failures;
(4) A description of the specific actions taken to address any
failures;
(5) A detailed description of the tests;
(6) The manufacturer's name and address;
(7) The model and size of each helmet tested;
(8) Identifying information for each helmet tested, including the
production lot for each helmet, and the environmental condition under
which each helmet was tested;
(9) The temperatures in each conditioning environment, and the
relative humidity and temperature of the laboratory;
(10) The peripheral vision clearance;
(11) A description of any failures to conform to any of the
labeling and instruction requirements;
(12) Performance impact results, stating the location of impact,
type of anvil used, velocity prior to impact, and maximum acceleration
measured in g's;
(13) The results of the positional stability test;
(14) The results of the dynamic strength of retention system test;
(15) The name and location of the test laboratory;
(16) The name of the person(s) who performed the test;
(17) The date of the test; and
(18) The system check results.
(c) Format for records. The records required to be maintained by
this section may be in any appropriate form or format that clearly
provides the required information. Certification test results may be
kept on paper, microfiche, computer disk, or other retrievable media.
Where records are kept on computer disk or other retrievable media, the
records shall be made available to the Commission on paper copies, or
via electronic mail in the same format as paper copies, upon request.
Subpart D--Bicycle Helmets Manufactured From March 16, 1995,
Through Date That Is 1 Year After the Final Rule Is Issued
Sec. 1203.51 Purpose and basis.
The purpose and basis of this rule is to protect bicyclists from
head injuries by ensuring that bicycle helmets comply with the
requirements of appropriate existing voluntary standards, as provided
in 15 U.S.C. 6004(a).
Sec. 1203.52 Scope and effective date.
(a) Bicycle helmets manufactured after March 16, 1995, through the
date that is 1 year after issuance of the final standard (Subparts A,
B, and C) shall comply with the requirements of one of the standards
specified in Sec. 1203.53. This requirement shall be considered a
consumer product safety standard issued under the Consumer Product
Safety Act.
(b) The term ``bicycle helmet'' is defined at Sec. 1203.4(b).
(c) These interim mandatory safety standards will not apply to
bicycle helmets manufactured after the effective date of the final
bicycle helmet standard.
Sec. 1203.53 Interim safety standards.
(a) Bicycle helmets must comply with one or more of the following
standards, which are incorporated herein by reference:
(1) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z90.4-
1984, Protective Headgear for Bicyclists,
(2) ASTM standards F 1447-93 or F 1447-94, Standard Specification
for Protective Headgear Used in Bicycling, incorporating the relevant
provisions of ASTM F 1446-93 or ASTM F 1446-94, Standard Test Methods
for Equipment and Procedures Used in Evaluating the Performance
Characteristics of Protective Headgear, respectively,
(3) Canadian Standard Association standard, Cycling Helmets--CAN/
CSA-D113.2-M89,
(4) Snell Memorial Foundation (Snell) 1990 Standard for Protective
Headgear for Use in Bicycling (designation B-90),
(5) Snell 1990 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in
Bicycling, including
[[Page 62680]]
March 9, 1994 Supplement (designation B-90S),
(6) Snell 1994 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Non-
Motorized Sports (designation N-94), or
(7) Snell 1995 standard for Protective Headgear for Use with
Bicycles B-95.
(b) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part
51. Copies of the standards may be obtained as follows. Copies of the
ANSI Z90.4 standard are available from: American National Standards
Institute, 11 W. 42nd Street, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036. Copies of
the ASTM standards are available from: ASTM, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Copies of the Canadian Standards Association
CAN/CSA-D113.2-M89 standard are available from: CSA, 178 Rexdale
Boulevard, Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario, Canada, M9W 1R3. Copies of the
Snell standards are available from: Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc.,
P.O. Box 493, 7 Flowerfield, Suite 28, St. James, New York 11780.
Copies may be inspected at the Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland
20814, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol Street
NW, Room 700, Washington, DC.
Figures to Part 1203
BILLING CODE 6355-01-U
[[Page 62681]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.049
[[Page 62682]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.050
[[Page 62683]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.051
[[Page 62684]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.052
[[Page 62685]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.053
[[Page 62686]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.054
[[Page 62687]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.055
[[Page 62688]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.056
[[Page 62689]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.057
[[Page 62690]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.058
[[Page 62691]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.059
[[Page 62692]]
Dated: November 13, 1995.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-28761 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28555 Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62352-62354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28555]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 303
Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 27, 1992, Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. (``Courtaulds'')
applied to the Federal Trade Commission (``the Commission'') requesting
establishment of a new generic name and definition for a fiber it
manufactures. It recommended ``lyocell'' be adopted as the new generic
name for this fiber. The application was filed pursuant to Rule 8 (16
CFR 303.8) of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber
Products Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq., and Subpart C of
Part 1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.26. In the
application Courtaulds stated that its cellulosic fiber differs in kind
and chemical structure from any of the existing fiber definitions of
Rule 7 (16 CFR 303.7).
Commission staff, with the assistance of an expert on textiles,
after review of Courtauld's application, determined that various tests
were necessary in order to evaluate whether lyocell was, in fact, a new
generic fiber. Courtaulds performed these tests using the procedures
and under the conditions outlined by the textile expert. In March 1995,
Courtaulds submitted the results of these tests, as well as other
materials relating to its application.
Although the Commission has determined that the proposed new fiber
falls within the existing Rule 7(d) (16
[[Page 62353]]
CFR 303.7(d)) definition of ``rayon,'' the Commission believes it is in
the public interest to amend the Rule to recognize the fiber's unique
characteristics.
Rule 7(d) currently defines ``rayon'' as: a manufactured fiber
composed of regenerated cellulose, as well as manufactured fibers
composed of regenerated cellulose in which substituents have replaced
not more than 15% of the hydrogens of the hydroxyl groups.
Based on its review of the Courtaulds application and related
materials, the Commission proposed to retain the current Rule 7(d)
definition and to add the following sentence: Where the fiber is
composed of cellulose precipitated from an organic solution in which no
substitution of the hydroxyl groups takes place and no chemical
intermediates are formed, the term lyocell may be used as a generic
description of the fiber.
The Commission now solicits comments as to whether Rule 7(d) should
be amended and, if so, the form of such an amendment.
DATE: Written comments will be accepted until February 5, 1996.
ADDRESS: Comments and other submissions should be directed to:
Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. Submissions should be identified as
``Rule 7(d) Under the Textile Act--Comment.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bret S. Smart, Program Advisor, Los Angeles Regional Office, Federal
Trade Commission, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, #13209, Los Angeles, CA
90024, (310) 235-7890.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section A. Background
Rule 6 (16 CFR Sec. 303.6) of the Rules and Regulations Under the
Textile Act requires covered persons to use the generic names of the
fibers contained in covered textile fiber products when making required
disclosures of the fiber content of the products. Rule 7 (16 CFR 303.7)
sets forth the generic names and definitions that the Commission has
established for manufactured fibers. These generic manufactured fibers
have been found by the Commission to be individually unique and
distinctive by virtue of their chemical composition and physical
properties. Rule 8 (16 CFR 303.8) sets the procedures for establishing
new generic names. Upon receipt of an application for a new generic
name, the Commission must, within 60 days, either deny the application
or assign to the fiber a numerical or alphabetical symbol for temporary
use during further consideration of the application.
Courtaulds submitted its application requesting establishment of
``lyocell'' as a new generic fiber name on January 27, 1992. After an
initial analysis the Commission granted Courtaulds the designation
``CF0001'' for temporary use in identifying the fiber until the final
determination is made as to the disposition of the application.
Commission staff, with the assistance of an expert on textiles,
determined that various tests were necessary in order to evaluate
whether lyocell was, in fact, a new generic fiber. Courtaulds performed
these tests using the procedures and under the conditions outlined by
the textile expert. In March 1995, Courtaulds submitted the results of
these tests, as well as other materials relating to its application.
The application and related materials have been placed on the
rulemaking record.
The effect of the proposed amendment would be to allow use of the
name ``lyocell'' as an alternative to the generic name ``rayon'' for
the subcategory of rayon fibers meeting the further criteria contained
in the sentence added by the proposed amendment. Within the established
21 generic names for manufactured fibers, there are presently two cases
where such generic name alternatives may be used. Specifically,
pursuant to Rule 7(e) (16 CFR 303.7(e)), within the generic category
``acetate,'' the term ``tricacetate'' may be used as an alternative
generic description for a specifically defined subcategory of acetate
fiber. And pursuant to Rule 7(j) (16 CFR 303.7(j)), within the generic
category ``rubber,'' the term ``lastrile'' may be used as an
alternative generic description for a specifically defined subcategory
of rubber fiber.
The Commission takes this opportunity to clarify its policy
concerning the criteria by which it will decide the disposition of
petitions filed under Rule 8 of the Textile Act Rules, 16 CFR 303.8
(1995). In 1973, at the conclusion of the rulemaking that led to
creation of the new generic name ``aramid,'' the Commission declared
the following policy for adopting generic fiber names:
[T]he Commission, in the interest of elucidating the grounds on
which it has based this decision and shall base future decisions as
to the grant of generic names for textile fibers, sets out the
following criteria for grant of such generic names.
1. The fiber for which a generic name is requested must have a
chemical composition radically different from other fibers, and that
distinctive chemical composition must result in distinctive physical
properties of significance to the general public.
2. The fiber must be in active commercial use or such use must
be immediately foreseen.
3. The grant of the generic name must be of importance to the
consuming public at large, rather than to a small group of
knowledgeable professionals such as purchasing officers for large
Government agencies.
The Commission believes it is in the public interest to prevent
the proliferation of generic names, and will adhere to a stringent
application of the above-mentioned criteria in consideration of any
future applications for generic names and in a systematic review of
any generic names previously granted which no longer meet these
criteria.
As exemplified by today's action and reflected in this notice, the
Commission generally reaffirms its 1973 criteria. In addition, it notes
that where appropriate, in considering applications for new generic
names for fibers that are of the same general chemical composition as
those for which a generic name already has been established, rather
than of a chemical composition that is radically different, but that
have distinctive properties of importance to the general public as a
result of a new method of manufacture or their substantially
differentiated physical characteristics, such as their fiber structure,
it may allow such fiber to be designated in required information
disclosures by either its generic name, or alternatively, by its
``subclass'' name. The Commission will consider this disposition when
the distinctive feature or features of the subclass fiber make it
suitable for uses for which other fibers under the established generic
name would not be suited or would be significantly less well suited.
The Commission believes that Courtaulds' current application
describes a subclass of generic rayon fibers with significant
distinctions to consumers resulting from physical characteristics of
the fiber and its new mode of manufacture that meet the above standard
for allowing designation by the subclass name ``lyocell.'' Courtaulds'
application and other documents and materials related to the petition
describe the lyocell fiber, its manufacture and possible uses as
follows:
Lyocell fiber results from the dissolution of cellulose into an
aqueous solution of N-methyl morpholine oxide and the precipitation of
the fiber out of solution. This process is unique among methods used to
manufacture other existing rayons. As a result, the molecular structure
of lyocell fiber is radically different from that of other rayons in
that it has a substantially
[[Page 62354]]
higher degree of polymerization and greater crystallinity. These
differences induce high wet and dry tenacity as well as high initial
wet modulus in lyocell fiber. Consequently, garments made from the
fiber are highly resistant to shrinkage and wrinkling and therefore do
not require drycleaning, unlike other rayons. In addition to its use in
apparel, Courtaulds maintains that lyocell may be used to produce
biodegradable paper and hydro-entangled nonwoven products since, unlike
other rayons, it fibrillates upon beating.
Section B. Invitation to Comment
In today's notice, the Commission is soliciting comments on all
aspects of the appropriateness of the proposed amendment to Rule 7(d).
Before adopting this proposed amendment, the Commission will give
consideration to any written comments and materials submitted to the
Secretary of the Commission within the time period stated above.
Submissions will be available for public inspection in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and Commission
Regulations on normal business days between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
5 p.m. at the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade
Commission, 6th & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Section C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an
initial and final regulatory analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603-604, are not
applicable to this document because it is believed the amendment, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In considering the economic
impact of the proposed amendment on manufacturers and retailers, the
Commission notes that the amendment will impose no obligations,
penalties, or costs. The amendment would simply allow covered companies
to use the term ``lyocell'' as an alternative generic description for
``rayon'' for a well-defined subcategory of rayon fibers. The amendment
would impose no additional labeling requirements nor would it mandate
any changes in labeling.
To ensure, however, that no substantial economic impact is being
overlooked, public comment is requested on the effect of the proposed
amendment on costs, profit, competitiveness, and employment in small
entities. Subsequent to the receipt of public comments, the Commission
will decide whether the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility
analysis is warranted. Accordingly, based on available information, the
Commission hereby certifies, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b), that the proposed amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This notice serves as certification to that effect for the purposes of
the Small Business Administration.
Section D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed amendment does not constitute a ``collection of
information'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, P.L. 104-13,
109 Stat. 163, and the implementing regulation, 5 CFR Part 1320 et seq.
The generic name petition request has already been submitted to the
OMB and has been assigned a control number, 3084-0047.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303
Labeling, Textiles, Trade practices.
Authority: Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. 7(c); Sec. 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-28555 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28213 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62546-62659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28213]
[[Page 62545]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 122, et al.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application
Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment
Works Treating Domestic Sewage; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62546]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 403, and 501
[FRL-5328-9]
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other
Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposes to
amend permit application requirements and application forms for
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and other treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS). TWTDS include facilities that
generate sewage sludge, provide commercial treatment of sewage sludge,
manufacture a product derived from sewage sludge, or provide disposal
of sewage sludge. Today's notice solicits public comments on the
proposed regulations, proposed forms and instructions.
The proposed regulations and Form 2A would replace existing
Standard Form A and Short Form A to account for changes in the NPDES
program since the forms were issued in 1973. This proposal would
consolidate POTW application requirements, including information
regarding toxics monitoring, whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing,
pretreatment facility and hazardous waste contributions, and combined
sewer overflows (CSOs). The most significant proposed revisions would
require toxic and WET monitoring by major and pretreatment POTWs and
monitoring of 17 parameters by minor POTWs. EPA believes this
information is needed in order for permitting authorities to issue
permits that will adequately protect the Nation's water resources.
The proposed regulations and Form 2S would replace the existing
Interim Sewage Sludge form. The most significant proposed revision
would require POTWs and other TWTDS to analyze sludge and provide data
for ten metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Class I sludge management
facilities (pretreatment POTWs) would also have to analyze for most of
the priority pollutants. The Interim Form only requires the use of
existing data. EPA believes the additional information is needed in
order for permitting authorities to issue permits that meet the
requirements of the sewage sludge use or disposal regulations.
The costs associated with the new requirements are not significant
since many permitting authorities require essentially the same
information already through a variety of reporting mechanisms. The
proposed rule allows waivers where information is already available to
the permitting authority. The new forms would make it easier for permit
applicants to provide the necessary information with their applications
and would minimize the need for additional follow-up information
requests from permitting authorities. The proposal is estimated to
reduce the current annual reporting and record keeping burden by about
9,000 hours, or ten percent. EPA is interested in identifying
additional ways to further reduce the burden associated with the
applications and is seeking comment on the use of electronic data
transmission and other streamlining opportunities.
DATES: In order to be considered, comments must be received on or
before March 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Municipal and Sludge
Application Rule Comment Clerk, Water Docket MC-4101; United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC,
20460. Commenters are also requested to submit an original and 3 copies
of their written comments as well as an original and 3 copies of any
attachments, enclosures, or other documents referenced in the comments.
Commenters who want receipt of their comments acknowledged should
include a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All comments must be
postmarked or delivered by hand by March 5, 1996. No facsimiles (faxes)
will be accepted.
EPA will also accept comments electronically. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet address: [email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments
will be transferred into a paper version for the official record. EPA
will attempt to clarify electronic comments if there is an apparent
error in transmission. Comments provided electronically will be
considered timely if they are submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m.
(Eastern time) March 5, 1996. EPA is experimenting with electronic
commenting, therefore commenters may want to submit both electronic
comments and duplicate paper comments. This document has also been
placed on the Internet for public review and downloading at the
following location: gopher.epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on Form 2A and
municipal wastewater permitting issues in this notice, contact George
Utting, (202) 260-9530, Permits Division (4203), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20460.
For information on Form 2S and sewage sludge permitting issues in
this notice, contact Wendy Bell, (202) 260-9534, Permits Division
(4203), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Purpose of Today's Proposal
B. History of the NPDES Permit Program
1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
b. Changes Leading to the Clean Water Act of 1977
c. Permit Consolidation and Deconsolidation
d. The Water Quality Act of 1987 and Water Quality-Based
Permitting
2. Background of the Pretreatment Program
3. Program to Control Combined Sewer Overflows
C. Sewage Sludge Program Background
1. Statutory Requirements for Sewage Sludge
2. Sewage Sludge Permit Program Regulations
3. Part 503 Technical Standards
4. Implementation of Part 503 Technical Standards
5. Interim Sewage Sludge Application Form
D. NPDES Watershed Strategy
E. Permit Writer's Information Needs Related to Endangered
Species and Historic Properties
F. Permit as a Shield
G. Pollutant Data from POTWs
H. Public Consultation in the Development of Today's Proposal
II. Approach Taken in Today's Notice
A. Scope of Today's Rulemaking
B. The Agency Proposes to Revise the Definition of POTW and
Existing Permit Application Requirements for POTWs
C. EPA Proposes Form 2A for POTWs to Replace Standard Form A and
Short Form A
D. Applicability of Form 2A to Privately Owned and Federally
Owned Treatment Works
E. EPA Proposes Revised Application Requirements and Form 2S for
Sewage Sludge Permits
F. Reasons for Separate Form 2A and Form 2S
G. EPA Solicits Comment on the Use of Electronic Application
Forms
III. Description of Proposed Requirements
A. EPA Proposes to Revise Requirements in Sec. 122.21(c), (d),
and (f) Concerning the Use of Forms 1, 2A, and 2S
[[Page 62547]]
1. Requirement to Submit Form 2A
2. Requirement to Submit Form 2S
B. Application Requirements for POTWs (40 CFR 122.21(j))
1. Basic Application Information
2. Information on Effluent Discharges
3. Effluent Monitoring for Specific Parameters
a. Pollutant Data Requirements for all POTWs
b. Reporting of Additional Pollutants for Some POTWs
4. Effluent Monitoring for Whole Effluent Toxicity
5. Industrial Discharges, Pretreatment, and RCRA/CERCLA Waste
6. Discharges from Hazardous Waste Sources
7. Combined Sewer Overflows
8. Contractors
9. Certification
C. Application Requirements for TWTDS (40 CFR 122.21(q))
1. Facility Information
2. Applicant Information
3. Permit Information
4. Federal Indian Reservations
5. Topographic Map
6. Sewage Sludge Handling
7. Sewage Sludge Quality
a. Class I Sludge Management Facilities
b. All TWTDS
8. Requirements for a Person Who Prepares Sewage Sludge
9. Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge
10. Surface Disposal
11. Incineration
12. Disposal in a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
13. Contractors
14. Other Information
15. Signature
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
V. Executive Order 12866
VI. Executive Order 12875
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Consultation with
State, Local, and Tribal Governments
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Background
A. Purpose of Today's Proposal
Today's notice proposes to amend NPDES permit application
regulations for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and other
treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS). Proposed Form 2A
would apply to POTWs and replace Standard Form A and Short Form A,
which were developed in 1973. Proposed Form 2S would be used to report
sewage sludge information consistent with applicable permit program
regulations and technical standards for sewage sludge use or disposal.
Proposed Form 2S would be used by POTWs and other TWTDS.
EPA proposes these application regulations and forms for several
reasons. First, this rulemaking addresses changes to the NPDES program
since 1973. The NPDES program applicable to POTWs has changed
significantly since that time, specifically in the areas of toxics
control, water quality-based permitting and pretreatment programs.
Second, the proposal would consolidate application requirements from
existing regulations into a ``modular'' permit application form,
thereby streamlining and clarifying the process for permit applicants.
Third, these revisions will provide permit writers with the information
necessary to develop appropriate NPDES permits consistent with
requirements of the Clean Water Act and thus also help to ensure for
permittees the effectiveness of the permit as a shield for purposes of
compliance with the CWA. Fourth, the Agency seeks to reduce redundant
reporting by allowing waivers where information is already available to
the permitting authority and, further, to provide a platform for
electronic data transmission.
The proposed revisions would result in a net reduction in overall
reporting burden hours nationwide. The burden reduction for the
combined municipal and sludge proposed application requirements is
calculated to be nearly 9,000 hours annually, from a total existing
annual burden of 80,000 hours. This is due in part to the reduced
number of WET tests calculated to be performed by POTWs. It is also due
to the reduced number of major respondents that would be required to
comply with the proposed regulations as compared to the number of major
respondents estimated to complete the existing municipal application
forms (i.e., different criteria apply). Finally, the respondent burden
for CWA sec. 308 application requests also would be expected to
decrease, because much of the information currently obtained through
routine and medium sec. 308 requests is reflected in the proposed rule.
This burden reduction accounts for nearly 9,000 of the 287,000
hours projected to be saved, for an overall reduction of twenty-five
percent for the NPDES program. The total savings will be achieved
through revisions to this form, revisions to stormwater application
forms, revisions to the industrial application form 2C, and reductions
in discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). It is anticipated, however,
that most of the NPDES burden reduction will involve reduced burden for
DMRs, which currently account for greater than eighteen million annual
burden hours.
At the same time, this proposed rule would result in increased net
costs to municipal and sludge applicants of more than four million
dollars per year on a nationwide basis. It is calculated that this
proposal would apply to more than 7,000 permit applications per year,
with a total universe per year of more than three thousand applicants
each for municipal and sludge permitting. Costs vary considerably from
application to application. Thus, the average five-year cost per
application would range from an average of about $450 (less than $100
per year) for small municipalities to an average of about $4,000 (less
than $1,000 per year) for larger municipalities. Most of the costs
associated with this proposal would be due to proposed pollutant data
requirements for municipal permittees.
The Agency believes that the proposed increased costs are
appropriate because certain data may be necessary to the permit writer
in order to allow the issuance of permits that provide a ``shield'' to
permittees (see discussion, ``Permit as a Shield,'' at I.F.), and to
ensure compliance with Clean Water Act requirements, especially water
quality standards.
B. History of the NPDES Permit Program
1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted in 1972 (Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
CWA sec. 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The immediate predecessor to the
CWA was the Water Quality Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-234). The 1965 Act
directed each State to develop water quality standards for all
interstate navigable waters. States had difficulty developing these
standards, however, and by 1971 barely half the States had developed
complete programs. States that did develop standards had difficulty
implementing them because the 1965 Act lacked a workable mechanism for
translating State water quality standards into limits enforceable
against individual dischargers.
In response to this dilemma, Congress passed the CWA. Section 402
directed EPA to assume a substantial role in directing and defining the
nation's water pollution control programs. The Act established the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
to be administered by EPA and the States with EPA approval. The NPDES
program prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the
United States except when
[[Page 62548]]
authorized by a permit (sec. 301(a) and 402).
Section 301 significantly changed the methods used to set and
enforce standards to abate and control water pollution. First, it
introduced the concept of minimum technology-based discharge
requirements. Initially, sec. 301(b)(1)(B) required POTWs to achieve
effluent limitations based on secondary treatment. The ``degree of
effluent reduction achievable through application of secondary
treatment'' was to be defined by the Administrator, pursuant to sec.
304(d)(1). Later, POTWs were to achieve a more stringent level of
technology-based discharge limits based on best practicable waste
treatment technology (BPWTT) under sec. 301(b)(2)(B). That section was
repealed in 1981. Finally, POTWs were required to comply with any more
stringent limitations necessary to implement any applicable State water
quality standards. Water quality-based discharge limitations were
imposed by sec. 301(b)(1)(C).
To achieve the effluent reductions called for in sec. 301, sec. 402
provides for the NPDES permit program to implement and enforce these
controls. NPDES permits may be issued on the condition that authorized
discharges meet the applicable requirements of the CWA, including:
technology-based limitations; water quality-based limitations; new
source performance standards; toxic and pretreatment effluent
standards; inspection and monitoring provisions; and ocean discharge
criteria. EPA was authorized to issue regulations to implement these
provisions throughout the CWA. NPDES permit requirements are based
either on regulations promulgated under these sections or, in the
absence of regulations, on the permit writer's best professional
judgment (BPJ), when necessary to carry out the provisions of the CWA.
CWA sec. 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1). The CWA also authorized
States to assume responsibility for issuing NPDES permits, provided
that State programs meet the requirements of sec. 402(b) and
regulations published under sec. 304(i)(2) (previously, sec.
304(h)(2)). EPA promulgated the original regulations outlining the
NPDES program on December 22, 1972 (37 FR 28390) and May 22, 1973 (38
FR 13528).
The CWA required the Administrator to promulgate guidelines for
``establishing uniform application forms and other minimum requirements
for the acquisition of information'' from point sources, within 60 days
after its enactment. CWA sec. 304(i)(1) (previously, sec. 304(h)(1)).
EPA promulgated short forms to enable dischargers to meet deadlines
imposed by the CWA, on February 27, 1973 (38 FR 5279). These included
Short Form A, which was to be completed by all POTWs. EPA promulgated
standard forms to gather additional information from certain
dischargers, on July 24, 1973 (38 FR 19894). This rule included
Standard Form A, for POTWs meeting certain criteria relating to size,
population, and industrial contributions. At the time, there were no
effluent standards for POTWs. Secondary treatment regulations, setting
limits for biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform,
and pH, were not promulgated until August 17, 1973 (38 FR 22298).
b. Changes leading to the Clean Water Act of 1977
The first major change in the NPDES program's focus was the shift
from conventional to toxic pollutants. Though sec. 307(a) required EPA
to identify and establish effluent standards for toxic pollutants, the
thrust of the ``first round'' of NPDES permits was to control
conventional pollutants, rather than to identify and establish
standards for toxic pollutants. As the NPDES program was implemented,
several interested parties criticized the Agency's lack of progress in
establishing sec. 307(a) standards. Among the terms in settlement of
litigation in 1976, EPA was to establish technology-based standards as
necessary to address 65 compounds or classes of compounds for certain
industries. See NRDC v. EPA, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976). This list of
65 compounds is now contained in 40 CFR 401.15.
In 1977, amendments to the Clean Water Act refocused Agency
priorities on the control of toxic pollutants. As a result, the NPDES
program expanded beyond control of conventional pollutants to control
of nonconventional pollutants, such as ammonia, chlorine, and nitrogen,
as well as certain metals and organic chemicals. The list of the 65
compounds was incorporated into sec. 307 when the CWA was amended in
1977 (see Committee Print Number 95-32, Hearings before the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Review of the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, pages 399-405)
and subsequently was published on January 31, 1978 (43 FR 4109). The
compounds on the list were chosen according to various criteria,
including known occurrence in point source effluents and substantial
evidence of carcinogenicity in studies of humans or animal systems.
Because the list included broad categories or classes of chemicals
(e.g., chlorinated benzenes, DDT and metabolites, haloethers, etc.),
EPA restructured the list in order to evaluate and control the specific
pollutants of greatest concern. This produced a list of 129 individual
high priority toxic pollutants. As information became available
regarding the toxic effects of chemicals on the list, the Agency
amended the regulations to establish the current list of 126 ``priority
pollutants.'' See 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. The 1977 amendments also
amended sec. 402(b)(8)&(9) to require that approved State NPDES
programs provide for administration of the pretreatment program to
regulate industrial users of POTWs.
In 1979, EPA extensively revised the NPDES regulations to implement
changes in the CWA, to conform to recent court decisions, and to
clarify and improve existing procedures. The 1979 regulatory revisions
eliminated duplication of substantive and procedural requirements
between the existing State and Federal NPDES program regulations. Under
the final regulations, promulgated on June 7, 1979 (44 FR 32854), the
basic substantive and procedural requirements applicable to all NPDES
permits were set out in Parts 122 and 124. Part 123 established State
NPDES permit program requirements. EPA believed that this new
regulatory structure would simplify the regulations and avoid
inconsistencies between State and Federal programs. These regulations
were challenged judicially and, as discussed below, petitions for
review were merged with and resolved in litigation challenging the
consolidated permit regulations and subsequent rulemakings.
c. Permit Consolidation and Deconsolidation
To simplify permitting programs, EPA published regulations on May
19, 1980 (45 FR 33290), to consolidate the requirements and procedures
for five of the permit programs administered by the Agency: the NPDES
program, the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), State ``dredge or fill'' programs under sec.
404 of the CWA, the Hazardous Waste Management (HWM) program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under the Clean Air Act. The
Agency believed it would be efficient to consolidate environmental
permitting programs wherever feasible. This effort sought to
[[Page 62549]]
eliminate gaps and overlaps and ensure consistency among the programs.
At the same time, EPA revised certain of the permit application
regulations. The Agency created three new application forms: Form 1,
Form 2B, and Form 2C. Form 1 requires general information about permit
applicants and was required to be completed by applicants for each of
the five types of permits under the consolidated permit rule. Form 2B
is specific to part of the NPDES program, specifically, permit
applications for concentrated animal feeding operations and aquatic
animal production dischargers. Form 2C, also specific to the NPDES
program, applies to manufacturing, commercial, mining, and
silvicultural operations. All three forms incorporated EPA's emphasis
on toxic pollutants and other modifications to the CWA and NPDES
program regulations.
Following promulgation of the consolidated permit regulations,
interested parties complained that the consolidated format made the
regulations unnecessarily difficult to use. The division of
responsibilities among various entities at the State and Federal levels
resulted in additional problems. In practice, consolidated processing
of multiple permits was rare because the various permit programs
regulated different activities with different standards and thus
imposed different types of requirements on permittees. Subsequent
petitions for judicial review of various aspects of the consolidated
permit regulations were consolidated with pending petitions for review
of the June 7, 1979, final NPDES regulations in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
As part of an agreement to resolve that litigation, and in response
to problems encountered by permit writers, EPA deconsolidated the five
permitting programs on April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146). The NPDES
regulations remain in Part 122 (substantive permit requirements) and
Part 123 (State program requirements). Part 124 (common permitting
procedures) remains applicable to all of the programs. On September 1,
1983 (48 FR 39611), EPA promulgated additional revisions covering a
number of issues affecting the consolidated permit program.
After deconsolidation, the NPDES program continued to use Forms 1,
2B, and 2C. In 1984, EPA amended Form 2C to include toxic pollutant
sampling and, in 1986, promulgated two new NPDES forms: Form 2D, for
use by new manufacturing, commercial, mining and silvicultural
operations; and Form 2E, for use by facilities that do not discharge
process wastewater (51 FR 26982, July 28, 1986). The Agency did not,
however, revise either Standard Form A or Short Form A. Thus, these two
forms do not request information to reflect all of the CWA's current
requirements, including the emphasis on the control of toxic
pollutants.
d. The Water Quality Act of 1987 and Water Quality-Based Permitting
On February 4, 1987, the CWA was amended again by the Water Quality
Act (WQA) of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4). The WQA included several provisions
that affect POTWs and other TWTDS. Statutory amendments included
requirements addressing sewage sludge, storm water, and water quality-
impaired streams. In response to the 1987 amendments, EPA published
technical revisions to amend the NPDES regulations on January 4, 1989
(54 FR 246). EPA promulgated final regulations for State sludge
management programs on May 2, 1989 (54 FR 18716). As part of the WQA
implementation effort, the Agency published rules implementing CWA sec.
304(l) and other changes to surface water toxics regulations on June 2,
1989 (54 FR 23868). This 1989 rulemaking recognized the Agency's
commitment to protect water quality through water quality-based
permitting.
The 1987 amendments provided that States were to adopt numeric
water quality criteria for the ``priority pollutants'' listed pursuant
to sec. 307(a)(1), if discharge of those pollutants could reasonably be
expected to interfere with a designated use under State water quality
standards. States were to adopt these criteria whenever they reviewed,
revised, or added new water quality standards. Subsequent review of all
States indicated that 43 States had adopted the criteria as required.
Fourteen States, however, were not fully in compliance with the 1987
amendments as of December 22, 1992. On that date, EPA promulgated
chemical-specific numeric criteria for those States, as necessary, to
comply with the CWA (57 FR 60848).
On July 22, 1994, EPA published its whole effluent toxicity (WET)
policy (59 FR 37494). The policy is intended (i) to promote uniform,
nationwide compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements for
the control of WET, and (ii) to assist permit writers in implementing
these requirements. The policy reflects EPA's experience in
implementing the 1989 water quality-based permitting regulations at 40
CFR 122.44(d). The WET policy provides for: evaluation of acute and
chronic WET water quality criteria attainment at the edge of the
respective mixing zones; review of all major dischargers for reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to exceedance of WET water quality
criteria; consideration of available WET testing data and other
information in evaluating whether a discharger has reasonable potential
to cause or contribute to exceedance of WET criteria; imposition of
effluent limitations to control WET upon finding reasonable potential
to cause or contribute to exceedance of WET criteria; imposition of WET
monitoring conditions where appropriate for dischargers that do not
have effluent limitations to control WET; schedules for compliance with
WET effluent limitations; application of water quality permitting
regulations to apply without regard to the pollutant(s) that may be
causing toxicity, including ammonia and chlorine; and application of
the water quality-based permitting regulations to all dischargers,
including POTWs.
2. Background of the Pretreatment Program
Congress recognized that regulating only those pollutant sources
discharging effluent directly into the nation's waters would not
achieve the CWA's goal to eliminate pollutant discharges. Consequently,
the CWA required EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment
standards that restrict the introduction of pollutants from industrial
users of POTWs, also called indirect dischargers.
EPA first issued pretreatment standards on November 8, 1973 (38 FR
30982). Following the 1977 CWA amendments, EPA revised those
regulations and issued the ``General Pretreatment Regulations for
Existing and New Sources of Pollution,'' on June 26, 1978 (43 FR
27736). The regulations were revised again on January 28, 1981 (46 FR
9439). As amended, the pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR Part 403
require that ``any POTW (or combination of POTWs operated by the same
authority) with design influent flow rates greater than five million
gallons per day (mgd) and receiving from industrial users pollutants
that pass through or interfere with the operation of the POTW''
establish pretreatment programs as part of its NPDES permit. In
addition, POTWs with design influent flow rates of less than five mgd
may be required to develop pretreatment programs if non-domestic wastes
cause upsets, sludge contamination, or violations of NPDES permit
conditions or if their industrial users are subject to national
pretreatment standards. EPA estimates
[[Page 62550]]
that 1,500 treatment facilities are required to administer such
pretreatment programs.
The National Pretreatment Program's primary goal is protection of
POTWs and the environment from the effects of discharges into municipal
sewerage systems. This protection is achieved principally through
regulating industrial users that discharge toxic pollutants or
unusually large amounts of conventional pollutants into municipal
systems. The General Pretreatment Regulations control pollutant
discharges into POTWs in several ways. First, prohibited discharge
standards apply to all industrial and commercial establishments
connected to POTWs. 40 CFR 403.5. These standards include general
prohibitions against the introduction of pollutants into POTW that may
pass through the POTW or interfere with the operations of the POTW, as
well as specific prohibitions relating to the introduction of
pollutants which have the potential to create hazards for the POTW,
such as heat, explosivity, and corrosivity. Second, categorical
pretreatment standards apply to discharges by industrial users in
specific industrial categories determined to be significant sources of
toxic pollutants. Categorical standards are designed to ensure that
wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject
to similar levels of treatment.
Finally, 40 CFR 403.5(c) requires POTWs to develop and enforce
local limits designed to ensure that industrial users meet both the
general and specific prohibitions. Thus, local limits are intended to
ensure that POTWs are able to comply with NPDES limits, including
water-quality based standards. Local limits are Federally enforceable
pretreatment standards, as defined by sec. 307(d). In cases where local
limits are more stringent than categorical standards, the more
stringent limit applies and is enforceable as a Federal standard.
On July 24, 1990, EPA promulgated amendments to the NPDES and
General Pretreatment Regulations to reflect the findings of the
``Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works,'' also known as the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS)
(55 FR 18716). The rule contained a number of regulatory changes
intended to improve control of hazardous wastes discharged to POTWs,
including revisions to the application requirements for POTWs at 40 CFR
122.21(j). Paragraphs 122.21(j) (1)-(3) contain whole effluent toxicity
(WET) testing requirements, and paragraph 122.21(j)(4) requires POTWs
with approved pretreatment programs to submit a written technical
evaluation of the need to revise local limits. Today, EPA proposes to
revise the WET reporting requirements at Sec. 122.21(j) and to revise
the provision for the local limits technical evaluation by making this
a POTW pretreatment program requirement rather than an application
requirement based on concerns about the timing of such evaluations
relative to imposition of water quality-based effluent limitations in
POTW permits.
3. Program To Control Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined sewer systems (CSSs) are wastewater collection systems
that transport both sanitary wastewater and storm water to POTWs.
During dry weather, CSSs carry sanitary wastes, as well as industrial
and commercial discharges, to POTW treatment plants. In periods of
heavy wet weather flows, transported sewer waters can overflow the
regulator structures, which normally convey waste streams to the
treatment plant, and discharge into adjacent surface waters. These
discharges are called ``combined sewer overflows'' (CSOs). CSOs often
contain high levels of suspended solids, bacteria, pathogens, and, in
many instances, heavy metals and other toxic pollutants, floatables,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding materials, oil and grease, and other
contaminants.
CSOs are point source discharges subject to technology-based
treatment requirements and applicable water quality-based standards
through NPDES permits. Because they occur prior to the headworks of the
POTW treatment plant, these discharges are not considered discharges
from a POTW and, consequently, are not subject to secondary treatment
requirements.
In the United States, approximately 1,100 (mostly older)
municipalities have CSSs, with approximately 11,000 CSO outfalls that
periodically discharge untreated sewage, commercial and industrial
wastes, and storm water during wet weather events. Almost 85 percent of
these municipalities are located in the Northeast and Great Lakes
areas. Studies conducted in recent years reveal that CSO discharges are
a leading cause of reduced water quality, increased health risks,
degraded ecological conditions, and impaired beneficial uses within the
Nation's surface waters. Although pollutant concentrations in CSOs
frequently are lower than those in untreated average-flow municipal
wastewater (due to dilution occurring during high flows), CSOs often
result in large pollutant loadings within a short time, potentially
causing beach closures, shellfish bed closures, and fish kills.
In 1989, EPA published the National Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Strategy (54 FR 37370, Sept. 8, 1989). On April 19, 1994, EPA expanded
on the 1989 strategy by publishing the CSO Control Policy (59 FR
18688). The Policy was developed through negotiated dialogue with
State, environmental group, and municipal representatives. The Policy
explains EPA's expectations for control of CSOs under the CWA and
guides NPDES permitting authorities in issuing permits for CSO
discharges. The Policy outlines a phased approach to permitting
requirements. Under a Phase I permit, the permittee should document
implementation of the nine minimum control measures identified in the
Policy as minimum technology-based requirements established through
best professional judgment (BPJ) to minimize CSO discharges. The nine
minimum controls include review and modification of local pretreatment
programs to minimize CSO impacts on receiving waters; maximization of
flow to the POTW for treatment; control of solids and floatables; and
monitoring to characterize effectively CSO impacts and the efficacy of
CSO controls.
The nine minimum controls are measures that can generally be
implemented expeditiously to reduce CSOs and their effects on receiving
water quality. The Phase I permit should not only require
implementation of the nine minimum controls, but should also require
development of a long-term control plan. The long-term control plan
describes the long-term control strategy developed to ultimately result
in compliance with the requirements of the CWA (including attainment of
water quality standards). Under a Phase II permit, the permittee
implements the specific controls described in the long-term control
plan.
C. Sewage Sludge Program
1. Statutory Requirements for Sewage Sludge
In 1987, Congress amended sec. 405 to establish a comprehensive
sewage sludge control program. This program regulates the use and
disposal of sewage sludge by POTWs and by other treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS). Section 405 required EPA to develop
technical standards that would establish sewage sludge management
practices and acceptable levels of toxic pollutants in sludge.
Section 405 also provides that NPDES permits issued to TWTDS
contain requirements implementing the sewage
[[Page 62551]]
sludge standards, unless sewage sludge control requirements are
included in a permit issued under one of the following: Subtitle C of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act; Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act;
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; the Clean Air
Act; or EPA-approved State programs that comply with sec. 405. EPA may
also issue ``sludge-only'' permits to TWTDS that are not otherwise
subject to the NPDES program or to the other permitting programs listed
above.
2. Sewage Sludge Permit Program Regulations
On May 2, 1989, EPA promulgated regulations establishing the legal
and programmatic framework for the National Sewage Sludge Program (54
FR 18716). Sewage sludge management provisions are to be incorporated
into EPA-issued permits or permits issued by a State under an EPA-
approved sewage sludge program. Sewage sludge information reporting
requirements were also added to the overall NPDES permit application
requirements of 40 CFR 122.21. The new regulations, however, neither
listed the specific sewage sludge information requirements nor provided
a form for reporting this information. Instead, the rulemaking cross-
referenced the existing State Sludge Management Program regulations in
Part 501 and required applicants to submit the information listed at
Sec. 501.15(a)(2). Paragraphs (i)-(v) of Sec. 501.15(a)(2) require
information on the location and permitting status of the TWTDS.
Paragraphs (vi)-(xii) require technical information on the applicant's
sewage sludge use or disposal practice(s).
On February 19, 1993, EPA amended the sewage sludge permit program
regulations (58 FR 9404). This amendment phased in requirements for
submitting sewage sludge permit application information. Any TWTDS that
is required to have, or that requests, site-specific pollutant limits
was required to submit permit application information by August 18,
1993, for the first round of Part 503 standards. Other TWTDS with NPDES
permits must submit application information with their next NPDES
permit applications. Finally, TWTDS without NPDES permits (``sludge-
only facilities'') were to submit identification and screening
information to the permitting authority by February 19, 1994, for the
first round of Part 503 standards.
3. Part 503 Technical Standards
On November 25, 1992, EPA promulgated the sewage sludge use and
disposal standards required by section 405 of the CWA (58 FR 9248, et
seq., February 19, 1993). These standards regulate the use and disposal
of sewage sludge when it is applied to land, placed on a surface
disposal site (including sludge-only landfills), fired in a sewage
sludge incinerator, or sent to a municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLF). The standards for each regulated sewage sludge use or disposal
method consist of general requirements, pollutant limits, management
practices, operational standards, and requirements for monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting. A number of parties petitioned for review
of the regulations and on November 15, 1994, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded several aspects
of the regulations for modification or additional justification.
Leather Industries of America, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency,
40 F.3d 392 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
4. Implementation of Part 503 Technical Standards
Section 405(f) of the CWA requires that permits issued to
facilities involved in sewage sludge generation, treatment, or disposal
include Part 503 requirements. Both POTWs and other TWTDS are engaged
in sewage sludge generation, treatment, or disposal. However, some of
these facilities are not required to obtain NPDES discharge permits
pursuant to sec. 402 of the CWA because they do not discharge
pollutants to surface waters. These are ``sludge-only'' facilities.
POTW permits must contain requirements implementing applicable Part
503 technical standards and other Part 122 permit conditions (such as
boilerplate conditions and compliance monitoring requirements). POTW
permits may also contain any other conditions the permitting authority
develops on a case-by-case basis to protect public health and the
environment. The permit also establishes a POTW's responsibilities for
sewage sludge it sends to other facilities for disposal.
In addition to POTWs, other TWTDS may also be issued permits. These
treatment works include facilities dedicated to sewage sludge disposal
(i.e., surface disposal sites and sewage sludge incinerators), as well
as certain facilities that provide treatment or otherwise change the
quality of the sewage sludge before ultimate use or disposal. Sewage
sludge has undergone a change in quality if its pollutant
concentrations, pathogen levels, or vector attraction properties have
been altered sufficiently to change the sludge's regulatory status
under Part 503. Therefore, processes such as stabilization, composting,
digestion, heat treatment, or blending with bulking agents or with
sewage sludge from another treatment works may all qualify as sewage
sludge treatment. (For a more detailed discussion of who must apply for
a permit, see the preamble to the May 2, 1989, regulations at 54 FR
18725.)
5. Interim Sewage Sludge Permit Application Form
On November 8, 1993, EPA published a notice about the interim
sewage sludge permit application form (58 FR 59260). This interim form
was developed to simplify the application process until Form 2S was
completed. Section 122.21(d)(3)(ii) requires sewage sludge permit
applications to include the information at Sec. 501.15(a)(2), which
includes both specific and general information. This interim form
ensures that permittees submit the necessary information; helps
permittees to understand exactly which requirements apply to them; and
makes the application requirements consistent for all permittees.
Proposed Form 2S is based on the interim application form. EPA
welcomes comments on the proposed Form 2S, especially from users of the
interim form.
D. NPDES Watershed Strategy
The Watershed Protection Approach is an Agency initiative which
promotes integrated solutions to address surface water, ground water,
and habitat concerns on a watershed basis. It represents EPA's renewed
emphasis on addressing all stressors within a hydrologically defined
drainage basin, instead of viewing individual pollutant sources in
isolation. It is not a new program competing with, or replacing,
existing programs; rather, it provides a management framework, within
which baseline CWA program requirements, related public health
concerns, and newer initiatives can be integrated to address
restoration and protection of aquatic ecosystems cost-effectively .
The Watershed Protection Approach has four components. First, it
focuses protection and restoration activities within a geographically
defined resource, the watershed. Second, it emphasizes the involvement
of all affected stakeholders within a watershed; these may include
Federal authorities, State governments, local governments, the
regulated community, environmental groups, and other interested
parties. Third, it stresses the need for appropriate stakeholders to
[[Page 62552]]
take comprehensive, integrated actions to address environmental
priorities. Finally, it promotes a regular effort to evaluate the
success of these actions in protecting and restoring the watershed.
The broad range of NPDES functions and activities gives the NPDES
program a key role in implementing the Watershed Protection Approach.
On March 21, 1994, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water issued the
NPDES Watershed Strategy. The Strategy represents a first step toward
OW's goal of fully integrating the NPDES program into the broader
Watershed Protection Approach.
The Strategy outlines national objectives and implementation
activities: (1) to integrate NPDES program functions into the broader
Watershed Protection Approach; and (2) to support the development of
Statewide basin management approaches. To this end, the Strategy
identifies six areas that are considered essential for the Agency to
support these objectives:
Statewide Coordination--Support the development of Statewide basin
management frameworks, coordinate EPA Office of Water grants
application and reporting processes, and coordinate interstate basin
efforts to facilitate implementation of the Watershed Protection
Approach;
NPDES Permits--Implement a methodology for issuing NPDES permits on
a watershed basis and emphasize training on watershed protection.
Streamline the NPDES permit development, issuance, and review process.
Develop and implement innovative approaches to NPDES permitting on a
watershed basis, where feasible;
Monitoring and Assessment--Develop a Statewide monitoring strategy;
establish point source ambient monitoring requirements, where
appropriate, to facilitate the development of monitoring consortia and
individual monitoring efforts; and promote comparable data collection,
analysis, and utilization by all stakeholders;
Programmatic Measures and Environmental Indicators--Revise existing
national accountability measures to facilitate implementation of the
Watershed Protection Approach and establish new measures of success
that reflect assessment of progress toward short- and long-term
watershed protection goals;
Public Participation--Utilize existing NPDES public participation
process and development of basin-wide management plans to encourage
informed participation by watershed stakeholders, educate stakeholders
about watershed planning efforts, and seek broad public participation
in identifying local environmental goals; and
Enforcement--Include emphasis on minor facilities which are
discharging to priority basins, within the base national enforcement
program, and use 308 authorities, inspections and supplemental
environmental projects, where appropriate, to support watershed
protection activities.
The Agency views today's rulemaking as an opportunity to further
the objectives of the Watershed Protection Approach and the NPDES
Watershed Strategy. Both proposed Form 2A and proposed Form 2S request
information which support these objectives. These questions are
discussed in detail below. The Agency requests comment on what specific
additional changes might be made to proposed Form 2A and proposed Form
2S to support the Watershed Protection Approach.
E. Permit Writer's Information Needs Related to Endangered Species and
Historic Properties
EPA is considering whether the permit application regulations
should require permit applicants to provide available information
related to endangered species and historic properties. The Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq., creates certain obligations
requiring the Agency to consult with other federal agencies (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Services) when EPA
carries out, authorizes, or funds an action that may affect threatened
or endangered (``listed'') species. The National Historic Preservation
Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470 et seq., creates certain obligations requiring
the Agency to consult with State officials (State Historic Preservation
Officers) and/or federal officials at the Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation in order for EPA to take into account the effect on
historic properties of an ``undertaking,'' as that term is defined by
the National Historic Preservation Act. EPA believes that the
collection of such information would be useful to regulatory officials
in considering permit applications for activities or undertakings that
may affect listed species or historic properties, respectively. Absent
information in the permit application, EPA may need to collect such
information on a case-by-case basis, which could delay the permit
issuance process in some instances.
EPA invites public comment on the information that could or should
be provided by the permit applicant. Specifically, if EPA established
permit application questions about listed species or historic
properties, what kind of information can or should the permit applicant
provide? Would it be appropriate to request that the permit applicant
identify whether there are known or suspected listed species, including
species proposed for listing and designated critical habitat, or
historic properties in the area of the POTW discharge (or sludge use or
disposal site by a TWTDS) that would be affected by that POTW discharge
(or sludge use or disposal by a TWTDS)? How could or should EPA provide
applicants with flexibility to assist regulatory officials in the
consideration of potential impacts of activities on listed species or
historic properties? Though EPA does not propose what type of
information related to endangered species or historic properties would
be sought in today's proposal, any such information collection requests
in the final regulation may affect the costs associated with complying
with the permit application regulations, both in terms of financial
cost and burden hours. EPA invites public comment on all aspects of
efficient federal permitting of POTWs (and TWTDS) consistent with
requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
F. Permit as a Shield
Section 402(k) of the CWA, also known as the ``shield'' provision,
provides that compliance with an NPDES permit shall be deemed
compliance, for purposes of sec. 309 and 505 enforcement, with sec.
301, 302, 306, 307, and 403 of the CWA (except for any standard imposed
under sec. 307 for toxic pollutants injurious to human health). In
response to questions raised regarding EPA's interpretation of the
scope of the ``shield'' associated with NPDES permits under the CWA,
the Agency issued a policy statement on July 1, 1994, to describe the
Agency's current position on the scope of the authorization by EPA to
discharge under an NPDES permit and the shield thus associated with
permit authorization.
As part of an application for an individual NPDES permit, EPA
requires that an applicant provide certain information on its facility.
In the case of industrial permit application, this includes specific
information about the presence and quantity of a number of specific
pollutants in the facility's effluent, as well as general information
on all waste streams and operations contributing to the facility's
effluent and the treatment the wastewater receives. Present application
requirements for
[[Page 62553]]
municipal discharges focus primarily on the operation and treatment
processes at the municipal treatment works, although some quantitative
information is also required.
Historically, EPA has viewed the permit, together with material
submitted during the application process and information in the public
record accompanying the permit, as important bases for an authorization
to discharge under sec. 402 of the CWA. The availability of the sec.
402(k) shield is predicated upon the issuance of an NPDES permit and a
permittee's full compliance with all applicable application
requirements, any additional information requests made by the permit
authority and any applicable notification requirements under 40 CFR
Secs. 122.41(l) and 122.42, as well as any additional requirements
specified in the permit.
In the July 1, 1994, policy statement, the Agency explained that a
permit provides authorization and therefore a shield for the following
pollutants resulting from facility processes, waste streams and
operations that have been clearly identified in writing in the permit
application process when discharged from specified outfalls:
(1) Pollutants specifically limited in the permit or pollutants
which the permit, fact sheet, or administrative record explicitly
identify as controlled through indicator parameters (of course,
authorization is only provided to discharge such pollutants within the
limits and subject to the conditions set forth in the permit);
(2) Pollutants for which the permit authority has not established
limits or other permit conditions, but which are specifically
identified in writing as present in facility discharges during the
permit application process; and
(3) Pollutants not identified as present but which are constituents
of wastestreams, operations or processes that were clearly identified
during the permit application process (the permit, of course, may
explicitly prohibit or limit the scope of such discharges).
With respect to subparts 2 and 3 of the permit authorization
described above, the Agency recognizes that a discharger may make
changes to its permitted facility (which contribute pollutants to the
effluent at a permitted outfall) during the effective period of the
NPDES permit. Pollutants associated with these changes (provided they
are within the scope of the operations identified in the permit
application) are also authorized provided the discharger has complied
in a timely manner with all applicable notification requirements (see
40 CFR 122.41(l) and 122.42 (a) and (b)) and the permit does not
otherwise limit or prohibit such discharges. Section 122.42(b) requires
that POTWs must provide adequate notice, including information on the
quality and quantity of discharges to the POTW and anticipated impacts
on the quantity or quality of effluent discharged by the POTW, of new
introductions of pollutants by indirect dischargers into the POTW and
any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being
introduced by sources introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time
of permit issuance.
Notwithstanding any pollutants that may be authorized pursuant to
subparts 1 and 2 above, an NPDES permit does not authorize the
discharge of any pollutants associated with wastestreams, operations,
or processes which existed at the time of the permit application and
which were not clearly identified during the application process.
In the July 1994 policy statement, the Agency committed to revise
the NPDES permit application regulations for both municipal and
industrial discharges, so as to ensure that applicants would have the
responsibility to characterize more fully the nature of their effluents
and the contributions of their effluents to receiving waters. The
Agency stated that, in addressing this issue, it would review EPA's
position on the scope of the shield provided by sec. 402(k).
Generally, the discharger is in the best position to know the
nature of its discharge and potential sources of pollutants.
Consequently, requiring as full a disclosure as technically possible in
the permit application is one option EPA may want to consider in light
of the protection afforded the discharger by the permit shield.
However, in the case of POTWs, providing a permit shield only for
pollutant discharges fully and completely characterized in the permit
application could represent a significant burden on POTWs if they were
required to identify every pollutant discharged. This is so because of
the potential pollutant contribution into POTW sewer systems from
industrial users and residential dischargers. Narrowing the scope of
the shield and consequent expansion of potential liability would likely
raise the cost associated with the failure to anticipate, detect, and
provide information on these discharges.
The Agency has concerns that, using the current application form,
permitting authorities using the existing municipal application forms
may not always receive the information about an applicant's discharge
needed to develop permits consistent with the requirements of the CWA.
In today's proposed rule, the Agency is updating its POTW discharge
application requirements (proposed Form 2A and proposed Sec. 122.21(j))
to provide more information to permit writers and to streamline the
permitting process by ensuring that the information needed from most
applicants is consolidated onto a single application form. The Agency
solicits comment on whether the proposal adequately addresses these
concerns. Moreover, EPA is seeking the public's views on how to strike
the proper balance between the need for environmental protection,
incentives to ensure adequate disclosure, and the discharger's need for
certainty that its conduct meets legal requirements.
The Agency also specifically requests comment on adding additional
application requirements that would make applicants responsible for
providing more information than that specified on the form. For
example, the Agency is considering adding a question asking whether the
POTW has any other information on pollutants not otherwise requested on
the form. The Agency is also considering whether to ask whether the
POTW has any information on adverse impacts on water quality, such as
information concerning beach closings, citizen complaints, or fish
kills. In providing comments on such questions, commenters should state
whether they would have a chilling effect on--that is, might tend to
inhibit--the activities of POTWs already participating, for example, in
ambient monitoring. Comment is also requested on the extent to which
such information is already available to permitting authorities.
G. Pollutant Data from POTWs
In preparing options for pollutant data collection for today's
proposed rule, the Agency sought to identify relevant pollutant data
records for reference. In so doing, the Agency reviewed POTW effluent
``priority pollutant scan'' data from EPA Region VI and from North
Carolina. These data represented data from samples of the effluents of
several hundred POTWs with a design flow greater or equal to one (1.0)
mgd (i.e., ``major'' POTWs). Although the information requested by the
Region and State differed in some respects, each required major POTWs
to report on all ``priority pollutants'' (i.e., the pollutants listed
in 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix D, Tables II and III). The Agency compiled
this information in a database, and analyzed it to determine the
pollutants most frequently detected in these effluents.
The Agency concluded that, although this survey was not conducted
based on
[[Page 62554]]
statistical methodologies, it was possible to discern certain general
patterns in the incidence of pollutants reported. Our review of Region
VI and North Carolina data indicated that over 90% of 300 POTWs sampled
reported at least one of the chemicals listed in Appendix D, Table III.
Copper and zinc each appeared in two-thirds of all the POTWs surveyed;
lead and nickel each appeared in about thirty percent of the effluents
sampled; antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and silver each appeared in more
than fifteen percent of facilities; and mercury and cyanide each
appeared in slightly fewer than fifteen percent. Certain volatile
organics (i.e., THMs) each appeared in roughly a quarter or more of the
POTWs sampled; and certain base neutral compounds (i.e., pthalate
esters) each showed up in ten to twenty percent of POTWs. Finally, only
a few of the pesticides listed in Appendix D, Table II were reported in
a small number of these scans.
While this information was not determinative in the Agency's
decisions about what to include on the forms, it was consistent with
other information provided, and supported some of the Agency's
assumptions articulated elsewhere in this preamble concerning the
appropriate pollutant test data to require from major POTWs. Notably
lacking, however, were data on discharges from ``minor'' POTWs (those
with a design flow of less than one (1.0) mgd). The Agency is seeking
information concerning the discharges from minor POTWs and intends to
collect such information between this proposal and the final rule that
will provide a basis for determining the appropriate sampling
requirements for those POTWs.
H. Public Consultation in the Development of Today's Proposal
In the course of developing today's proposed rule, EPA made efforts
to consult with interested stakeholders in the application process. In
late 1993 and early 1994, the Agency sought feedback on draft forms and
other elements of the proposal from States with approved NPDES
programs, local governments, the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), the California Association of
Sanitation Agencies (CASA), the Water Environment Federation (WEF), and
several environmental groups. In response to this outreach effort, the
Agency received written comments from a dozen States, several
municipalities, and from AMSA. Agency representatives also met with
State and municipal representatives and conducted a conference call
through WEF.
With respect to the POTW wastewater discharge application, the
Agency was particularly interested in issues relating to pollutant data
collection. The Agency indicated that it was considering a tiered
approach, based upon POTW size and the level of industrial contribution
(i.e., whether the POTW was required to implement a local pretreatment
program). Most commenters generally supported the idea of a tiered
approach (i.e., that the Agency not require the same information from
all POTWs). The Agency received an array of suggestions concerning what
pollutant data should be required. Among the concerns raised by
commenters were the following: ease of completion; flexible
implementation by States; reduced pollutant data requirements;
sensitivity to impacts on small municipalities; and elimination of
redundant reporting. In addition, the Agency received numerous
technical comments concerning various details of the information to be
reported.
In response, the Agency has made changes to the proposed rule to
provide a user-friendly modular design for the forms and has revised
its initial approach to municipal pollutant data collection for this
proposal. The Agency's proposed approach to pollutant data collection
would limit pollutant data requests to those pollutants of greatest
concern and would require less pollutant data from smaller
municipalities. However, the Agency is still considering several
options concerning the amount of pollutant data to be provided,
including options that would require minor POTWs to provide sampling
data on metals, some organic compounds, and whole effluent toxicity.
With respect to the sludge application, the Agency was interested
in the type and amount of pollutant data currently requested by States.
Responses showed variation among States. Comments were also received
that questioned the need for some of the information to be collected by
Form 2S. The Agency has removed some questions that it agrees are not
necessary for sludge permit applications. The Agency also requests
comment on several options for pollutant data collection.
Finally, the Agency proposes to allow the use of existing data and
to reduce redundant reporting by allowing permitting authorities to
waive reporting of information to which they have direct access. This
proposal is discussed in more detail in those portions of the preamble
which focus on the relevant provisions of the proposed rule. The Agency
also solicits comments on alternative considerations specifically
addressed to pollutant data submission and industrial user information.
II. Approach Taken in Today's Notice
A. Scope of Today's Rulemaking
Today's notice proposes two sets of NPDES application requirements
and a corresponding permit application form, together with
instructions, for each. Proposed Sec. 122.21(j) contains application
requirements pertaining to wastewater treatment and discharge at
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and would require that
applicants submitting this information to EPA use new Form 2A. Proposed
Sec. 122.21(q) contains application requirements pertaining to
generation, treatment, and disposal of sewage sludge at POTWs and other
treatment works treating domestic sewage, and would require that
applicants submitting applications to EPA use new Form 2S.
The proposed forms would be used both by EPA and by approved NPDES
States that choose to adopt these forms. Approved States could also
elect to use forms of their own design so long as the information
requested includes at least the information required by the final
NPDES/sludge regulations. EPA and State NPDES authorities may request
additional information from permit applicants whenever necessary to
establish appropriate permit limits and conditions. CWA sec. 308.
The proposed forms and instructions for each form are included with
today's proposed rule as an appendix to the rulemaking package. EPA is
not intending to publish the forms and instructions with the final
rule, so as to reduce the length of the Federal Register notice for the
final rulemaking, and solicits comment on this issue.
B. The Agency Proposes to Revise the Definition of POTW and Existing
Permit Application Requirements for POTWs
Today, EPA proposes to revise the definition of the term ``POTW,''
as defined in 40 CFR Part 122 to conform more exactly with the
definition of the term at 40 CFR Part 403. ``POTW'' is defined at 40
CFR 403.3 as ``a treatment works . . . which is owned by a State or
municipality.'' This definition includes devices and systems used in
the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage
or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, as well as sewers, pipes, and
other conveyances that carry wastewater to a
[[Page 62555]]
POTW treatment plant. As defined, the term ``POTW'' also refers to the
municipality that has jurisdiction over the discharges to and from such
a treatment plant. In today's proposed rule, the Agency proposes to
revise the definition of POTW in Part 122 so as to be consistent with
the more commonly understood definition located in Part 403.
The Agency's intention is to simplify and clarify, though EPA
recognizes that any change may create unanticipated confusion. The
Agency solicits comments on effects on conforming the Part 122
definition with the Part 403 definition. Specifically, the Agency is
interested in the extent the change would affect: implementation of the
Combined Sewer Overflow policy; regulatory consideration of sanitary
sewer overflows; and implementation and applicability of the NPDES and
pretreatment programs to sewerage collection systems that are not
owned/operated by the owner/operator of the treatment plant to which
collected waste waters are transported.
The Agency proposes to revise whole effluent toxicity testing
requirements found in the existing POTW permit application regulations
at Sec. 122.21(j). Under existing Sec. 122.21(j) (1)-(3), a POTW must
provide the results of whole effluent biological toxicity testing as
part of its NPDES permit application, if the POTW has a design flow
equal to or greater than one million gallons per day; if it has (or is
required to have) an approved pretreatment program; or if it is
required to report by the Director (NPDES State Program Director or EPA
Regional Administrator). The Agency proposes to revise this requirement
to reflect Agency guidance and policy, as well as practical experience
in implementing existing requirements, as set forth at proposed
Sec. 122.21(j)(4).
The Agency proposes to change the pretreatment requirement for
local limit calculations from an application requirement to a permit
requirement. Under existing Sec. 122.21(j)(4), any POTW with an
approved pretreatment program must provide a written technical
evaluation of the need to revise local limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1).
The existing provision requires that the local limits evaluation be
done prior to permit issuance. This has generated feedback from States
and municipalities that it would be better to require the evaluation
after permit issuance, so as to avoid the need for a second technical
evaluation if the POTW's permit limits are revised in the new permit.
In response to these concerns, the Agency proposes to change this from
an application requirement to a POTW pretreatment program requirement,
at proposed Sec. 403.8(f)(4)(B).
C. EPA Proposes Form 2A for POTWs to Replace Standard Form A and Short
Form A
Today EPA proposes a new NPDES application form, Form 2A, for
POTWs. Currently, POTWs may be required to submit one of two forms,
depending on the size of the POTW. While both of these forms are
approved Federal forms, the NPDES regulations do not require use of the
forms by POTWs when applying for a permit. Standard Form A is intended
to be used by all POTWs with a design flow equal to or exceeding one
million gallons per day. Standard Form A contains questions about the
facility and collection system, discharges to and from the facility
(including information on some specific pollutant parameters), and
scheduled improvements and schedules of implementation. Short Form A is
intended for use by all POTWs with a design flow of less than one
million gallons per day. Short Form A contains only fifteen questions
of a summary nature, and asks for virtually no information on specific
pollutants. Many States use one or both of the Federal forms, but a
number of States have developed State forms that request information
not included on the Federal forms.
EPA proposes to replace both Standard Form A and Short Form A with
a single Form 2A, subdivided into two parts, titled ``Basic Application
Information'' and ``Supplemental Application Information''. Basic
application information would include information about the collection
system and the treatment plant, general information concerning the
types of discharges from the treatment plant, identification of
outfalls, certain effluent characteristics, and scheduled improvements.
The Agency believes that a separate short form for all minor POTWs is
no longer appropriate, because in order to establish adequate permit
limits, information such as that mentioned above must be collected from
all POTWs, regardless of size.
On the other hand, the Agency recognizes the need to be selective
in requiring further additional information. For this reason, the
Agency has divided the proposed form into two parts. To limit the
reporting burden for smaller POTWs without significant industrial
contributions, EPA proposes to require effluent monitoring data for 17
parameters from POTWs with design flows less than one million gallons
per day (mgd) and without pretreatment programs. These 17 parameters
consist mostly of conventional and nonconventional pollutants. Larger
POTWs and pretreatment POTWs, by comparison, would be required to
report effluent monitoring data for metals and organic compounds as
well as the 17 parameters required for smaller POTWs. Thus, the Basic
Application Information part of Form 2A would require reporting on
those parameters required of all POTWs, while the Supplemental
Application Information part of the form would be used by applicants
providing data on toxic pollutants (i.e., larger POTWs and pretreatment
POTWs). Similarly, the Supplemental Application Information part of
Form 2A is intended to be used by applicants required to provide the
results of whole effluent toxicity tests, applicants with significant
industrial users, and applicants with CSOs.
The Agency also invites comment on requiring use of the form
itself. As explained previously, EPA conducted significant public
outreach to design an application form that is easy to use, including
outreach on the form itself. Use of the form would provide all of the
information requested in the proposed application regulations, whereas
modification of the form may result in failure to provide information
to be required in the proposed regulations. On the other hand, EPA
seeks to provide maximum flexibility by ``streamlining'' procedures for
permit development. The Agency seeks comment on whether requiring use
of the form would interfere with streamlining permitting procedures.
D. Applicability of Form 2A to Privately Owned and Federally Owned
Treatment Works
As in the case of existing Standard Form A and Short Form A, EPA
proposes that Form 2A and the application requirements at
Sec. 122.21(j) be required only for POTWs. However, the Agency proposes
that the Director have the discretion to use the proposed form for
treatment works that are not POTWs. As previously discussed, the NPDES
program has evolved considerably since Standard Form A and Short Form A
were promulgated in 1973, and now embraces facilities that operate
similarly to POTWs but which do not meet the regulatory definition of
POTW. Although not owned by a State or municipality, such facilities
nevertheless receive predominantly domestic wastewater, provide
physical and/or biological treatment, and discharge effluent to waters
of the United States. Such facilities include Federally owned treatment
works (FOTWs) and privately owned treatment
[[Page 62556]]
works that treat primarily domestic wastewater.
EPA is aware that Federal and State permitting authorities use a
number of mechanisms for obtaining NPDES permit application information
from non-POTW treatment works. These mechanisms include Standard Form
A, Short Form A, Form 2C (``Existing Manufacturing, Commercial, Mining,
and
FR Doc. 95-28213 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
Silvicultural Operations''), and Form 2E (``Facilities Which Do Not
Discharge Process Wastewater''). The Agency believes that Form 2A would
in many cases be the more appropriate application form for non-POTW
treatment works, and solicits comments on its applicability to such
facilities.
Nevertheless, the Agency does not propose to require Form 2A for
non-POTW treatment works. Despite many functional similarities to
POTWs, such facilities do not share the same regulatory requirements
and thus might not be required to report the same information to
permitting authorities. In many instances, non-POTW treatment works are
not required under the NPDES regulations to develop pretreatment
programs, meet secondary treatment requirements, or report results of
whole effluent toxicity testing with their permit applications. For
those facilities, requiring such information through Form 2A might be
unnecessary.
The Agency solicits comments on whether the provisions of
Sec. 122.21(j) and the requirement to use Form 2A should be extended to
treatment works other than POTWs. EPA is particularly interested in
commenters' views on how to collect appropriate information in
appropriate circumstances. EPA also seeks to design permit application
requirements to account for privatization of treatment plants initially
constructed as publicly owned treatment works. The permit application
requirements in this proposed rule may be appropriate for partially
privatized portions of POTWs, particularly because the proposed
information regulations in today's rule would solicit information about
sewerage collection systems that might not otherwise be collected under
the industrial permit application regulations. Finally, EPA solicits
comment on the extent of the similarity between POTWs and FOTWs, for
example, whether FOTWs would have combined sewage collection systems.
In another part of today's proposal, EPA is soliciting comment about
the definition of POTW to which the permit application regulations
would apply.
E. EPA Proposes Revised Application Requirements and Form 2S for Sewage
Sludge Permits
Today, EPA also proposes a new form, Form 2S, to collect
information on sewage sludge from treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS). The term ``treatment works treating domestic sewage''
is a broad one, intended to reach facilities that generate sewage
sludge or effectively change its pollutant characteristics as well as
facilities that control its disposal. The term includes all POTWs and
other facilities that treat domestic wastewater. It also includes
facilities that do not treat domestic wastewater but that treat or
dispose of sewage sludge, such as sewage sludge incinerators,
composting facilities, commercial sewage sludge handlers that process
sludge for distribution, and sites used for sewage sludge disposal. In
addition, EPA may designate a facility a TWTDS when the facility's
sludge quality or sludge handling, use, or disposal practices have the
potential to adversely effect public health and the environment. Septic
tanks or similar devices are not considered TWTDS.
In addition to proposing sewage sludge application requirements in
new paragraph 122.21(q), EPA also proposes to delete the cross-
reference to Sec. 501.15(a)(2) in paragraph 122.21(d)(3)(ii). This
would consolidate all of the sewage sludge application requirements in
paragraph 122.21(q). The information included in Sec. 122.21(d)(3)(ii)
and Sec. 501.15(a)(2) was not intended to be a final, comprehensive
list of all of the application information required of a TWTDS. Such a
comprehensive list was not possible until after promulgation of the
technical sewage sludge standards. Rather, with these sections, EPA
provided a minimum set of information requirements to suffice until
more comprehensive sewage sludge permit application regulations could
be promulgated. In light of the promulgation of technical sewage sludge
use or disposal standards, at 40 CFR Part 503, EPA today proposes to
modify the sewage sludge permit application requirements to add new
Sec. 122.21(q) and to revise paragraph Sec. 122.21(d)(3)(ii)
accordingly.
EPA intends to maintain consistency between the NPDES permit
application requirements of Part 122 and the State sewage sludge
permitting requirements of Parts 123 and 501. This reflects EPA's
belief that a TWTDS should submit the same application information
regardless of whether the permitting authority regulates sludge
management under an approved NPDES or under a non-NPDES program.
Therefore, under today's rulemaking, EPA also proposes to revise the
language of Secs. 123.25(a)(4) and 501.15(a)(2) to modify the sludge
information requirements. EPA seeks comment on this revision.
F. Reasons for Separate Form 2A and Form 2S
EPA today proposes two separate forms for municipal wastewater
discharges and sludge for several reasons. First, the forms would
differ in their applicability. Form 2A would apply only to POTWs; Form
2S would require information from all TWTDS. Most facilities that
generate, treat, or dispose of sewage sludge are POTWs, and will be
required to submit both application forms. However, several thousand
TWTDS do not discharge to surface waters and therefore are not required
to have NPDES discharge permits. Thus, they would be required to submit
Form 2S but not Form 2A.
Second, separate application forms are also appropriate because
wastewater and sewage sludge are often regulated by different
permitting authorities. In 41 States and territories, the NPDES program
is administered at the State level through an EPA-approved NPDES
program. Therefore, POTWs in NPDES States would obtain NPDES permits
from the State permitting authority (by submitting Form 2A to the
State) and sewage sludge permits from EPA (by submitting Form 2S to the
EPA Regional Office). Separate application forms would facilitate this
bifurcated permitting process. In addition, even when a State sludge
permitting program is approved, the program will not necessarily be
administered by the State's NPDES permitting authority. For example, a
POTW in a State with both NPDES and sludge permitting authority could
receive its NPDES permit from the water management agency and its
sewage sludge permit from a solid waste agency. Separate Forms 2A and
2S would also facilitate permitting in this situation.
G. EPA Solicits Comment on the Use of Electronic Application Forms
Consistent with recent amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Agency intends to develop electronic data submission as an
alternative form of application. The use of electronic media should
help to streamline the application process and to reduce the amount of
repetition associated with completing application forms that are only
available on hard copy. As previously noted, the elimination of
redundant reporting is one of the goals of this rulemaking.
[[Page 62557]]
It is not clear, however, how this would best be accomplished,
especially because permit application forms must be ``signed'' to
ensure reliability of permit application information (and
enforceability of the permit application regulations). Options range
from transmitting data electronically, submitting disk copies, or
submitting a hard copy. It might be most feasible to have electronic
forms that could be distributed and completed electronically, and then
printed, signed, and submitted. Although the Agency is considering how
``signatures'' for electronic submissions could be obtained, there are
other issues concerning the use of application forms, such as how to
attach accompanying documents. The Agency solicits comments regarding
the interest that applicants and permitting authorities may have in
this area, and suggestions as to how it could most feasibly be
accomplished.
III. Description of Proposed Requirements
A. EPA Proposes to Revise Requirements in Sec. 122.21 (c), (d) and (f)
Concerning the Use of Forms 1, 2A, and 2S
EPA proposes revisions to the existing general application
requirements for all NPDES permittees, which would require the use of
Forms 2A and 2S by applicants for EPA-issued permits. The proposed rule
would not require applicants using these forms to use Form 1, as is
currently required. Today's proposed rule substantially incorporates
the requirements of Sec. 122.21(f) into the requirements of proposed
Sec. 122.21 paragraphs (j) and (q).
1. Requirement to Submit Form 2A
EPA proposes in Sec. 122.21(d) to require POTWs to submit the
information at Sec. 122.21(j) using Form 2A or an equivalent form
approved by the Director. The Agency proposes to require applicants for
EPA-issued permits to complete Form 2A, but is considering not
requiring the use of the form so long as the proposed regulatory
requirements are met. The Agency intends to allow the use of any method
of electronic data submission the Agency may approve as part of the
final rule in lieu of the form itself.
2. Requirement to Submit Form 2S
EPA also proposes in Sec. 122.21 paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (d) to
require TWTDS to submit the information at Sec. 122.21(q) using Form 2S
or an equivalent form approved by the Director. As with Form 2A, the
Agency proposes to require applicants for EPA-issued permits to
complete Form 2S, but is considering not requiring the use of the form
so long as the proposed regulatory requirements are met. Also as with
Form 2A, the Agency intends to allow the use of any method of
electronic data submission the Agency may approve as part of the final
rule.
B. Application Requirements for POTWs (40 CFR 122.21(j))
Today's proposed rule includes application requirements for all
POTWs. These requirements are proposed at 40 CFR 122.21(j). Form 2A
tracks the information required by the regulation in parallel fashion.
Applicants for State-issued permits are not required to use Form 2A, so
long as the other application form provided by the Director requests
the information required by proposed Sec. 122.21(j).
EPA acknowledges concerns relating to redundant reporting which
were raised by State and municipal commenters during the consultation
process. The Agency does not wish to require applicants to report
information already provided or available to the permitting authority.
Today's proposal would allow permitting authorities to waive reporting
requirements, as appropriate. The introductory paragraph of proposed
Sec. 122.21(j) would allow the Director to waive any requirement in
proposed paragraph (j) if the Director has access to substantially
identical information. The Agency solicits comment on this approach
and, specifically, on the conditions for allowing such a waiver. In
today's proposed rule, the Agency also solicits comments on more
narrowly defined waivers for specific requirements (see discussion
below concerning pollutant data requirements and industrial user
information requirements).
The Agency also solicits comment on ways to allow the permit writer
or permitting authority discretion in waiving particular information
where the permitting authority determines that such information is not
necessary for the application. In other words, there may be flexible
ways to look at each applicant in light of the overall ``matrix of
characteristics'' regarding a particular facility. Where, for example,
historical data indicate that additional sampling is not warranted
unless other conditions have changed, the Agency is allowing the
permitting authority to waive such sampling. Such flexibility would
involve a holistic approach to implementing these proposed
requirements. The Agency solicits comment as to ways in which it could
be accomplished without making these provisions entirely discretionary,
and thus making it difficult for the applicant to predict how
discretion would be exercised. This might be particularly relevant on
the second and subsequent rounds of permitting under these proposed
provisions. The Agency also seeks comment on what information might be
appropriate and what information might be inappropriate for such
waivers.
1. Basic Application Information
Today's proposal would require all POTW applicants to provide the
information in proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1). All of this information is
also requested in Questions 1-16 of the Basic Application Information
part of proposed Form 2A.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1) of today's rule would require
information on the POTW's service area and physical plant. The proposed
rule would require all applicants to provide information regarding the
community served and physical characteristics of the treatment works.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(i) requests facility identification
information. Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(ii) requests information about
the applicant, which may or may not be the facility itself. Proposed
Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(iii) asks the applicant to provide permit numbers of
any existing environmental permits that have been issued to the
facility.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(iv) would require the applicant to list
the municipalities and populations served by the POTW. The POTW may
serve several areas (including unincorporated connector districts) in
addition to the one in which it is located. The permit writer needs to
know what areas are served and the actual population served in order to
calculate the potential domestic sewage loading to the facility. The
information on the community is also useful for providing notice and
public comment for permit reissuance, and for public education.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(v) would require the applicant to report
the facility's design flow rate and the annual average daily flow rate
for each of the past three years. This information enables the
permitting authority to calculate limits appropriate to the POTW, to
alert the permitting authority to the need for flow restrictions or
facility expansion, and to compare design and actual flows.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(vi) would require information on the
type of collection system used by the facility. The applicant would
also identify whether the collection system is a separate sanitary
system or a combined storm and sanitary system. The
[[Page 62558]]
applicant would also estimate the percent of sewer line that each type
comprises. Familiarity with the type of collection system enables the
permit writer to anticipate combined collection system overloading in
wet weather. The current application form, Standard Form A, requests
that the applicant also provide the length of the collection system (in
miles). The proposed rule does not include this requirement because the
Agency does not believe that such information is useful to the permit
writer.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(vii) would also require information on
inflow and infiltration. Inflow is the uncontrolled entrance of water
into the collection system from surface sources such as unsealed
manholes. Infiltration is water that enters the collection system
through deteriorated or defective pipes, joints, and connections. Both
conditions may indicate the need for special permit conditions (such as
best management practices) to reduce the inadvertent flow of water to
the POTW. EPA requests comment on the availability of inflow and
infiltration information at POTWs. This provision would also request
information on steps the facility is taking to minimize inflow and
infiltration.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(viii) would require the applicant to
provide a topographic map that includes information on the layout of
the treatment plant, including all unit processes; intake and discharge
structures; wells, springs, and other surface water bodies; sewage
sludge management facilities; and the location(s) at which hazardous
waste enters the treatment plant by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe.
This provision reflects the topographic map requirements of
Sec. 122.21(f)(7), and is more specifically designed to include
features most likely to be found at a POTW.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(ix) would require the applicant to
submit a process flow diagram or schematic, together with a narrative
description. The permit writer uses this information to develop
secondary treatment and water quality-based permit requirements, as
well as other applicable permit conditions.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(x) would require information about
bypasses, which are intentional diversions of wastestreams from any
part of a treatment plant. Regulations governing bypasses are set forth
at 40 CFR 122.41(m). Facilities experiencing bypasses are required to
estimate the frequency, duration, and volume of bypass incidents, and
the reasons why bypasses have occurred. Information on bypasses is used
by the permit writer to develop appropriate permit limits and
conditions for these discharges.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(xi) would require general information
regarding discharges to waters of the United States as well as
discharges to destinations other than surface waters. This information
enables the permit writer to account for all wastewater that enters the
POTW, regardless of whether or not it is discharged directly to
receiving waters. From a watershed permitting standpoint, permitting
authorities may use this information to identify flows that
individually or collectively may have an impact on the watershed,
whether or not they are discharged directly into waters of the U.S.
If any effluent is discharged to surface impoundments with no
discharges to waters of the U.S., the applicant would report the
location of each surface impoundment, the annual average daily volume
discharged to each surface impoundment, and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent. If effluent is applied to the land, the
applicant must provide the site location, the site size, and the annual
average daily volume of effluent applied. The applicant must also state
whether land application is continuous or intermittent. This
information alerts the permit writer to the potential for point source
discharges to arise from land application sites under certain
circumstances, such as cold weather or high volume discharges, or from
surface impoundments.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(xi) would also require the applicant to
report whether wastewater is discharged to another treatment works, the
means by which the wastewater is transported, the average daily flow
rate to that facility, and information identifying the receiving
facility. The applicant must also identify the organization
transporting the discharge, if other than the applicant. The permit
writer needs this information in order to track the wastewater and
verify the transfer.
Finally, proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(xi) would require information
on other types of disposal, such as underground percolation or
injection. These types of disposal may result in the transfer of
pollutants to waters of the U.S. through underground flows, and thus
are of interest both to the permit writer in writing the permit and to
the permitting authority in designing watershed protection strategies.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(xii) would require the applicant to
report whether the POTW is located on a Federal Indian Reservation,
discharges to a receiving water that is on a Federal Indian Reservation
or upstream of and eventually flows through a Federal Indian
Reservation. This information enables the permit writer to identify the
proper permitting authority and applicable requirements, including
applicable water quality standards.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(xiii) would require the applicant to
provide information about any scheduled facility improvements.
Improvements to the facility may change its flow or removal efficiency,
necessitating a permit modification. The permit writer may modify the
permit when the improvement is complete, or may include alternate
limits in the permit that would take effect upon completion of the
improvement.
The current application form, Standard Form A, requests certain
information about required improvements including information on dates
for completion of the preliminary plan, completion of the final plan,
awarding of contract, and site acquisition. EPA is proposing to delete
these requirements but solicits comment on their usefulness. Standard
Form A also requires the applicant to identify the authority imposing
the improvement and the general and specific action codes. The Agency
proposes to delete this requirement because permit writers have
indicated that this information is unnecessary to writing the permit.
2. Information on Effluent Discharges
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2) of today's rule would require all POTWs
that discharge effluent to waters of the U.S. to provide specific
information for each outfall through which effluent is discharged to
surface waters, excluding CSO outfalls. This information would be
reported in Questions 17, 18, and 19 of the Basic Application
Information part of proposed Form 2A. The applicant would be required
to submit the information required for each outfall.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(i) would require general information
about each outfall. The applicant must specify the outfall number,
location, latitude and longitude, distance from shore (if applicable),
distance below surface (if applicable), and average daily flow (in
million gallons per day). EPA enters the latitude and longitude points
into the water quality data base STORET. Maps of the location of water
discharges are developed to examine the relationship between NPDES
outfalls and other areas of concern, such as drinking water intake
points or sensitive ecosystems. This information is also used to
establish water quality-based effluent limits appropriate for the
particular
[[Page 62559]]
receiving water. The locational data requested by this question also
supports the Watershed Protection Approach, because it provides Federal
and State environmental managers with information they need to
geographically locate discharge points.
Latitude and longitude would be required to be reported to the
nearest second. This is consistent with EPA's Locational Data Policy
(LDP) (See ``Locational Data Policy Implementation Guidance, Guide to
the Policy (March 1992)''). In accordance with this policy, all
latitude/longitude measurements in Agency data collection should have
accuracies of better than 25 meters (i.e., roughly, one second).
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(i) would require information about the
interval and duration of effluent discharges that are seasonal or
periodic. Such discharges arise from certain conditions, usually
related to the process at an industrial user, whereby the industrial
user discharges intentionally at specified times following treatment.
For each outfall with an intermittent discharge, the applicant must
report the annual frequency, duration, flow, and the months in which
the discharge occurs. The permit writer uses this information to
develop permit limits that reflect the intermittent nature of such
discharges.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(i) would also require the applicant to
specify whether the outfall is equipped with a diffuser and the type of
diffuser (e.g., high-rate) used. The permit writer uses this
information to make mixing zone calculations. (See ``Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control,'' EPA/505/2-90-001,
March 1991.)
Most POTWs discharge treated effluent to surface waters such as
streams or rivers. Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(ii) solicits information
that describes and identifies the receiving waters into which each
outfall discharges. Information about the type of receiving water is
useful to the permit writer because mixing zones and wasteload
allocations may be calculated differently for different types of
receiving waters.
This provision would also require the name of the watershed, the
Soil Conservation Service watershed code, the name of the State
management basin, and the United States Geological Survey hydrologic
code. This locational information supports the Watershed Protection
Approach, by providing Federal and State environmental managers with a
means of locating dischargers within the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
watershed categorization system, a State's river basin categorization
system, and the U.S. Geological Survey cataloging scheme. Some States,
as well as EPA Regions, are implementing a basin management approach to
watershed protection and will require the information requested by this
question.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(iii) would require information on the
level of treatment for discharges from each outfall. The CWA requires
POTWs, with some exceptions, to treat influent to the level of
secondary treatment prior to discharge. Secondary treatment is defined
at 40 CFR 133.102 in terms of five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5), total suspended solids (SS or TSS), and pH. Part 133
allows adjustments to the secondary treatment requirements for POTWs
that meet certain criteria. In addition, some POTWs are subject to
requirements for ``treatment equivalent to secondary treatment,'' as
described in Sec. 133.105. Finally, some POTWs may have more advanced
levels of treatment necessary, for example, to meet water-quality based
standards for certain pollutants, such as nitrogen and phosphorous.
This provision would require data on design removal efficiencies
for BOD5 and SS. Information on these parameters is necessary in
order for the permit writer to set pollutant limits that accurately
reflect the pollutant removal that the POTW can achieve. It may also
alert the permitting authority to the need for improvements to the
treatment facility.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(iii) would also require information on
disinfection, which usually follows secondary or advanced treatment and
which destroys bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens in the
wastewater. Disinfection most commonly occurs through chlorination.
Many POTWs also dechlorinate their effluent prior to discharge because
excessive free chlorine in a wastewater discharge can cause aquatic
toxicity in the receiving water.
3. Effluent Monitoring for Specific Parameters
The purpose of proposed Sec. 122.21(j) and proposed Form 2A is to
provide the permit writer with the minimum information necessary to
issue to a POTW an NPDES permit that contains effluent limitations
consistent with the goals of the CWA. EPA recognizes that the quality
of a POTW's effluent depends on several factors, such as the number and
type of industrial users of the POTW, and that not all POTWs need to
report the same information to ensure developing NPDES permits to
achieve designated uses of the Nation's waters. Hence, EPA proposes a
tiered approach to collect needed effluent monitoring information.
The Agency proposes to require all POTWs to report effluent
monitoring information for the 17 parameters listed at proposed 40 CFR
Part 122, Appendix J, Table 1 (``Effluent Parameters For All POTWs'')
(see also proposed Form 2A, Basic Application Information, question
19). These parameters have a high likelihood of being present in most
POTW effluents.
EPA is proposing to require additional reporting of pollutant-
specific data for POTWs with a design flow greater than or equal to 1.0
mgd; POTWs that have or are required to have a pretreatment program;
and other POTWs required to provide this information to the permitting
authority. In general, the pollutants for which additional data would
be required are those for which there are State water quality
standards, other than dioxin, asbestos, and ``priority pollutant''
pesticides. Thus, the Agency would require, at a minimum, data on those
pollutants listed at proposed 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix J, Table 2
(``Effluent Parameters For Selected POTWs and Treatment Works Treating
Domestic Sewage'') (see also proposed Form 2A, Part A, Supplemental
Application Information: Expanded Effluent Testing). The Agency would
not require data, unless otherwise specified by the permitting
authority, on those pollutants listed at proposed 40 CFR Part 122,
Appendix J, Table 3 (``Other Parameters for Treatment Works Treating
Domestic Sewage And Selected POTWs'').
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(3) would require that data be separately
provided for each outfall through which treated sanitary effluent is
discharged to waters of the United States. Further, EPA recognizes that
a POTW's effluent may have similar qualities at more than one of its
outfalls. EPA thus proposes to allow applicants to provide the effluent
data from only one outfall as representative of all such outfalls,
where two or more outfalls with substantially identical effluents, and
with the approval of the permitting authority on a case-by-case basis.
For outfalls to be considered substantially identical, they should, at
a minimum, be located at the same plant, be subject to the same level
of treatment, and have passed through the same types of treatment
processes. The Agency solicits comment on this approach and,
particularly, on whether data should be separately collected from all
such outfalls. Alternatively, should applicants generally be encouraged
to follow this approach rather than
[[Page 62560]]
selectively approved on a case-by-case basis?
EPA proposes that effluent and monitoring data submitted to the
permitting authority meet the following conditions:
1. Maximum Period of Sample Collection: All data summarized in
response to these questions is proposed to be collected within a 3-year
period preceding the permit application date.
2. Minimum Number of Daily Sample Analyses: Results from a minimum
of three separate daily sample analyses (pollutant scans) are proposed
to accommodate data needs for each analyte on which information is
requested. Additional samples might be required on a case-by-case
basis.
3. Seasonal Considerations: For most POTWs, EPA expects that the
three, or more, sets of results for daily sample analyses summarized in
response to these information needs would represent typical daily
discharges occurring during at least three different calendar seasons.
For most applicants, EPA proposes to require that a minimum of 4 months
and a maximum of 8 months separate at least one pair of the daily
sample analysis results included in the summary. Applicants unable to
meet this time requirement due to, for example, periodic,
discontinuous, or seasonal discharges could obtain alternative guidance
on this requirement from their permitting authority. Permitting
authorities might alter this requirement to address considerations of
specific POTWs.
4. Testing Methods: Sampling and analysis is proposed to be
conducted in accordance with methods approved under 40 CFR Part 136.
Applicants would be expected to use methods that enable pollutants to
be detected at levels adequate to meet water quality-based standards.
Where no approved method can detect a pollutant at the water quality-
based standards level, applicants would be expected to use the most
sensitive approved method. If the applicant believed that an
alternative method should be used (e.g., due to matrix interference),
the applicant would need to obtain prior approval from the permitting
authority. If an alternative method approved in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 136 is specified in the existing permit, the applicant would be
expected to use that method unless otherwise directed by the permitting
authority. When no approved analytical method exists, an applicant
could use a suitable method and provide a description of the method.
``Suitable method'' means a method that is sufficiently sensitive to
measure as close to the water quality-based standard as possible. The
permit writer needs to know which testing methods are used in order to
assess the technical validity of the results.
5. Daily Samples: For most POTWs, sampling is proposed to be
conducted using composite samples mixed on a flow-proportional basis
over a 24-hour period from at least eight sample aliquots (100 ml
minimum) collected using an automated sample collection device. The
flow-proportional basis would involve either varying the intervals
between the collection of equal volume samples or varying the sample
volumes collected over equal interval collection periods. The reason
for using automated samplers is that they are designed to make the
necessary adjustments according to the rate of flow.
For POTWs where automated sample collection devices are not
available, it is proposed that appropriate daily composite samples for
analysis would be produced by mixing at least four sample aliquots (100
ml minimum), each collected to represent typical segments of the
operating day effluent flows.
Because pH, temperature, cyanide, total phenols, residual chlorine,
oil and grease, and bacterial indicators cannot be properly sampled by
continuous sampling devices, summarized results for each daily analysis
are proposed to be based on individual analysis of a minimum of four
grab samples collected to represent typical effluent flows over the
operating day. A grab sample has 100 ml minimum volume, collected over
15 minutes or less.
For effluents from treatment ponds or other impoundments that have
retention times of greater than 24 hours, single grab samples (100 ml
minimum collected over 15 minutes or less) would be considered adequate
to represent daily conditions for all analytes reported.
6. Maximum Data Summarization Requirements: EPA recognizes that not
all analytes are sampled and analyzed at the same frequency for
effluents from a single POTW or across all POTWs. EPA thus proposes
that summarized results for analytes should include all data collected
over the preceding three-year period, ending the calendar quarter
preceding the permit application date (providing, for example, a total
of 3 annual samples or 12 quarterly samples summarized per analyte, as
well as any other samples taken by the applicant).
For those analytes sampled and analyzed at monthly or more frequent
intervals, EPA proposes that applicants only summarize and report data
collected over a single one-year period (e.g., providing a summary of
12 monthly samples, together with any other samples taken during that
period, per analyte). The one-year period included in this data
summarization interval would end the calendar quarter preceding the
permit application date.
Applicants would be required to indicate for each analyte the
number of samples summarized and whether each summary represents a one
or three year summarization period.
7. All Data Must Be Reported: For each analyte, EPA proposes that
all samples conducted and analyzed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136
during the reporting period be reported (i.e., included with all other
data for the period reported), regardless of whether or not they were
required by the permitting authority or these proposed regulations.
8. Data Must Be Summarized: For each analyte, EPA proposes that
applicants report the maximum daily discharge, expressed either as
concentration or mass, of all of the samples reported. Applicants would
also report the average daily discharge, expressed either as
concentration or mass, of all the samples reported.
The Agency is considering requiring applicants to report only
concentration numbers on the application or, alternatively, requiring
that applicants who wish to report mass also provide flow information
used in calculating the mass figures reported. Thus, applicants would
be required to report the flow rate used in calculating the maximum
daily discharge and the average of all of the flow rates used in
calculating the average daily discharge.
Some States may wish to have individual pollutant data reports,
rather than summary data, from applicants, either from all applicants
or on a case-by-case basis, in addition to or instead of the summary
data required by proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(3). States would be encouraged
to obtain this information in the manner considered most suitable to
their needs.
9. Existing Data May Be Reported: Where the applicant has existing
data for a given pollutant, and where such data meet the conditions
described above, EPA proposes to allow the use of such data in lieu of
data collected solely for the purpose of the permit application. If,
for example, the applicant were to have pollutant data from two
samples, only one more sample would be needed to meet the minimum
requirement of three samples, assuming that other conditions were met.
Also, where such data have previously been reported to the permitting
authority, the permitting
[[Page 62561]]
authority could waive such requirements as having been satisfied.
The Agency proposes the above conditions in an effort to be clear
about the nature of what needs to be reported. Accordingly, the Agency
solicits comment on whether these conditions are sufficiently clear, on
the one hand, or whether they are overly restrictive, on the other.
The Agency also solicits comment on each of the particular
conditions described above. The Agency is particularly interested in
comment on two of these conditions: whether three pollutant scans is
the appropriate number to require; and whether the three-year
requirement for reporting test data should be waived, as proposed,
where sampling for pollutants is done on a monthly basis.
The analytical data proposed to be reported would result from a
variety of analytical methods, with detection limits ranging from less
than 1 ppb to more than 10 ppb. The toxic analytes that are of most
concern at low concentrations are primarily analyzed by gas
chromatography (GC), gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS),
inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry (ICP), and atomic
absorption spectrometry (AA), and high resolution capillary column gas
chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS). These
methods have different numeric analytical endpoints, based upon
detection (e.g., method detection limit) or quantification (e.g.,
minimum level) levels. In addition, the wide latitude of data reporting
definitions and conventions in use in various regulatory programs
complicates the generation and interpretation of analytical data
reported with this proposal.
In order for permit writers to develop appropriate permit
requirements, they must be able to establish whether a pollutant is
present and whether a reasonable potential for environmental impairment
exists, as defined by water quality standards and criteria. To properly
make such determinations, permit writers require more complete data and
documentation than has been previously supplied with the application
form, because any ambiguity increases the likelihood that the permit
writer will need to include in the permit limits that are near or below
10 ppb or, alternatively, additional monitoring requirements for those
pollutants for which the data are ambiguous.
Thus, it is in the best interests of both the applicant and the
permitting authority that the proposed rule would require that the
method detection limit (MDL), minimum level (ML), or other designated
method endpoint, together with identification of the corresponding
analytical methods used be stated in the permit application. Along with
this information, the proposal would require applicants to submit
pollutant data based upon actual sample values. In other words, even
where test values are below the detection or quantification level of
the method used, the actual data value should be reported, rather than
reporting ``non-detect'' (``ND'') or ``zero'' (``0'') in such
instances. If the endpoint of the method used is reported along with
the actual sample results, the permitting authority will be able to
determine if the data is in the ``non-detect'' range or ``below
quantification'' range.
The Agency has provided guidance to the applicant in the proposed
Form 2A instructions in order to minimize the conditions that lead to
inaccurate sampling data. The Agency proposes that the permit
applicant: (1) alert its laboratory to the analytical and detection
limit requirements and the expectations for documentation; and (2)
report the necessary documentation to ensure that the permit writer is
fully informed as to the methods used and the results obtained. For
more detailed information concerning analytical issues (acceptable
methods, effluent-specific detection limits, and documentation of data
and analytical problems), applicants should refer to the ``Guidance on
Evaluation, Resolution, and Documentation of Analytical Problems
Associated with Compliance Monitoring'', EPA 821-B-93-001, June 1993.
a. Pollutant Data Reporting Requirements for All POTWs
EPA has identified certain pollutants that are commonly found in
POTW effluents, regardless of size, and for which permit limits may be
necessary to prevent adverse effects on receiving waters. Proposed
Sec. 122.21(j)(3) would require each applicant, regardless of size, to
provide monitoring information for the pollutants listed in proposed
Appendix J, Table 1. These include the conventional pollutants
(defined, at 40 CFR 401.16, as biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, pH, fecal coliform, and oil and grease), as well as
other parameters that are common to domestic wastestreams, such as
ammonia (and other nitrogen compounds), and compounds of other origin,
such as chlorine (which is used for disinfection during the treatment
process).
The complete list is, as follows:
Flow
Temperature
Bacterial indicators (E. coli, Enterococci, Fecal coliform)
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 or CBOD5)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Kjeldahl nitrogen (total organic as N)
Oil and Grease
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
pH
Phosphorus (PO4-P)
Dissolved oxygen
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
The secondary treatment regulations at 40 CFR Part 133 describe the
minimum level of effluent quality that must be attained in terms of
BOD5 (or CBOD5), TSS, and pH, and specify technology-based
criteria for each parameter. Control of BOD5 (or CBOD5) is
necessary to ensure sufficient dissolved oxygen in the receiving water
to protect aquatic life; BOD5 (or CBOD5) is also a key
parameter in biological treatment systems. Extremely high levels of
suspended solids in the POTW's influent can interfere with POTW
operations. High TSS levels in the effluent also block light in the
receiving water and inhibit photosynthesis. Permit writers use
information for these, as well as all other parameters listed above, to
set appropriate water quality-based limits for permit applicants. In
instances where POTWs have been allowed to substitute chemical oxygen
demand (COD) or total organic carbon (TOC) for BOD5, in accordance
with 40 CFR 133.104, applicants would report the substituted parameter.
EPA has determined that enterococci and E. coli are better
biological indicator organisms than fecal coliform. From 1973 through
1982, the Agency studied marine and freshwater bathing beaches. These
studies reveal strong correlations between instances of
gastrointestinal illness and concentrations of certain indicator
organisms at these beaches. That is, in both fresh and marine waters,
enterococci and E. coli were strongly correlated with gastroenteritis.
(For more information on this study, see ``Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria--1986,'' EPA440/5-84-002, January 1986.)
Because high numbers of these organisms in receiving water indicate
an increased potential for human gastrointestinal illness following
swimming or ingestion, and because both enterococci and E. coli are
contained in all domestic sewage, indicating the potential for
gastrointestinal illness, EPA is
[[Page 62562]]
proposing to require all POTWs to test for these biological indicator
organisms in their discharged effluents. The Agency is also proposing,
however, to allow the use of fecal coliform as the biological indicator
for those applicants where the applicable permitting authorities have
not yet switched to monitoring requirements for enterococci and E.
coli. EPA solicits comments on allowing the use of fecal coliform in
cases where permitting authorities have not switched from using fecal
coliform as the pathogen indicator. The Agency also solicits comment as
to whether testing for enterococci and E. coli should be required at
all before the Agency has developed approved test methods for these
parameters.
The Agency proposes that all POTWs report chlorine and ammonia
levels. EPA's experience with toxicity identification evaluations
(TIEs) at many POTWs indicate that chlorine and ammonia frequently
cause effluent toxicity. Additional studies also reveal frequent
adverse effects by these compounds within receiving waters. Therefore,
at POTWs that chlorinate their wastewaters without subsequent
dechlorination prior to discharge, chlorine may be present in
concentrations sufficient to cause toxicity in receiving waters.
Ammonia, which is common in nearly all sanitary sewage, is highly toxic
to aquatic life in its un-ionized form. The ratio of the relatively
toxic un-ionized ammonia form (NH3) compared with the considerably
less toxic ionized ammonium form (NH4+) is dependent on pH
and temperature.
Chlorine and ammonia are listed in many State water quality
standards, and ``The Quality Criteria for Water 1986'' (EPA 440/5-86-
001, also known as the ``Gold Book'') lists criteria for both
pollutants. Chlorine and ammonia can react to form chloramines, which
can be toxic, and are more persistent in the aquatic environment than
elemental chlorine. In estuaries or ocean water, bromamines can also
form. Analytical methods recommended for the quantification of total
residual chlorine (TRC) also indicate the presence of chloramines and
bromamines. If a disinfectant other than chlorine is used, the
permitting authority has the discretion to require additional data for
that disinfectant. If alternative disinfection technologies are used,
the applicant must submit a description of the alternate process.
Depending on the type of treatment provided, different sampling
regimes may be appropriately required. For example, POTWs that do not
use chlorination for disinfection, and do not otherwise use chlorine in
their treatment processes, perhaps should not be required to sample for
chlorine. The Agency solicits comment on whether to waive chlorine data
from such POTWs.
EPA criteria for nitrate, nitrite, and phosphorus are published in
The Gold Book. Because these parameters are prevalent in most POTW
effluents and because of their impacts on receiving waters, EPA is
proposing to require all applicants to test for them. Nitrogen and
phosphorus are often limiting nutrients in marine and fresh water
systems, respectively. Excessive loadings of nitrogen (discharged as
ammonia (including ammonium), nitrate, nitrite, and organic nitrogen)
and phosphorus (discharged as phosphate) can stimulate algae growth,
interfering with shoreline aesthetics and recreational uses. In
addition, decaying algae can reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations,
thus impairing the aquatic environment. At concentrations not typically
encountered in surface waters, nitrate is toxic to fish.
Today, EPA proposes monitoring and reporting requirements for total
nitrate plus nitrite, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total phosphate. EPA is
proposing to request the reporting of nitrate plus nitrite, combined
rather than separately, because the chemical equilibrium between the
two forms can change rapidly when chemical conditions in effluents and
receiving waters differ. Such differences can cause concentration
ratios between these two nitrogen oxide forms to change rapidly shortly
after effluents enter receiving waters. Thus, separately knowing the
effluent concentrations of nitrate and nitrite often bears little
significance to their likely concentrations shortly after discharge
into receiving waters. Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations (a measure of
organic nitrogen concentrations) are requested to allow permit writers
to evaluate the total concentration and total mass of nitrogen
discharged, determined by summing concentrations of discharged ammonia,
nitrate plus nitrite, and Kjeldahl nitrogen, when all are reported in
equivalent nitrogen concentrations (NH3-N and
NO2+NO3-N). Phosphate is to be reported in equivalent
phosphorus concentrations (PO4-P). Concentrations of elemental
phosphorus in most effluents occur at less than potentially toxic
levels; consequently, no reporting requirements are proposed for
elemental phosphorus.
The Gold Book also provides criteria values on concentrations of
oil and grease. Concentrations of oil and grease sufficient to create a
sheen on the receiving water not only affect aesthetic qualities of
these waters, but may also reduce the re-aeration rate of the receiving
waters, potentially contributing to dissolved oxygen sag problems. Oil
and grease may also indicate the presence of other high-molecular-
weight organic pollutants of concern, because they are often discharged
with or act as a sink for such pollutants. Finally, oil and grease
interfere with POTW operations. Therefore, today's proposal includes
monitoring and reporting requirements regarding concentrations of oil
and grease.
Standard Form A currently requires applicants to test for most of
the parameters discussed above. Today EPA is proposing to delete
reporting requirements for the following parameters, which are
currently included on the list for which sampling is required on
Standard Form A:
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Fecal Streptococci
Settleable matter
Total Coliform Bacteria
Total Organic Carbon
Total Solids
EPA is proposing to delete chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total
organic carbon (TOC) because biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 or
CBOD5) is generally more relevant to municipal treatment systems.
EPA is proposing to delete settleable matter and total solids because
there is considerable overlap between these parameters and total
suspended solids and total dissolved solids. The Agency believes that
the two selected parameters provide sufficient information to permit
writers. Finally, the Agency proposes to drop reporting requirements
for fecal streptococci and total coliform bacteria because the Agency
believes that the selected pathogens (E. coli, enterococci, and fecal
coliform) are better indicators for risk. The Agency requests comments
on its proposal to delete the above Standard Form A parameters from the
proposed application requirements.
In addition to the parameters discussed above, Standard Form A
requires that POTWs indicate the presence of (but not provide
quantitative data for) certain pollutants, if known. Such pollutants
include metals, as well as other toxic and non-conventional pollutants.
The Agency is proposing to require that some POTWs sample and report on
certain toxic (priority) pollutants, as described in the discussion,
``Reporting of Additional Pollutants for Some POTWs'' (at III.B.3.b).
The Agency is proposing, however, not to include POTW reporting
requirements for the following pollutants listed on Standard Form A:
[[Page 62563]]
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfide
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Tin
Algicides
Chlorinated Organic Compounds
Pesticides
Surfactants
Radioactivity
A number of these parameters (including bromide, chloride, boron,
cobalt, iron, manganese, titanium, and tin) are proposed for deletion
because they are relatively less toxic than priority pollutants for
which the Agency is proposing to require testing (see, ``Reporting of
Additional Pollutants for Some POTWs'' (at III.B.3.b)); and the levels
of these pollutants in most municipal discharges are low. EPA is
proposing to delete algicides, pesticides, and chlorinated organic
compounds because the Agency does not believe it is relevant to ask for
information about these contaminants at this level of generality.
EPA considered, but does not include as part of today's proposal,
requirements that all applicants test and report on sulfide and sulfate
concentrations in effluents. Sulfide is of concern because the
anaerobic decomposition of sewage and other naturally deposited organic
material is a major source of hydrogen sulfide. EPA considered
proposing monitoring requirements for sulfate because high sulfate
concentrations, which are caused by sewer corrosion, are converted
anaerobically to hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to aquatic
life; it also biologically reoxidizes on sewer walls that are exposed
to air, forming sulfuric acid that corrodes the concrete of the sewer
channels. It was considered that, based on this monitoring information,
the permit writer could set permit limits for sulfide and sulfate or to
require appropriate best management practices. These monitoring
requirements, however, were not included as part of today's proposed
requirements because of the view that sulfide is rapidly converted to
sulfate in aerobic waters, which rapidly dissipates its toxic risk. In
most instances, maintaining monitoring requirements and permit limits
for dissolved oxygen to maintain attainable uses of receiving waters
will adequately safeguard receiving waters from toxic risks due to
sulfide or sulfate potentially contained in effluents. Regarding
corrosivity within the sewer system, the Agency believes that, in
general, the POTW is in a better position than the permit writer to
address such concerns. Special considerations may lead to the
requirement that some applicants submit analytical results for these
chemicals, as determined on case-by-case basis. EPA invites comment on
these conclusions.
The Agency also considered testing for surfactants, but is not
proposing to require such testing as part of this rule because: most
POTWs do not discharge surfactants at toxic levels; the Agency has not
developed water quality criteria for surfactants; and sources are
difficult to control. In cases where surfactants in municipal
wastestreams occur at toxic levels, the Agency believes that whole
effluent toxicity (WET) testing should reveal any toxicity arising from
surfactants. EPA invites comment on this approach.
The Agency also considered including monitoring requirements for
three additional nonconventional pollutants: aluminum, barium, and
fluoride; because of their regular appearance in analytical results
from the numerous pollutant scans reviewed during preparation of the
proposed rule and because published criteria exist for these three
conventional pollutants. But such requirements have not been included
on the proposed rule for the following reasons:
(1) Toxicity problems related to excess aluminum concentrations,
especially for aquatic organisms, occur primarily in acidic receiving
waters (most often in waters with pH less than 6.0) having low hardness
levels (i.e., concentrations of calcium less than 2.0 mg/l). The
majority of effluent water analyses reviewed did not contain sufficient
aluminum concentrations to likely impair beneficial uses of receiving
waters;
(2) Although barium regularly appeared in the pollutant scans of
effluents reviewed by EPA, the concentrations reported in all samples
remained below the 1.0 mg/l Gold Book criterion value for barium in
domestic water supplies; and
(3) According to the 1972 ``Blue Book'', potentially adverse
physiological effects due to excess fluoride concentrations increase
with increasing environmental temperatures. Consequently, recommended
criteria for fluoride range from 1.4 to 2.4 mg/l for average annual air
temperatures of 50 to 91 deg.F. Concentrations for the majority of
reported results from the many pollutant analyses reviewed by EPA
revealed that although fluoride was a regular constituent of effluents,
in the majority of the instances it occurred at concentrations less
than suggested Blue Book criteria.
At this time, based on information currently available to EPA,
concentrations of aluminum, barium, and fluoride in the majority of
effluents are generally less than those necessary to produce
significant risk for beneficial uses of receiving water. As such, EPA
concludes at this time that it is unwarranted to require all
dischargers to monitor for these chemicals as part of the municipal
application process. Individual permit writers can, nevertheless,
require analysis of any or all of these chemicals, wherever treatment
works or environmental considerations suggest that such requirements
are warranted. Further, EPA intends to continually review this
conclusion as more effluent monitoring results become available, and
continues to seek informed input from outside EPA on this decision.
b. Reporting of Additional Pollutants for Some POTWs
As discussed above, the Agency proposes to require all POTWs to
report information on pollutant parameters commonly associated with
POTW effluents. Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(3) (see also, proposed Part A
in the Supplemental Application Information part of Form 2A) requires
the reporting of additional parameters listed in proposed Appendix J,
Table 2, by those POTWs that the Agency believes are most likely to
discharge toxic pollutants to receiving waters. Toxic pollutants may
interfere with POTW performance or pass through the POTW to receiving
waters, thus potentially causing adverse water quality impacts.
Certain POTWs discharge toxic organic and inorganic pollutants
primarily as a result of contributions from non-domestic sources.
Section 122.21(j)(3)(iii) of today's proposal requires the applicant to
submit monitoring data for the pollutants listed in proposed Appendix
J, Table 2, if the POTW meets any one of the following criteria: (1)
The POTW has a design flow rate equal to or greater than 1.0 mgd; (2)
the POTW has a pretreatment program or is required to have one under 40
CFR Part 403; or (3) the POTW is otherwise required to submit this data
by the permitting authority.
POTWs with a design flow equal to or greater than 1.0 mgd are
designated as ``major'' POTWs by the Agency. EPA estimates that roughly
25 percent of the approximately 16,000 POTWs nationwide have design
flows of at least
[[Page 62564]]
1.0 mgd. The Agency has found that major POTWs have a high potential to
discharge toxic pollutants because of the strong likelihood that they
receive industrial wastewaters and because of the large number of
substances entering the treatment works from various sources.
Therefore, the Agency believes that it is necessary to collect toxic
pollutant data from these POTWs.
EPA also proposes to require data on toxic pollutants from POTWs
that are required to develop pretreatment programs under 40 CFR Part
403. A POTW is required to develop a pretreatment program if it
receives discharges from significant industrial users that may
interfere with the POTW or pass through the treatment works.
Approximately ten percent (approximately 1,500) of all POTWs have or
are required to develop pretreatment programs. Most POTWs with
pretreatment programs are also major POTWs, and so this criterion only
slightly expands the requirements of this provision.
In addition to POTWs with design flows greater than or equal to 1.0
mgd and POTWs with pretreatment programs, EPA is proposing to allow the
permitting authority to require any other POTW to submit monitoring
data for some or all of the pollutants listed in proposed Appendix J,
Table 2. The Agency would recommend that the permitting authority
require an applicant to perform a complete or partial pollutant scan if
toxicity is known or suspected in a POTW's effluent. Alternatively, if
the facility's effluent causes adverse water quality effects, or if the
POTW discharges to an impaired receiving water, the permit writer could
require the applicant to provide analytical results from a complete
pollutant scan.
The permit writer could also require the applicant to test for
these parameters depending on the number or kinds of industrial users.
EPA is proposing to grant the permit writer such discretion because
smaller POTWs that receive industrial contributions also have the
potential to discharge toxic pollutants. Although a POTW with a design
flow less than 1.0 mgd may not have as great a volume of toxic
pollutants entering its treatment system as a larger POTW, the impact
of its industrial users could easily be more pronounced due to other
considerations, such as smaller treatment capacity or an effluent-
dominated receiving stream. Testing for toxic pollutants would provide
the information needed to write a protective permit for such a POTW.
The Agency solicits comments on the above criteria for determining
which POTWs must test effluent for the pollutants in proposed Appendix
J, Table 2. The Agency also solicits comment on whether other POTWs
should be required to sample for some or all of these pollutants.
Alternatively, the Agency solicits comment as to whether other POTWs
should be required to provide any existing data on these pollutants.
Such data would be important information in conducting watershed
assessments.
The proposed approach for determining which POTWs must submit data
on toxic pollutants is not the only approach being considered by the
Agency. Among the alternatives being considered is one that would
expand upon the approach described above, and require toxics data from
two groups of non-pretreatment minors, each of which includes about
half of all minor POTWs. In this approach, POTWs with a population
between 1,000 and 10,000 (and not otherwise required to report as
described above) would be required to provide a single pollutant scan
for the Metals, Cyanide, and Total Phenols and the Volatile Organics
groups in proposed Appendix J, Table 2. POTWs with a population of less
than 1,000 (and not otherwise required to report as described above)
would be required to provide a single scan for certain metals (i.e.,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, silver, and mercury).
The Agency specifically solicits comment on this alternative approach.
Commenters are requested to address the suggested cutoff points for
different levels of reporting, the pollutants for which reporting is
suggested, and the number of samples that should be required.
EPA proposes that POTWs meeting the three criteria enumerated above
monitor for the pollutants in proposed Appendix J, Table 2, and any
other pollutants for which there are established State water quality
standards. Proposed Table 2 is a subset of the priority pollutants list
previously described. As discussed in the background discussion of this
preamble, these pollutants are regulated under the CWA and have been
identified by Congress and/or EPA as potential threats to human health
or aquatic life. Proposed Table 2 also includes total phenols, a
parameter commonly used as an indicator pollutant for certain priority
pollutants. Also as discussed, EPA and most States have developed
numeric criteria and standards for most of these pollutants.
Proposed Appendix J, Table 2 represents pollutants that have been
identified in priority pollutant scans of effluent from POTWs. Permit
writers will be able to use data on these pollutants as a basis to
derive appropriate permit limits.
The Agency is proposing to not require pollutant data for certain
priority pollutants (i.e., dioxin, asbestos, and priority pollutant
pesticides). Available information on the occurrence of asbestos,
dioxin, and priority pollutant pesticides reveals that these pollutants
rarely occur at detectable levels in POTW effluents. Absent information
to the contrary, the Agency does not consider asbestos to be a
pollutant of concern in municipal wastewater effluents. Dioxin, while
nearly ubiquitous, is present in such minute amounts in those
industrial outfalls where it is known to be present in relatively high
concentrations, that the Agency does not believe that, in general, it
is appropriate to require POTWs to monitor for the pollutant at the
POTW outfall, due to the high level of dilution in municipal
wastestreams. Permitting authorities may wish to require such
monitoring on a case-by-case basis if there is reason to believe that
dioxin may be present in measurable amounts. To the extent that
priority pollutant pesticides, including, for example, DDT and PCBs,
appear in municipal wastestreams, the Agency believes that their
presence is due, for the most part, to background concentrations,
rather than to new introductions by discharges to the POTW. Where these
pesticides result in toxicity problems or where other conditions merit,
the Agency believes that permitting authorities should require sampling
for them on a case-by-case basis. In the alternative, the Agency is
considering adding pesticides to the list of required pollutants in
proposed Appendix J, Table 2. The Agency solicits comment on whether
routine monitoring and screening should be required for pesticides from
all POTWs meeting the criteria of proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(3)(iii) or
whether the proposed approach is the appropriate one.
EPA also solicits comment on alternative ways to collect
information in permit application about pollutants that occur in low
levels, such as dioxin, or that otherwise present water quality
concerns even in highly dilute effluent. As discussed previously, the
proposal would require information about significant industrial users
from certain POTWs so the permit writer should have sufficient
knowledge about the potential for pass through of such pollutants. The
Agency is interested in commenters' views on the adequacy of SIU
identification for the purposes of developing adequate POTW permit
limitations. Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(3)
[[Page 62565]]
would also require that POTWs meeting the above criteria monitor for
pollutants not listed in proposed Appendix J, Table 2, for which the
State or EPA have established State water quality standards (see
discussion in Background section of this preamble). A number of States
have established water quality standards for pollutants not listed as
CWA sec. 307(a) priority pollutants. For the reasons stated in the
above paragraph, the Agency believes that it is appropriate to require
sampling for these pollutants, as well.
In addition, EPA considered, but is not proposing, requiring
applicants to monitor for other pollutants, such as those on the ``Gold
Book'' list of Federal Water Quality criteria, those regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act, or those on data bases such as the Toxics
Release Inventory System (TRIS), the Aquatic Toxicity Information
Retrieval data base (AQUIRE), and the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). The Agency determined that adding these other pollutants
to the list of pollutants proposed would impose additional monitoring
and reporting requirements on the applicant, at substantial additional
cost, but without significant benefit. Additionally, not all pollutants
on these lists have been assigned numeric criteria. Moreover, available
information reviewed by EPA does not indicate that these chemicals
occur with either sufficient frequency or at high enough concentrations
in typical POTW effluents to support their inclusion among pollutants
for which monitoring is proposed to be uniformly required.
Under today's proposal, in proposed 122.21(j)(3)(v), permit writers
would have the option to require monitoring and reporting for any other
potentially toxic chemicals for which the authority has a reasonable
basis to suspect that such materials may be contained in POTW
effluents. Such basis could include the presence of industrial users
known to release chemicals not included among the pollutants for which
routine analyses are otherwise required. EPA invites comments on all
aspects of this proposal that would allow for case-by-case information
requests that might otherwise extend the time involved in streamlined
permit issuance procedures.
In addition, EPA solicits comment on whether to require applicants
to summarize and report, as part of the application process, analytical
results for any toxic pollutant determined during the three-year period
preceding the application to be a known or likely constituent of the
facility's discharge. That is, when an applicant has reason to know or
suspect the presence of other toxic constituents in their effluents,
its reporting requirements would not necessarily be limited either to
the general list of toxic pollutants provided by proposed Appendix J,
Tables 1 and 2, or to specific monitoring requirements placed on the
applicant by the permitting authority. EPA considers results from toxic
release inventory (TRI) as providing one likely basis for information
that could cause applicants to initiate additional effluent monitoring
analyses during the application process.
Finally, the Agency is interested in providing flexibility where
POTWs can demonstrate that the risk of occurrence of pollutants in the
discharge is sufficiently small. The Agency seeks comment on whether
POTWs could be exempted from providing information on specific
pollutants where there are statistically valid data to allow the
permitting authority to predict the absence of particular pollutants.
In addition, EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness of exempting
POTWs from providing information about certain contaminants which are
detectable in only a small fraction of POTWs (e.g., less commonly
occurring metals such as antimony) and which would not be expected to
occur based on other data about the POTW or the indirect discharge.
Other approaches to collecting pollutant data were considered for
proposal. EPA solicits comment on each of these, as follows:
A. Types of Industrial Contributors
This approach would have required monitoring for specific
pollutants, depending on the identity of industrial users discharging
to the POTW. Although this approach was supported by a number of
commenters in the course of our outreach efforts, it appeared to be too
difficult to implement for non-pretreatment POTWs. Non-pretreatment
POTWs are not required to do user inventories of, for example, all
categorical industries, and thus would probably be unaware of what
monitoring data to provide. On the other hand, pretreatment POTWs would
be required to provide entire priority pollutant scans if they had only
2-3 different types of industries. The Agency solicits comment on how,
specifically, such an approach would work and how it would benefit
applicants and provide permit writers with appropriate information.
B. TRI as a Basis for Determining Additional Pollutants for Sampling
It was suggested that we use TRI data to determine what additional
pollutants for which to require sampling. Although industrial user TRI
reports are not currently provided to POTWs by TRI-reporting
industries, such reporting could be required, for example, through the
pretreatment program. Of course, permit writers may always request TRI
data from EPA. At issue is whether the applicant should be required to
provide additional monitoring data for pollutants reported through TRI.
The Agency solicits comment as to whether this approach might be
feasible and whether it would provide useful information to the permit
writer that is not otherwise available.
C. Existing Pollutant Data from SIUs
In order to obtain information on pollutants that occur in POTW
discharges in low concentrations, permit writers could make use of
information provided to POTWs by SIUs during the term of the existing
permit. The Agency solicits comment on this approach, and is
particularly interested in whether such information could be provided
in lieu of requiring end-of-pipe effluent data for certain pollutants
(e.g., dioxin, pesticides, or other organic chemicals received
principally from industrial sources).
D. Ambient Data
Another issue considered was whether or not to require POTWs to
provide the results of ambient monitoring as part of the permit
application. Although some have suggested that this information would
be helpful for implementation of the watershed approach, States were
generally opposed to requiring POTWs to collect ambient data. The view
was expressed that it is the permitting authority's responsibility to
collect this information, and not the POTW's responsibility to provide
it. Nevertheless, the Agency is interested in soliciting comment as to
whether such data should be required.
E. Bioaccumulation Data
Although analytical methods to assess bioaccumulation in the
aquatic biota are available, they are costly compared to approved test
methods for pollutants in effluent. Since WET tests are an indirect
indicator for human health risks, the Agency is not proposing to
require bioaccumulation data from POTWs. However, such data are
directly relevant to human health risk considerations. Therefore, the
Agency solicits comment on whether to require bioaccumulation data.
Because of cost considerations, the Agency also solicits comment as to
what tradeoffs, in terms of other types of reporting, might make such
an approach acceptable.
[[Page 62566]]
4. Effluent Monitoring For Whole Effluent Toxicity
As discussed in the background section, the July 24, 1990,
amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations require that certain
POTWs provide the results of whole effluent biological toxicity testing
as part of their NPDES permit application (40 CFR 122.21(j) (1)-(3)).
Such testing was required to have been conducted since the last NPDES
permit reissuance or permit modification, under 40 CFR 122.62(a),
whichever occurred later.
In today's proposed rule, EPA proposes to revise this provision.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(4) sets forth these revised requirements.
First, all POTWs are required
FR Doc. 95-28213 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
to identify any biological tests the
applicant believes to have been conducted within three years of the
date of application.
Second, as in the existing regulation, the following POTWs would be
required to conduct and provide the results of whole effluent
biological toxicity (WET) tests:
(A) All POTWs with design influent equal to or greater than one
million gallons per day;
(B) All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required
to develop a pretreatment program;
(C) Other POTWs, as required by the Director, based upon
consideration of the following factors:
(1) The variability of the pollutants or pollutant parameters in
the POTW effluent (based on chemical-specific information, the type of
treatment facility, and types of industrial contributors);
(2) The dilution of the effluent in the receiving water (ratio of
effluent flow to receiving stream flow);
(3) Existing controls on point or non-point sources, including
total maximum daily load calculations for the water body segment and
the relative contribution of the POTW;
(4) Receiving stream characteristics, including possible or known
water quality impairment, and whether the POTW discharges to a coastal
water, one of the Great Lakes, or a water designated as an outstanding
natural resource; or
(5) Other considerations (including but not limited to the history
of toxic impact and compliance problems at the POTW), which the
Director determines could cause or contribute to adverse water quality
impacts.
The Agency specifically solicits comment on whether the requirement
to conduct WET testing should be extended to other POTWs. The Agency is
considering several options, including:
(1) requiring all minor POTWs not covered under the above criteria
to submit the results of a minimum of one WET test, so as to allow the
permitting authority to scan for minor POTWs that may have toxicity
problems; and
(2) where a State has identified a watershed as a priority
watershed, requiring one or more WET tests for all POTWs discharging to
the watershed.
Third, the Agency proposes to require WET tests for each outfall
from the treatment works (not including CSOs), with exceptions for
identical outfalls similar to those proposed for pollutant specific
data, as discussed above. Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(4) would require that
data be separately provided for each outfall through which treated
sanitary effluent is discharged to waters of the United States. EPA
proposes to allow the applicant, where the POTW has two or more
outfalls with substantially identical effluents discharging to the same
receiving stream, and with the approval of the permitting authority on
a case-by-case basis, to provide the results of WET testing from only
one outfall as representative of all such outfalls. For outfalls to be
considered substantially identical, they should at a minimum be located
at the same treatment plant, be subject to the same level of treatment
and have passed through the same types of treatment processes. The
Agency solicits comment on this approach and, particularly, on whether
WET test data should be separately collected from all such outfalls.
The existing WET testing requirements do not specify the number or
frequency of tests required, the number of species to be used, or
whether to provide the results of acute or chronic toxicity tests.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(4) sets minimum reporting requirements of four
quarterly tests for a year, using multiple species (no less than two
species, e.g., fish, invertebrate, plant), and testing for acute or
chronic toxicity, depending on the range of receiving water dilution.
This proposal is based in part on Agency guidance, and in part on
Agency experience in the implementation of that guidance.
In March 1991, EPA issued guidance establishing Agency policy for
WET testing protocols (see ``Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control (1991),'' or ``TSD''). In that document,
the Agency recommended ``as a minimum that three species (for example,
a vertebrate, an invertebrate, and a plant) be tested quarterly for a
minimum of a year'' (see, TSD p. 58). In making this recommendation,
the Agency explained that the use of three species is more protective
than two species since a wider range of species sensitivity can be
measured. In practice, however, a number of permitting authorities are
only requiring the use of two species. Since existing requirements for
using three species are less common, the Agency proposes to require the
use of ``multiple species.'' The Agency proposes this as a minimum
requirement, and does not intend it as a change in the policy
recommendations outlined in the TSD.
In setting a minimum frequency of quarterly testing for a year, the
Agency indicated that this was recommended to adequately assess the
variability of toxicity observed in effluents, as follows:
Below this minimum, the chances of missing toxic events
increase. The toxicity test result for the most sensitive of the
tested species is considered to be the measured toxicity for a
particular effluent sample.
The data generation recommendations * * * represent minimum
testing requirements. Since uncertainty regarding whether or not an
effluent causes toxic impact is reduced with more data, EPA
recommends that this test frequency be increased where necessary to
adequately assess effluent variability. If less frequent testing is
required in the permit, it is preferable to use three species tested
less frequently than to test the effluent more frequently with only
a single species whose sensitivity to the effluent is not well
characterized. (TSD, p. 59)
It is the Agency's understanding that many permitting authorities
currently require quarterly testing. While other permitting authorities
require less frequent monitoring, at least from some facilities, in
many instances such information is being collected on a yearly basis.
This proposal would only require one cycle of quarterly testing within
three years of the date of the permit application (i.e., only once in
five years). The Agency solicits comment on whether this is an
appropriate frequency, and specifically whether permitting authorities
should be allowed to waive quarterly testing on a case-by-case basis.
Commenters should indicate what specific criteria would have to be met
for such a waiver.
The current whole effluent toxicity testing requirements, at
Sec. 122.21(j), do not specify whether applicants should test for acute
or chronic toxicity. An acute toxicity test is defined as a test of 96-
hours or less in duration in which lethality (of the test organism) is
the measured endpoint. A chronic toxicity test is defined as a long-
term test in which sublethal effects, such as fertilization, growth,
and reproduction, are usually measured, in addition to lethality. (TSD,
p.4.)
[[Page 62567]]
The Agency proposes that testing for acute or chronic toxicity be
based upon the ratio of receiving water to effluent at the edge of the
mixing zone. The term ``mixing zone'' refers to an area around an
outfall within which a State may allow ambient concentrations above
water quality criteria levels. States may have two or more mixing zones
(e.g., an acute mixing zone, beyond which acute criteria must be met,
and a chronic mixing zone, beyond which chronic criteria must be met).
Not all States allow calculation of effluent limitations using mixing
zones, and mixing zones are not universally allowed by States that do
allow use of mixing zones. For purposes of determining whether acute or
chronic toxicity testing is appropriate, the ratio of receiving water
to effluent should be considered at the point nearest to the outfall
where water quality criteria are required to be met. This proposal
incorporates the recommendations of the 1991 TSD, which stated that
applicants should conduct acute or chronic testing based upon the
following dilutions:
(A) Acute toxicity testing if the dilution of the effluent is
greater than 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone;
(B) Acute or chronic toxicity testing if the dilution of the
effluent is between 100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
Acute testing may be more appropriate at the higher end of this range
(1000:1), and chronic testing may be more appropriate at the lower end
of this range (100:1); and
(C) Chronic testing if the dilution of the effluent is less than
100:1 at the edge of the mixing zone. (See TSD, pp. 58-59.) In order to
determine the proper dilution ratio, measurement should be made at the
point where chronic criteria apply. Thus, where there is a chronic
mixing zone, the dilution ratio should be measured at the edge of the
chronic mixing zone. It may be inappropriate to use an acute test if
there is too little dilution.
Although the Agency is not proposing to require that applicants
follow these recommendations, the Agency believes that they are
reasonable, based on the discussion in the TSD. For example, with
regard to the use of chronic toxicity testing where the dilution ratio
falls below 100:1, the Agency stated, ``[t]he rationale for this
recommendation is that chronic toxicity has been observed in some
effluents down to the 1.0 percent effect concentration. Therefore,
chronic toxicity tests, although somewhat more expensive to conduct,
should be used directly in order to make decisions about toxic
impact.'' (TSD, p. 59.) The Agency solicits comment as to whether these
recommendations should instead be added as requirements in the final
rule.
The whole effluent toxicity testing requirements that currently
exist, at Sec. 122.21(j), do not specify which information must be
reported as a result of such testing. To clarify reporting requirements
for the applicant and the permit writer, EPA today proposes specific
reporting requirements in Sec. 122.21(j)(4). First, applicants required
to perform WET tests under the proposed rule are required to indicate
the number of tests performed since permit reissuance and since any
modification of the permit pursuant to 40 CFR 122.62(a). It is up to
the permitting authority to determine whether previously submitted
results provide the equivalent of the information proposed to be
required. Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(v) sets forth in detail the
information that the Agency believes will provide the permit writer
with adequate information to determine whether the test was conducted
in accordance with EPA methods and protocols and whether the reported
results are otherwise valid. The Agency solicits comment on whether the
information requested is the proper information to require or whether
other information should be required, including for purposes of quality
assurance. As in the current regulatory requirements, in conducting the
testing, applicants must use EPA-approved methods. The Agency solicits
comment on this approach.
Where biomonitoring data have been submitted to the permitting
authority within three years of the permit application, applicants
would be required to provide the dates on which such data were
submitted and a summary of the results of each such test. Where any WET
test conducted within three years prior to the permit application
reveals toxicity, proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(vi) would require that
applicants, at a minimum, provide any information they may have on the
cause of toxicity. Further, applicants would be required to provide
written details of any toxicity reduction evaluation conducted.
Toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs) are used to investigate the
causes and sources of toxicity and identify the effectiveness of
corrective actions to reduce it. The purpose of a TRE is to help bring
dischargers into compliance with water quality-based whole effluent
toxicity requirements where monitoring indicates unacceptable effluent
toxicity. The permitting authority may require a permittee to conduct a
TRE in those cases where the discharger is unable to adequately explain
and immediately correct non-compliance with a whole effluent toxicity
permit limit or requirement. TREs may be required of permittees under
existing permits or through a variety of other legally binding
mechanisms. Since the results from TREs may have considerable impact in
the evaluation of municipal permit applications, this kind of
information would need to be available to the permit writer. It is
recommended that applicants conducting a TRE at the time of permit
application would provide a brief summary of the status and results
from the ongoing TRE.
The Agency solicits comment on all of the above proposed revisions
to the existing WET test requirements.
5. Industrial Discharges, Pretreatment, and RCRA/CERCLA Waste
Today's proposed rule would require applicants to provide
information on industrial (non-domestic) discharges to the POTW,
particularly discharges from significant industrial users (SIUs). This
information is to be required by proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(5).
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(5)(i) would require the applicant to list
the total number of significant industrial users (SIUs) and categorical
industrial users discharging to the POTW, to estimate the average daily
flow from these users and from all industrial (non-domestic) users, and
to estimate the percent of total influent contributed by each class of
users. This information provides the permit writer with a means of
determining the relative impact, individually and collectively, of
industrial contributions to the POTW.
As defined in 40 CFR 403.3, the term ``industrial user'' means ``a
source of indirect discharge,'' which in turn is defined as the
introduction of pollutants into a POTW from any non-domestic source
regulated under sec. 307(b), (c), or (d) of the CWA. In general, this
term encompasses industrial and commercial sources of toxic pollutants
discharging to POTWs. Commercial entities such as hospitals, nursing
homes, restaurants, offices, and stores may be included.
A categorical industrial user is any discharger subject to
categorical pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR
Chapter I, Subchapter N. ``Significant industrial user'' is defined at
40 CFR 403.3(t) as any categorical industrial user and any other
industrial user that:
(1) discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of
process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling
and boiler blowdown wastewater);
(2) contributes a process wastestream which makes up 5 percent or
more of
[[Page 62568]]
the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW; or
(3) is designated as such by the control authority (40 CFR
403.12(a)) because of a reasonable potential to adversely affect the
POTW's operation or violate pretreatment requirements.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(5)(ii) would require POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs to describe any substantial modifications to the
POTW's pretreatment program that have not yet been approved in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.18. EPA is considering revising the
pretreatment regulations to streamline approved program requirements.
Such revisions may make the need for this information unnecessary.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(5)(iii) would require information on
individual significant industrial users (SIUs) discharging to POTWs.
This provision is similar to questions currently found on Standard Form
A. The Agency desires to incorporate into the final rule provisions
that reduce duplication of effort. One possible way is to allow the
applicant to reference substantially similar information about SIUs
previously submitted to the permitting authority rather than to
resubmit the information. The Agency solicits comments on using this
approach in the final rule and suggestions of other possible options.
EPA is also considering whether to waive, either entirely or on a case-
by-case basis, such reporting for any POTW with an approved
pretreatment program under 40 CFR Part 403 that submits an annual
report within the year preceding its application to the extent that the
annual report contains information equivalent to that required in
proposed Section M. The Agency solicits comment on this question.
The proposed provision requires POTWs to provide the following
information for each SIU: Name and mailing address, description of the
industrial processes affecting the discharge, principal products and
raw materials, average daily volume of process and non-process
wastewater discharged, and whether the SIU is subject to local limits
or categorical pretreatment standards. The description of each SIU's
industrial activity and its principal products and raw materials alerts
the permit writer to the potential presence of pollutants in the
discharge in concentrations that may be of concern to the POTW, and can
be useful in establishing permit limits. Information on the average
daily volume of process wastewater discharged helps the permit writer
to estimate pollutant loads to the POTW. Knowing the volume of non-
process wastewater discharged will alert both the permit writer and the
POTW to the possibility of hydraulic overload to the system, and will
help the POTW minimize such occurrences.
Currently, Standard Form A requires the applicant to identify the
quantities of product manufactured and raw materials used by each SIU.
The Agency is not proposing to require this information in today's
proposal because neither the amount of production nor the amount of raw
materials used necessarily correlates directly to the toxicity of the
waste stream. For example, the SIU might use all of the raw material
and release little into the waste stream. The Agency is instead
requesting a narrative description of products and raw materials
involved in the industrial activity.
Standard Form A also requires the applicant to characterize each
SIU's industrial discharge. Although this information may be necessary
to establish permit limits at some POTWs, this question appears to be
unnecessary. In many cases, the permit writer is able to determine
parameters of concern from the principal products and raw materials for
that industrial user. In other cases the permit writer may request this
information on a case-by-case basis.
The proposed provision would also require the applicant to describe
any problems at the POTW attributable to wastewater discharged by SIUs.
Identification of such problems is necessary to set permit limits for
pollutants that the POTW might not adequately remove, and should lead
to other strategies for control of toxic pollutants, such as: more
stringent local limits or other pretreatment requirements; best
management practices, if the toxic pollutants appear to be from diffuse
sources; or toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs), if toxicity testing
shows that the effluent causes an excursion above water quality
standards in the receiving stream. Instances of pass through and
interference identified in this step will alert the permit writer to
violations of the POTW's NPDES permit.
6. Discharges From Hazardous Waste Sources
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(6) would require applicants to provide
general information concerning discharges of RCRA hazardous wastes to
POTWs and discharges from hazardous waste cleanup or remediation sites.
The purpose of this information is to alert the permit writer to
potential concerns regarding the constituents of such discharges.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(5)(i) would require the applicant to
provide information about any hazardous wastes, as defined under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or
authorized State law, that are delivered to the facility by truck,
rail, or dedicated pipe. This requirement does not apply to RCRA
hazardous wastes discharged to a sewer system that mix with domestic
sewage before reaching the POTW, because the Domestic Sewage Exclusion
(sec. 1004(27) of RCRA) provides that solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage is not solid waste as defined in RCRA, and therefore is
not a hazardous waste.
If the POTW receives RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe, the applicant must list, for each waste received, the
hazardous waste number, quantity, and method by which it is received.
The permit writer would use this information to coordinate appropriate
RCRA requirements including, where appropriate, additional permit terms
to address such requirements. In addition, this information will enable
permitting authorities to identify potential impacts in the POTW's
discharge.
In order to establish appropriate permit requirements, the permit
writer also needs to be aware of wastewaters discharged to the POTW
that originate from remedial activities conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), the RCRA corrective action program, or other authorities.
POTWs are sometimes used for the disposal of wastewaters generated
during remediation of CERCLA (Superfund) sites or during RCRA
corrective action activities at industrial facilities. Paragraphs (ii)-
(iv), in proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(6), would require the applicant to
identify wastewaters from remedial activities known or expected to be
received during the life of the permit, the origin of such wastes and
the treatment, if known, that such wastes receive prior to entering the
POTW. This information is intended to help the permit writer decide
whether to establish additional monitoring or permit requirements for
the effluent and sewage sludge.
7. Combined Sewer Overflows
In developing permit requirements to meet BAT/BCT using BPJ and to
meet applicable water quality standards for CSO discharges, the permit
writer requires certain information. To ensure that the permit writer
has the necessary
[[Page 62569]]
information, EPA proposes to require information that reflects the
Agency's 1994 CSO Control Policy (see discussion in background
section). This paragraph is intended to complement, and not overlap,
other reporting that POTWs may be required to provide by the NPDES
authority in accordance with the CSO Control Policy.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(7)(i) would require information about the
combined sewer system (CSS), including a system map and system diagram
that describe the relevant features of the system. Applicants are also
required to identify the number of CSO discharge points to be covered
by the permit application. Because municipalities with CSOs often have
more than one treatment plant, different POTW permits may include
different outfalls from their CSS.
Similarly, proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(7)(ii) would require that
applicants provide information on each outfall specifically covered by
the application. This includes some locational information similar to
that for outfalls of treated effluent in proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2),
paragraphs (i) and (ii). As discussed previously, this sort of
locational data is consistent with Agency policy concerning the
reporting of such information. It also provides permitting authorities
with a means of locating dischargers within the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service watershed categorization system, a State's river basin
categorization system, and the U.S. Geological Survey cataloging
scheme.
This provision would also require information about any monitoring
conducted on the outfall by the applicant and any CSO incidents that
occurred in the year previous to the permit application. Finally,
proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(7)(ii)(E) would require the permittee to
identify any significant industrial users (see discussion on
pretreatment and industrial user information) that contribute to the
CSO and to describe any known water quality impacts, such as beach or
shellfish bed closings and fish kills. The Agency considers this to be
a minimal amount of information to be provided to the permit writer,
inasmuch as the permit writer must have adequate information to
specifically authorize discharges at each of the identified outfalls.
8. Contractors
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(8) would require the applicant to identify
all contractors responsible for any operation or maintenance aspects of
the POTW and to specify such contractors' responsibilities. This
information enables the permit writer to determine who has primary
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the POTW, and thus
determine whether a contractor should be included on the permit as a
co-permittee.
9. Certification
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(9) would require the signature of a
certifying official in compliance with 40 CFR 122.22, which requires
the signature of a certifying official on all NPDES applications. The
certification would apply to all attachments identified on the
application form, as well as any others included by the applicant.
10. Revision to Pretreatment Program Requirements
Existing Sec. 122.21(j)(iv) requires applicants with a pretreatment
program to provide a technical evaluation of the need to revise local
limits, under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1). Since 1990, when that requirement was
promulgated, the Agency has received numerous requests to change the
provision to make it effective after the date of permit issuance. The
concern has been raised that a POTW most needs to review its local
limits after permit reissuance, when new permit limits are in place,
rather than prior to permit reissuance.
The Agency agrees with these comments and proposes to make this
change. In order to be clear, the provision has been reworded and is
proposed to be moved to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(4), with the existing POTW
pretreatment program requirements. The Agency solicits comment on this
approach.
C. Application Requirements for TWTDS (40 CFR 122.21(q))
Under Sec. 122.21(d)(3)(ii), POTWs and other treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) are currently required to submit the
sewage sludge information listed at Sec. 501.15(a)(2) with their permit
applications. Today EPA proposes regulatory language at Sec. 122.21(q)
to update the information that must be reported. Proposed revised
Sec. 501.15(a)(2) would reference the requirements of proposed
Sec. 122.21(q). EPA also proposes a new form, Form 2S, for collection
of this information. Section (q) would require all TWTDS, except
``sludge-only'' facilities, to report information regarding sewage
sludge generation, treatment, use, and disposal. The permitting
authority may also require a ``sludge-only'' facility to submit a
permit application containing this information. These proposed new
requirements are intended to clarify existing sewage sludge application
requirements, as necessary to implement the Agency's Part 503 standards
for sewage sludge use or disposal.
As with the proposed POTW application requirements, the Agency does
not wish to require redundant reporting by TWTDS. Thus, the Agency is
proposing to allow a waiver for information required to be reported
under Sec. 122.21(q) similar to that proposed for Sec. 122.21(j). This
would allow the Director to waive any requirements in proposed
paragraph (q) if the Director has access to substantially identical
information. The Agency solicits comment on this approach and the
proposed conditions for allowing such a waiver.
Also as with the proposed POTW application requirements, the Agency
also solicits comment on ways to allow the permit writer or permitting
authority discretion in waiving particular information where the
permitting authority determines that such information is not necessary
for the application. In other words, there may be flexible ways to look
at each applicant in light of the overall ``matrix of characteristics''
regarding a particular facility. Where, for example, historical data
indicate that additional sampling is not warranted unless other
conditions have changed, the Agency is considering waiving such
sampling. Such flexibility would involve a holistic approach to
implementing these proposed requirements, and the Agency solicits
comment as to ways in which it could be accomplished without making
these provisions entirely discretionary, so that one could predict the
exercise of discretion. This might be particularly relevant on the
second and subsequent rounds of permitting under these proposed
provisions. The Agency also seeks comment on what information might be
appropriate and what information might be inappropriate for such
waivers.
1. Facility Information
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(1) would require summary information on the
identity, size, location, and status of the facility. Proposed
paragraph (ii) would request that the facility location be described by
latitude and longitude to the nearest second. This information meets
the specifications of EPA's Locational Data Policy and supports the
Watershed Protection Approach, by providing permit writers and other
Federal and State environmental managers with a means of geographically
locating potential sources of polluted runoff. EPA believes that this
change would
[[Page 62570]]
merely clarify, without expanding, an existing reporting requirement.
2. Applicant Information
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(2) would require information concerning the
identity of the applicant and its status as a Federal, State, private,
public, or other entity.
3. Permit Information
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(3) restates the Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(v)
requirement that the applicant list the facility's NPDES permit number
and any other permit numbers or construction approvals received or
applied for under various authorities.
4. Federal Indian Reservations
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(4) clarifies existing
Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(iv), which asks only ``whether the facility is
located on Indian Lands.'' A sewage sludge use or disposal permit,
however, may cover activities occurring beyond the boundaries of the
``facility.'' Therefore, the proposed paragraph asks whether any
generation, treatment, storage, land application, or disposal of sewage
sludge occurs on a Federal Indian Reservation. EPA believes that this
information will better enable the permit writer to identify the proper
permitting authority and applicable requirements.
5. Topographic Map
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(5) would require the applicant to submit
the following information on a topographic map (or maps) depicting the
area one mile beyond the property boundaries of the TWTDS: All sewage
sludge management facilities, all water bodies, and all wells used for
drinking water listed in public records or otherwise known to the
applicant within 1/4 mile of the property boundaries. This proposed
requirement is different from the existing topographic map requirement
at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(vi) in that the proposed requirement asks for
information on use and disposal sites rather than just disposal sites.
EPA believes that it is just as important to get information on land
application sites as on disposal sites. Neither the existing nor the
proposed requirements request a map for sites that extend more than a
mile beyond the TWTDS's property boundary. The permitting authority
could request maps of all use or disposal sites if they believe that
this information is necessary to develop adequate permits. EPA requests
comments on whether maps should be required for all use or disposal
sites, or whether this requirement should be modified in some other
way.
6. Sewage Sludge Handling
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(6) would require the applicant to prepare a
flow diagram, and/or a narrative description that identifies all sewage
sludge management practices (including on-site storage) to be employed
during the life of the permit. EPA believes that this information is
necessary because the applicant may employ sewage sludge management
practices not covered under the more specific questions proposed in
today's rule. To draft a complete permit, the permit writer must be
aware of all sewage sludge storage, use, or disposal practices that may
have an adverse affect on public health and the environment. EPA
requests comments on whether more specific information about on-site
and off-site storage of sewage sludge should be required of permit
applicants.
7. Sewage Sludge Quality
Currently, Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(vii) requires applicants to report
``any sludge monitoring data the applicant may have.'' However, this
requirement neither identifies the parameters that must be reported nor
provides a mechanism for reporting this information. Proposed Form 2S
and Sec. 122.21(q)(7) would address this need by requiring monitoring
data for specific parameters in sewage sludge that is used or disposed.
Proposed paragraph (i) of Sec. 122.21(q)(7) would require all Class
I sludge management facilities to submit the results of at least one
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) conducted during the
last five years to determine whether the sewage sludge is a hazardous
waste. The TCLP is described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II, and is a
method for determining whether a solid waste exhibits the
characteristic of toxicity, in accordance with 40 CFR 261.24. 40 CFR
Part 503 does not establish requirements for the use or disposal of
sewage sludge determined to be hazardous under the procedures in
Appendix II of 40 CFR Part 261 and Sec. 261.24. Hazardous sewage sludge
must be used or disposed of in accordance with the hazardous waste
regulations in 40 CFR Parts 261-268, or authorized State law. Using the
results of the hazardous waste test, the permitting authority will
determine which requirements apply to the use or disposal of the
applicant's sewage sludge. EPA requests comments on whether facilities
should be allowed to use a method other than a TCLP to show that their
sewage sludge is non-hazardous and whether non-Class I sludge
management facilities should be required to perform a TCLP.
Proposed paragraph (ii) of Sec. 122.21(q)(7) would require all
applicants to submit data on individual pollutants in the sewage
sludge. Existing data could be submitted if it were two years old or
less. EPA is proposing a two-tier approach for collection of pollutant
data that is based on whether the treatment works has an industrial
wastewater pretreatment program.
Under the two-tier approach, Class I sludge management facilities
would submit sewage sludge data for the pollutants listed in proposed
40 CFR Part 122, Appendix J, Table 2 (``Effluent and Sewage Sludge
Parameters for Selected POTWs and Treatment Works Treating Domestic
Sewage'') and Table 3 (``Other Effluent and Sewage Sludge Parameters
for Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage and Selected POTWs'') and
for other selected pollutants, as part of the application for a permit
for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. Other TWTDS would be required
to submit data for the pollutants regulated in Part 503 and for other
selected pollutants.
a. Class I sludge management facilities. A Class I sludge
management facility is any POTW required to have an approved
pretreatment program under 40 CFR 403.8(a) and any TWTDS classified as
a Class I sludge management facility because of the potential for the
TWTDS's sewage sludge use or disposal practice to affect public health
and the environment adversely. Under today's proposal a Class I sludge
management facility would submit sewage sludge concentration data for
all the priority pollutants, except asbestos, as listed in Tables 2 and
3 of Appendix J; for the Part 503 pollutants; and for total kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN), ammonia, nitrate, and phosphorus (total).
EPA is proposing to require Class I sludge management facilities to
submit data on the priority pollutants because they are known to have
adverse effects on human health and the environment and are of concern
to the general public. Since sewage sludge from Class I sludge
management facilities has an industrial component, it is important to
reassure the public that this sewage sludge will not cause harm if it
is used or disposed according to Part 503. A pollutant scan every five
years should help promote the beneficial use of sewage sludge by
demonstrating its quality. If any pollutants that are not regulated by
Part 503 show up in the scan, the results would enable the permitting
authority to determine whether additional permit
[[Page 62571]]
conditions (i.e., in addition to the requirements in Part 503) are
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
Many Class I sludge management facilities are already required by
their pretreatment program to monitor their sewage sludge for these
pollutants. In addition, many State sewage sludge programs require
monitoring for some or all of these pollutants. EPA seeks comments on
this approach.
Section 405(d) of the CWA contemplates a phased approach to
establishing numerical limits for pollutants in sewage sludge that is
used or disposed. Moreover, sec. 405(d)(2)(D) of the CWA provides that
``[f]rom time to time, but not less often than every 2 years, the
Administrator shall review the regulation * * * for the purpose of
identifying additional pollutants and promulgating regulations for such
pollutants * * *.''
The Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge that were
published on February 19, 1993, constitute Round One of EPA's sewage
sludge standards program. The Agency has identified a tentative list of
pollutants for which limits will be established in a Round Two
regulation (i.e., an amendment to the Round One regulation) and has
announced a tentative schedule for the publication of that amendment.
Pollutants on the tentative list for the Round Two regulation
include acetic acid (2,4,-dichlorophenoxy), aluminum, antimony*,
asbestos, barium, beryllium*, boron, butanone (2-), carbon disulfide,
cresol (p-), cyanide (soluble salts and complexes)*, dioxin/
dibenzofuran (all monochloro to octochloro congeners), endsulfan-II,
fluoride, manganese, methylene chloride*, nitrate*, nitrite*,
pentachloronitrobenzene, phenol*, phthalate (bis-2-ethylhexyl)*,
polychlorinated biphenyls (co-planar), propanone (2-), silver*,
thallium*, tin, titanium, toluene*, trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-
), trichlorophenoxypropionic acid ([2-(2,4,5-)], and vanadium. EPA has
indicated that it retains the discretion either to add to or delete
pollutants from the above list of pollutants.
The Agency is considering adding the above pollutants to the list
of pollutants for which data have to be submitted by Class I sludge
management facilities with a permit application. Eleven of the above
pollutants are included in Tables 2 or 3 of proposed Appendix J or are
nutrients (see pollutants marked with an asterisk). Therefore, this
approach would require that Class I sludge management facilities submit
data for 20 additional pollutants. The Agency requests comments on this
proposal.
b. All TWTDS. Part 503 contains pollutant limits for ten inorganic
pollutants for sewage sludge that is land applied (subpart B), three
inorganic pollutants for sewage sludge placed on an unlined surface
disposal site (subpart C), and five inorganic pollutants for sewage
sludge fired in a sewage sludge incinerator (subpart E). There are no
pollutant limits in Part 503 for sewage sludge placed on a lined
surface disposal site or for sewage sludge placed in a municipal solid
waste landfill unit.
The pollutants for which limits are included in Part 503 are
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel,
selenium, and zinc. Part 503 also contains an operational standard for
pathogens (i.e., fecal coliform, Salmonella sp. bacteria, enteric
viruses, and viable helminth ova) and for total hydrocarbons (THC). The
operational standards for pathogens are values that can not be exceeded
in sewage sludge and the operational standard for THC is a value that
can not be exceeded in the air emissions for a sewage sludge
incinerator stack.
With today's rulemaking, EPA proposes that applicants for a sewage
sludge use or disposal permit submit sewage sludge concentration data
for all of the Part 503 inorganic pollutants. The permitting authority
needs to determine whether a TWTDS can change its use or disposal
practice if the need arises. Data for all of the Part 503 pollutants
will help the permitting authority make that determination.
The Agency is aware that many TWTDS employ only one sewage sludge
use or disposal practice, and that such treatment works may object to
submitting data for pollutants that are not regulated for that
practice. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the additional information
burden to collect and submit data for all of the Part 503 pollutants is
offset by the value of the data to the permitting authority. The Agency
solicits comments on whether an applicant should be required to submit
data only for the pollutants regulated for the TWTDS's use or disposal
practice.
As indicated previously, EPA also proposes that all applicants
submit sewage sludge data for TKN, ammonia, nitrate-nitrogen, and total
phosphorus with a permit application. In addition, the percent solids
of the sewage sludge that is used or disposed of would have to be
reported. Percent solids is required to ensure that all sewage sludge
data can be converted to dry weight values.
Information on the nitrogen and phosphorus content of sewage sludge
is needed for several reasons. One important use of the nitrogen data
is to help the permit writer to evaluate the design of the agronomic
rate for a land application site. Part 503 requires that sewage sludge
be land applied at a rate that is equal to or less than the agronomic
rate for the application site. The Agency also can use the data on
nutrients in sewage sludge in future considerations as to whether to
establish limits for nitrogen and phosphorus in sewage sludge.
The Agency is also considering adding certain pathogens to the list
of pollutants for which data would be required with an application.
These include Salmonella sp. bacteria, enteric viruses, and viable
helminth ova. Part 503 contains density levels for these microorganisms
that cannot be exceeded in sewage sludge that is used or disposed. In
addition to pathogens, the Agency is also considering requesting data
for fecal coliform, which is used in Part 503 as a pathogen indicator.
The permitting authority would use these data to determine whether the
sewage sludge meets the Class A or Class B pathogen requirements in
Part 503. Pathogen data only would have to be submitted by persons who
land apply or place sewage sludge in a surface disposal site. EPA is
seeking comments on this issue as part of today's proposal.
Results of current efforts within the Agency may require that
limits be established prior to the Round Two sewage sludge regulation,
for dioxin/dibenzofuran and co-planar polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
in sewage sludge that is used or disposed. Dioxin/dibenzofuran is a
carcinogen that is highly toxic in low concentrations. Because the
chemical structure of co-planar PCBs is similar to the chemical
structure of dioxin/ dibenzofuran, they are expected to have similar
human health effects (i.e., toxic in low concentrations). Data for
these two pollutants could be used to develop Part 503 limits for these
pollutants or to evaluate the Part 503 limits. For this reason, the
Agency is considering requesting all TWTDS to submit data for these
pollutants with a sewage sludge permit application. EPA seeks comments
on whether TWTDS who are not Class I sludge management facilities
should be required to submit data on these two pollutants.
8. Requirements for a Person Who Prepares Sewage Sludge
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(8) identifies permit application
information that a person who prepares sewage sludge for
[[Page 62572]]
use or disposal would be required to submit. A ``person who prepares,''
as defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), is ``either the person who generates
sewage sludge during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment
works or the person who derives a material from sewage sludge.'' This
section would thus pertain to any POTW or other treatment works that
generates sewage sludge. It also would include facilities (such as
composting operations) that receive sewage sludge from another facility
and then derive a material from that sewage sludge.
Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(8) would request
information on the amount of sewage sludge ``prepared'' at the
facility. This includes the amount generated (paragraph (i)) plus any
other amount that is received from off-site (paragraph (ii)). These
paragraphs are intended to clarify the existing requirement at
Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(x), which tells the applicant to report annual sludge
production volume. Paragraph (ii) would also solicit information on
sewage sludge treatment practices at any off-site facility from which
sewage sludge is received. The off-site facility providing the sewage
sludge is, by definition, also a ``person who prepares,'' and,
therefore, would also be subject to sludge permitting requirements. EPA
believes that information on the delivering facility enables the permit
writer to assess the quality of sewage sludge received by the
applicant. It also fosters more appropriate allocation of permit
requirements between the applicant's facility and an off-site ``person
who prepares.''
As in the case of the Municipal Application regulations, the Agency
desires to incorporate into the final rule provisions that reduce
duplication of effort. One possible way is to allow the applicant to
reference substantially similar information previously submitted to a
permitting authority rather than resubmit the information. The Agency
solicits comments on using this approach in the final rule and
suggestions of other possible options.
Before sewage sludge is applied to the land or placed on an active
sewage sludge unit, it must meet the requirements for pathogen
reduction in Sec. 503.32 and for vector attraction reduction in
Sec. 503.33. Therefore, paragraph (iii) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(8)
would request information on sewage sludge treatment processes at the
applicant's facility, including pathogen or vector attraction reduction
processes. The permit writer needs to know whether pathogen and vector
attraction reduction requirements are met at the applicant's facility
and thus should be addressed in the applicant's permit. If these
requirements are not met by the applicant, pathogen and vector
attraction reduction must be met by a subsequent ``person who
prepares'' or the owner/operator of a surface disposal site.
``Exceptional quality'' (EQ) sewage sludge must meet the ceiling
concentrations in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant concentrations in
Sec. 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen requirements in Sec. 503.32(a),
and one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33
(b)(1) through (b)(8). Because of its high quality, ``EQ'' sewage
sludge is not subject to the general requirements of Sec. 503.12 or the
management practices of Sec. 503.14. Therefore, fewer permitting and
permit application requirements pertain to facilities generating such
sewage sludge. Proposed paragraph (iv) of Sec. 122.21(q)(8) would ask
for the amount of sewage sludge that is applied to the land. EPA
believes that this information is all that is needed to develop sewage
sludge conditions for such a facility. Under paragraph (iv), the
applicant would not need to provide the other, more-detailed,
information in proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(8) paragraphs (v) and (vi) for
sewage sludge meeting ``EQ'' criteria.
The existing requirement at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii) asks for the
``name of any distributors when the sludge will be disposed of through
distribution and marketing.'' This requires the names of any facilities
that sell or give away ``EQ'' sewage sludge. EPA believes that ``EQ''
sewage sludge should be treated similarly to other fertilizers. Thus,
the Agency believes that the names of distributors should not be
required and is proposing to delete the requirement at
Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii). The Agency seeks comments on this approach.
Paragraph (v) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(8) would seek information
on sewage sludge that is not ``EQ,'' but is nevertheless placed in a
bag or other container for sale or give-away for application to the
land. Under Part 503, such sewage sludge must meet the Class A pathogen
requirements in Sec. 503.32(a) and one of the vector attraction
reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33(b)(1) through (8). In addition,
the sewage sludge must meet either the pollutant concentrations in
Table 3 of Sec. 503.13 or the annual pollutant loading rates (APLRs) in
Table 4 of Sec. 503.13. If this sewage sludge meets the Table 3
pollutant concentrations, it is ``EQ'' sewage sludge and thus would be
subject to proposed paragraph (iv). Proposed paragraph (v) would only
apply to sewage sludge subject to the Table 4 APLRs that is placed in a
bag or other container for application to the land. EPA proposes to
require that the applicant employing this type of sewage sludge use
provide the volume of sewage sludge placed in bags or other containers
and a copy of all labels or notices that accompany the product being
sold or given away.
Paragraph (vi) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(8) would seek information
about any other ``person who prepares'' who receives sewage sludge from
the applicant's facility. This information helps the permit writer to
identify which permit requirements should apply to the applicant and
whether the subsequent preparer needs to obtain a permit. Paragraphs
(C) and (E) of proposed paragraph (vi) would provide the permit writer
with necessary information on the quality of the sewage sludge that is
ultimately land applied. This information also enables the permit
writer to identify activities of the subsequent ``person who prepares''
that may subject the applicant to additional regulation or permit
requirements. Therefore, these requirements would ensure that the
sewage sludge will meet all applicable Part 503 requirements at the
time of land application, regardless of the number of parties involved.
One possible way to obtain this information is to allow the applicant
to reference substantially similar information previously submitted to
a permitting authority rather than resubmit the information. The Agency
solicits comments on using this approach in the final rule and
suggestions of other possible options.
9. Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9) would request information on sewage
sludge that is land applied in bulk form. This section would apply only
where the applicant's permit must contain all applicable Part 503
requirements for land application. This section would not apply if the
applicant generates ``EQ'' sewage sludge subject to proposed
Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(iv), or if the applicant places sewage sludge in a
bag or other container for sale or give-away for application to the
land subject to proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(v). In neither of these
cases is it necessary to control the ultimate land application through
a permit and thus the applicant would not need to provide this
information as part of the application. The section also would not
apply if the applicant provides sewage sludge to another ``person who
prepares'' subject to proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(vi). In this case, the
ultimate land application would be
[[Page 62573]]
controlled by the subsequent ``person who prepares.''
Paragraph (i) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9) would clarify the
existing requirement at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(x) which tells the applicant
to report annual sludge production volume. Paragraph (ii) asks how the
applicant will satisfy the Sec. 503.12(i) notification requirement for
land application sites in a State other than the State where the sewage
sludge is prepared.
Paragraph (A) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) would ask the
applicant to identify the land application site. This question would
request locational information which supports the Watershed Protection
Approach, by providing permit writers and other Federal and State
environmental managers with a means of geographically locating
potential sources of polluted runoff.
Paragraphs (B) and (C) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) would ask
the applicant to identify the land application site owner and applier,
if different than the applicant. EPA believes that this information is
necessary in order to ensure that the permit is issued to the correct
party. These proposed paragraphs would clarify and expand on existing
requirements at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii).
One of the land application management practices in Sec. 503.14
mandates that bulk sewage sludge shall not be applied to land at
greater than the agronomic rate. Therefore, paragraphs (D) and (E) of
proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) would ask the applicant to identify the
type of land application site, the type of vegetation grown on that
site, if known at the time of permit application, and the vegetation's
nitrogen requirement. This information enables the permit writer to
calculate an appropriate permit management practice regarding agronomic
rate. EPA recognizes that different crops may be grown on a site during
the life of a permit. If the crop for a site is not known or likely to
change, the applicant should submit whatever information is available.
Paragraph (F) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) would request
information on vector attraction reduction measures undertaken at the
land application site. Before sewage sludge is applied to the land, it
must meet the requirements for vector attraction reduction in
Sec. 503.33. These measures may be undertaken either by the ``person
who prepares'' sewage sludge or by the operator of the land application
site.
Paragraph (G) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) would ask the
applicant to submit any existing ground-water monitoring data for the
land application site. Section 503.14(d) states that bulk sewage sludge
may not be applied to land at greater than the agronomic rate. Section
503.11(b)(2) explains that ``agronomic rate'' is the whole sludge
application rate that minimizes the amount of nitrogen that passes
below the root zone and into the ground water. EPA believes that
permitting authorities need to review existing ground-water monitoring
data for land application sites in order to ensure that sewage sludge
application rates are appropriately protective of ground water.
Section 501.15(a)(2)(ix) asks for information necessary to
determine if the site is appropriate for land application and a
description of how the site will be managed. This requirement could be
interpreted in different ways. Today's rule attempts to clearly specify
the site management requirements in proposed paragraphs (D)-(G) of
proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii). The permitting authority could request
other site management information if it is needed to identify
appropriate permit conditions.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iv) would request information that the
permitting authority needs in order to verify whether the
Sec. 503.12(e)(2)(i) requirement for appliers of bulk sewage sludge
subject to cumulative pollutant loading rates (CPLRs) has been met. A
cumulative pollutant loading rate, as defined in Sec. 503.11(f) is
``the maximum amount of an inorganic pollutant that can be applied to
an area of land.'' This information enables EPA to ensure that the
CPLRs are not exceeded when more than one facility is sending sewage
sludge subject to CPLRs to the same site.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(v) restates the requirement in existing
Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(ix) for information on land application sites not
identified at the time of permit application.
10. Surface Disposal
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(10) requests information on sewage sludge
that is placed on a surface disposal site. By definition, a sewage
sludge surface disposal site is a TWTDS. Many surface disposal site
owner/operators, however, would not have to complete this section, but
would instead submit the limited background information required by
Sec. 122.21(c)(2)(iii). The applicant would be required to provide the
information requested by proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(10) only if the
surface disposal site were already covered by an NPDES permit; if the
owner/operator were requesting site-specific pollutant limits; or if
the permitting authority were requiring a full application.
Paragraph (i) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(10) would clarify the
existing requirement at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(x) which tells the applicant
to report annual sludge production volume. Paragraph (ii) of proposed
Sec. 122.21(q)(10) would require that the applicant provide the name or
number, address, telephone number, and amount of sewage sludge placed
on each surface disposal site that the applicant does not own or
operate. This paragraph would clarify and expand on existing
requirements at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii). EPA believes that this
information is necessary in order to ensure that the permit is issued
to the correct party.
Paragraph (iii) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(10) would request
detailed information on each active sewage sludge unit at each surface
disposal site that the applicant owns or operates. A ``sewage sludge
unit'' is defined in Sec. 503.21(n) as ``land on which only sewage
sludge is placed for final disposal.'' A ``surface disposal site'' is
``an area of land that contains one or more sewage sludge units.''
Information on each active sewage sludge unit is necessary because Part
503 provides for different pollutant limits, monitoring requirements,
and management practices for each unit. This information enables the
permitting authority to establish proper permit conditions.
Paragraph (I) of Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) would request information
on sewage sludge sent to the active sewage sludge unit by any facility
other than the applicant's. This information helps the permit writer to
determine which requirements apply to the surface disposal site owner/
operator and which apply to the facility which sends sewage sludge to
the surface disposal site. As previously mentioned, one way to reduce
duplicate reporting, is to allow the applicant to reference
substantially similar information already submitted to a permitting
authority. The Agency solicits comments on using this approach in the
final rule and suggestions for other options.
Paragraph (J) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) would request
information on vector attraction reduction measures undertaken at the
active sewage sludge unit. Before sewage sludge is placed on an active
sewage sludge unit, it must meet the requirements for vector attraction
reduction in Sec. 503.33. Since vector attraction reduction measures
may be performed either by the facility preparing sewage sludge or by
the surface disposal site owner/operator, EPA believes that both should
be
[[Page 62574]]
required to supply information on their practices.
Section 503.24(n)(2) requires surface disposal sites to demonstrate
by way of a ground-water monitoring program or certification that
sludge placed on an active sewage sludge unit does not contaminate the
underlying aquifer. In order to ensure that this requirement is
implemented, paragraph (K) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) would
request information on ground-water monitoring programs or
certifications. Because many communities rely on ground water as a
source of drinking water, EPA believes that this information is
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
After August 18, 1993, only surface disposal sites showing good
cause may apply for site-specific pollutant limits. Paragraph (L) of
proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) would request the information
necessary for the permit writer to determine whether such site-specific
limits are warranted. This information would include a demonstration
that the values for site parameters at the applicant's site differ from
those used to develop the surface disposal pollutant limits in Part
503.
11. Incineration
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11) would request information on sewage
sludge that is fired in a sewage sludge incinerator. According to
Sec. 503.41(k), a sewage sludge incinerator is ``an enclosed device in
which only sewage sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired.'' A sewage
sludge incinerator is a TWTDS and is required to submit a full permit
application.
Paragraph (i) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11) would clarify the
existing requirement at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(x) which tells the applicant
to report annual sludge production volume. Paragraph (ii) of proposed
Sec. 122.21(q)(11) would require that the applicant provide the name or
identifying number, address, telephone number, and amount of sewage
sludge fired in each sewage sludge incinerator that the applicant does
not own or operate. This paragraph would clarify existing requirements
at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii). EPA believes that this information is
necessary in order to ensure that the permit is issued to the correct
party.
Paragraph (iii) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11) would request
detailed information on each sewage sludge incinerator that the
applicant owns or operates. Paragraph (B) of proposed paragraph (iii)
would request the total amount of sewage sludge fired annually in each
incinerator. This information is necessary because the monitoring
requirements for sewage sludge incinerators are based on the total
amount fired.
Paragraphs (C) and (D) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) would
request information on compliance with the beryllium and mercury
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
Section 503.43 paragraphs (a) and (b) require compliance with these
standards through a cross-reference to 40 CFR Part 61 subparts C and E.
If the incinerator is required to perform stack testing, these
paragraphs would require the applicant to submit a report of that
testing.
Under Sec. 503.43, the pollutant limits applicable to each sewage
sludge incinerator are calculated based on factors unique to each
incinerator. Paragraphs (E), (F), and (G) of proposed
Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) would require each applicant to submit these
factors for their incinerator(s). Calculating pollutant limits on an
individual basis allows the actual performance of each incinerator and
actual site conditions, such as topography, to be taken into account.
EPA believes that this is more appropriate than mandating national
pollutant limitations for sewage sludge incinerators.
In the development of Part 503, EPA determined that it would be
infeasible to establish individual limits for each hydrocarbon in
sewage sludge incinerator exit gas. Instead, the Agency adopted a 100
ppm total hydrocarbon (THC) limit and required continuous THC
monitoring to show compliance. Part 503 was amended, on February 25,
1994 (59 FR 9095), to allow sewage sludge incinerators whose exit gas
does not exceed 100 ppm carbon monoxide (CO) to show compliance with
the THC operational standard by monitoring CO instead of THC.
Paragraphs (H), (I), and (J) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) would
request the incinerator information necessary to establish the correct
hydrocarbon monitoring requirements.
Many of the incinerator's site-specific factors that are used to
calculate pollutant limits and compliance with the operational standard
are highly dependent on the temperature at which the incinerator is
operated and the rate at which sewage sludge is fed into the
incinerator. For most incinerators, these parameters are determined
during an initial performance test. In order to appropriately calculate
pollutant limits and ensure appropriate pollutant limits and that the
incinerator is operated within the parameters of the original
performance test, EPA needs to know the information in paragraphs (K)
through (O) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii).
Paragraphs (P) and (Q) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) would
request information on the monitoring equipment and air pollution
control devices installed on the incinerator. Information on this
equipment is necessary to ensure that the facility complies with the
management practices at Sec. 503.45.
12. Disposal in a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(12) would request information on sewage
sludge that is sent to a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF).
Section 503.4 states that sewage sludge sent to a MSWLF that complies
with the requirements in 40 CFR Part 258 constitutes compliance with
sec. 405(d) of the CWA. The questions in Sec. 122.21(q)(12) are
necessary to ensure the availability of accurate information about a
MSWLF and the sewage sludge that is sent there.
Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(12) would
clarify existing requirements at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(v), (viii), and (x)
that request information on other permits, the location of disposal
sites, and the annual sludge production volume. Paragraph (iii) would
request information on the sewage sludge quality to ensure that it is
acceptable for a MSWLF. Paragraph (iv) would request available
information on whether the MSWLF is in compliance with Part 258.
13. Contractors
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(13) would require the applicant to provide
contractor information. The applicant would be required to identify all
contractors responsible for any operation or maintenance aspects of the
TWTDS, and specify their responsibilities. The permitting authority
uses this information to determine who has primary responsibility for
the operation and maintenance of the TWTDS.
14. Other Information
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(14) would require the applicant to report
any information necessary to determine the appropriate standards for
permitting under 40 CFR Part 503, and any other information the
permitting authority may request and reasonably require to assess the
sewage sludge use and disposal practices, to determine whether to issue
a permit, or to identify appropriate permit requirements. This
paragraph restates the existing requirements in Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(xi)
and (xii).
[[Page 62575]]
15. Signature
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(15) would require that a certifying
official sign the form in compliance with 40 CFR 122.22. This would
ensure that the person signing the form has the authority to speak for
and legally bind the permittee.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request document has been prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 0226.13) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information
Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., S.W. (Mail code 2136); Washington, DC
20460; or by calling (202) 260-2740.
This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden
averaging 10.7 hours per response, including annual recordkeeping
burden. These estimates include time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., S.W. (Mail
Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
V. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it may adversely affect local governments by incrementally
increasing permit application costs. As such, this action was submitted
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
VI. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093 (October 28, 1993)), no
executive agency shall promulgate any regulation that is not required
by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local, or tribal
government, unless:
(a) Funds to pay the direct costs associated with the regulation
are provided by the Federal Government, or
(b) The agency, prior to promulgation, provides OMB a description
of its consultation with representatives of the affected governments,
the nature of their concerns, any written communications submitted to
the agency by them, and the agency's position supporting the need for
the regulation. Each agency is also required to develop an effective
process to permit elected officials and other representatives of these
governments an opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input on
significant unfunded mandates.
As discussed above (``Public Consultation in the Development of
Today's Proposal,'' at I.H.), the Agency consulted with States, local
governments, and other parties in the development of this proposed
rule. This is further discussed in the discussion below (``Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Consultation with State, Local, and
Tribal Governments,'' at VII).
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Consultation With State,
Local, and Tribal Governments
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act''), 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 Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for 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 Unfunded Mandates Act
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
Under section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA must develop a
small government agency plan before it establishes regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more to
either State, local and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any year. To the extent enforceable duties arise as a
result of today's proposed rule on State, local and tribal governments,
such enforceable duties do not result in a significant regulatory
action being imposed upon State, local and tribal governments since the
estimated aggregate cost of compliance for them is not expected to
exceed $5.7 million annually. Thus, today's proposed rule is not
subject to the written statement requirement in section 202 of the Act.
In compliance with E.O. 12875, which requires the involvement of
State, local and tribal governments in the development of certain
Federal regulatory actions, EPA conducted a wide outreach effort and
actively sought the input of representatives of State, local, and
tribal governments in the process of developing the proposed rule.
Agency personnel have communicated with State and local representatives
in
[[Page 62576]]
a number of different forums. For example, EPA staff involved in
development of today's proposed rule invited comments on earlier drafts
of the proposed rulemaking, forms, and instructions from States and
local governments both directly and through organizations such as the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), the Water
Environment Federation (WEF), and the Californ
FR Doc. 95-28213 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
ia Association of
Sanitation Agencies (CASA). In response to these efforts, the Agency
was able to communicate directly, including through meetings and
telephone communications, with representatives of a number of
interested State and local representatives, including representatives
of more than twenty-five local governments. Cities represented in a
telephone conference arranged through WEF included Price (UT), Owosso
(MI), Saginaw (MI), Rockwood (MI), Grand Rapids (MI), Roseburg (OR),
Central Marin San. Dist. (CA), Little Rock (AR), Dallas (TX), Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer Dist. (OH). Cities represented in a meeting with
AMSA representatives included Detroit (MI), Boise (ID), City of Los
Angeles (CA), Phoenix (AZ), Passaic Valley (NJ); Middleton (NJ),
Hampton Roads (VA), Orange County (CA), Anchorage (AK), and Alexandria
(VA). Other discussions were held individually with representatives of
local governments. The Agency received written comments from AMSA,
several cities, and a number of States. In the comments received from
States, a number of issues were raised concerning possible impacts on
local governments. EPA invited, but did not receive, written comments
from the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) and the National League of Cities.
Once the proposed rule is finalized, the Agency intends to provide
information through a variety of sources, and to educate and advise
local governments concerning compliance with the proposed requirements.
In the Communication Plan prepared for this proposal, the Agency has
outlined which organizations EPA will contact directly concerning the
proposal. The same parties will also be contacted directly regarding
the final rulemaking. The communication plan is available in the record
supporting this proposal. The Agency seeks to assist, educate, and
advise applicants on how to comply with the permit application
requirements primarily through the instructions to the proposed forms,
and seeks comment as to how the instructions could be improved.
Additionally, the Agency intends to provide training for permit
writers, so that they can assist, educate, and advise applicants on an
as-needed basis when completing their applications.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) requires Federal
agencies to consider the effect of proposed rules on small entities.
Agencies must consider alternatives to proposed rules that would
minimize the economic impact on small entities so long as these
alternatives are consistent with the stated objective of the statute
under which such rules are developed. However, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act do not alter standards otherwise applicable
to agency action. For example, section 405 of the CWA requires EPA to
promulgate regulations that are adequate to protect public health or
the environment against reasonably anticipated adverse effects.
In developing these proposed regulations, EPA considered the
effects of the proposed regulations on small entities. The regulatory
flexibility analysis (RFA) conducted for this proposed rule meets the
requirements specified in the ``Guidelines for Implementing the
Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (U.S. EPA, Office of Regulatory Management
and Evaluation and Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, April
1992).
Most of the applicants that would be required to complete the
municipal and sludge application forms, if finalized, are small
entities. For the purposes of the RFA, EPA employs the definition of
small government entities that was originally advanced in a related
rulemaking. See U.S. EPA, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Part 503
Sewage Sludge Regulation,'' November 25, 1992, for a complete
discussion of the development of this definition. For the purposes of
this rule, the term ``small government entities'' is considered to mean
small POTWs. Small POTWs are defined as POTWs processing less than 1
million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. POTWs of this size
generally serve a population of 10,000 people or less. This definition
is consistent with the designation of major and minor POTWs under the
NPDES program.
The estimate of the number of small POTWs subject to both sets of
proposed application requirements is based on the number of minor
POTWs. Also, for the purposes of the RFA, the Agency conservatively
assumed that all ``sludge-only'' POTWs are small entities. Generally,
treatment facilities serving large populations (greater than 10,000)
generate effluent of sufficient volume that it must be discharged to
waters of the U.S., and thus require an NPDES permit. The Agency also
assumed for purposes of the RFA that all privately owned treatment
facilities are small entities. Overall, EPA estimates that nearly 70
percent of municipal applicants and 74 percent of sludge applicants are
small entities.
EPA considered a range of regulatory options for the proposed
forms. In this proposal, the Agency has developed a two-tier approach
for municipal applicants and a two-tier approach for sludge applicants.
Applicants are categorized according to size and whether or not they
are required to have a pretreatment program. Under each regulatory
option considered, less stringent standards are required for smaller
facilities that are less likely to pollute and have a lower capacity to
absorb large monitoring costs.
The costs of complying with the proposed application requirements
would consist entirely of paperwork and testing costs associated with
completing the forms and collecting the required information.
Therefore, the costs for these activities estimated in the ICR for this
proposed rule are used in the RFA. The five-year compliance cost
estimates for POTWs applying for NPDES permits (i.e., for both sets of
application requirements) range from $681 to $3,627 for small POTWs
under the four regulatory options under consideration for the municipal
permit application and the three regulatory options under consideration
for the sludge application requirements. The five-year compliance cost
estimates for the various options under this proposed rule range from
approximately $507 to $2,849 for small privately owned treatment works.
These costs would represent between 0.06 and 0.31 percent of the
average annual revenues of small POTWs and small privately owned
treatment works. As a percent of average household expenditures on
sewage treatment, these figures would range between 0.10 and 0.54
percent for small POTWs and small privately owned treatment works. The
five-year compliance costs for sludge-only facilities (i.e., paperwork
costs associated with the proposed sludge application requirements)
range from $375 to $2,809 under the three regulatory options under
consideration for small POTWs and from $299 to $2,849 for privately
owned treatment works. These costs would represent well below 0.5
percent of both the average annual revenues for small treatment works
(public and private) and of the
[[Page 62577]]
average annual household costs for sewage treatment. Thus, impacts on
small treatment facilities and their customers are not expected to be
severe.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 122
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sewage disposal, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
40 CFR Part 123
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sewage disposal, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control, Penalties.
40 CFR Part 403
Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 501
Confidential business information, Environmental protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Publicly owned treatment
works, Sewage disposal, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: November 2, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble. EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR Chapter I as follows:
PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
* * * * *
1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
2. Section 122.2 is amended by revising the definition for
``Publicly owned treatment works (``POTW'') and adding a definition for
``TWTDS'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 122.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Publicly owned treatment works (``POTW'') means a treatment works
as defined by section 212 of the CWA, which is owned by a ``State'' or
``municipality'' (as defined by section 502(4) of the CWA). This
definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage,
treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes and other
conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant,
as defined in Sec. 403.3(p) of this chapter. The term also means the
municipality as defined in section 502(4) of the CWA, which has
jurisdiction over the Indirect Discharges, as defined in Sec. 403.3(g)
of this chapter, to and the discharges from such a treatment works.
* * * * *
TWTDS means treatment works treating domestic sewage.
* * * * *
3-6. Section 122.21 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(i)
through (iii) introductory text, paragraph (d)(3), the introductory
text of paragraph (f), paragraph (j) and by adding paragraph (q) before
the notes to read as follows:
Sec. 122.21 Application for a permit (applicable to State programs,
see Sec. 123.25).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Permits under section 405(f) of CWA. (i) Any existing treatment
works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) required to have site-specific
pollutant limits, or requesting such limits, as provided in 40 CFR Part
503, must submit the permit application information required by
paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section within 180 days after publication
of a standard applicable to its sewage sludge use or disposal
practice(s). After this 180-day period, TWTDS may only apply for site-
specific pollutant limits for good cause and such requests must be made
within 180 days of becoming aware that good cause exists.
(ii) Any TWTDS with a currently effective NPDES permit, not
addressed under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, must submit the
application information required by paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this
section at the time of its next NPDES permit renewal application. Such
information must be submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(iii) Any other existing TWTDS not addressed under paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section must submit the information listed in
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section, to the Director
within 1 year after publication of a standard applicable to its sewage
sludge use or disposal practice(s), using Form 2S or another form
approved by the Director. The Director shall determine when such TWTDS
must apply for a permit.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3)(i) All applicants for EPA-issued permits, other than POTWs, new
sources, and TWTDS, must complete Forms 1 and either 2B, 2C, or 2E of
the consolidated permit application forms to apply under Sec. 122.21
and paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i) of this section.
(ii) All POTWs must submit the application information required by
paragraph (j) of this section, within the time periods established in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, using Form 2A or another form
approved by the Director. All POTWs applying for EPA-issued permits
must complete Form 2A.
(iii) All TWTDS, except ``sludge-only facilities'' subject to
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, must submit the application
information required by paragraph (q) of this section, within the time
periods established in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, using Form 2S
or another form approved by the Director. All such applicants applying
for EPA-issued permits must complete Form 2S.
* * * * *
(f) Information requirements. All applicants for NPDES permits,
other than POTWs and other TWTDS, shall provide the following
information to the Director, using the application form provided by the
Director (additional information required of applicants is set forth in
paragraphs (g) through (k) of this section).
* * * * *
(j) Application requirements for new and existing POTWs. Unless
otherwise indicated, all POTWs shall provide, at a minimum, the
information in this paragraph (j) to the Director, using Form 2A or
another application form provided by the Director. The Director may
waive any requirement of this paragraph if the Director has access to
substantially identical information.
(1) Basic application information. All applicants shall provide the
following information:
(i) Facility information. Name, mailing address, and location of
the facility for which the application is submitted;
(ii) Applicant information. Name, mailing address, and telephone
number of the applicant, and indication as to whether the applicant is
the facility's owner, operator, or both;
(iii) Existing environmental permits. Identification of all
environmental permits or construction approvals received or applied for
(including dates) under any of the following programs:
(A) Hazardous Waste Management program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), subpart C of this part;
(B) UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA);
[[Page 62578]]
(C) NPDES program under Clean Water Act (CWA);
(D) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under the
Clean Air Act;
(E) Nonattainment program under the Clean Air Act;
(F) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS)
preconstruction approval under the Clean Air Act;
(G) Ocean dumping permits under the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act;
(H) Dredge or fill permits under section 404 of the CWA; and
(I) Other relevant environmental permits, including State permits;
(iv) Population. The name and population of each municipal entity
served by the facility, including unincorporated connector districts;
(v) Flow rate. The facility's design flow rate and annual average
daily flow rate for each of the previous 3 years;
(vi) Collection system. Identify type(s) of collection system(s)
used by the treatment works (i.e., separate sanitary sewers or combined
storm and sanitary sewers) and an estimate of the percent of sewer line
that each type comprises;
(vii) Inflow and infiltration. The current average daily flow rate
volume of inflow and infiltration, in gallons per day, and steps the
facility is taking to minimize inflow and infiltration;
(viii) Topographic map. A topographic map (or other map if a
topographic map is unavailable) extending at least one mile beyond
property boundaries of the treatment plant, including all unit
processes, and showing:
(A) Treatment plant area and unit processes;
(B) The pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters
the treatment plant and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include
outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable;
(C) Each well where fluids from the treatment plant are injected
underground;
(D) Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water
wells listed in public records or otherwise known to the applicant
within the map area;
(E) Sewage sludge management facilities (including on-site
treatment, storage, and disposal sites) within the property boundaries;
and
(F) Location at which waste classified as hazardous under RCRA
enters the treatment plant by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe;
(ix) Process flow diagram or schematic.
(A) A diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant,
including all bypass piping. This includes a water balance showing all
treatment units, including disinfection, and showing daily average flow
rates at influent and discharge points, and approximate daily flow
rates between treatment units; and
(B) A narrative description of the diagram;
(x) Bypasses. The following information for each outfall that is a
discharge from a bypass point:
(A) The actual or approximate number of wet-weather and dry-weather
bypass incidents in the twelve months prior to the date of the permit
application;
(B) The actual or approximate duration of each wet-weather or dry-
weather bypass incident;
(C) The actual or approximate volume, in millions of gallons, of
each wet-weather or dry-weather bypass incident; and
(D) The reason(s) why such bypasses occurred;
(xi) Outfalls and other discharge or disposal methods. The
following information for outfalls to waters of the United States and
other discharge or disposal methods:
(A) For effluent discharges to waters of the United States, the
total number and types of outfalls (e.g, treated effluent, CSOs) to
surface water;
(B) For wastewater discharged to surface impoundments:
(1) The location of each surface impoundment;
(2) The annual average daily volume discharged to each surface
impoundment; and
(3) Whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent;
(C) For wastewater applied to the land:
(1) The location of each land application site;
(2) The size of each land application site, in acres;
(3) The annual average daily volume applied to each land
application site, in gallons per day; and
(4) Whether land application is continuous or intermittent;
(D) For wastewater discharged to another facility:
(1) The means by which the discharge is transported;
(2) The name, mailing address, contact person, and phone number of
the organization transporting the discharge, if the transport is
provided by a party other than the applicant;
(3) The name, mailing address, contact person, phone number, and
NPDES permit number (if any) of the receiving facility; and
(4) The average daily flow rate from this facility into the
receiving facility, in millions of gallons per day; and
(E) For wastewater disposed of in a manner not included in
paragraphs (j)(1)(ix) (A) through (D) of this section (e.g.,
underground percolation, underground injection):
(1) A description of the disposal method, including the location
and size of each disposal site, if applicable;
(2) The annual average daily volume disposed of by this method, in
gallons per day; and
(3) Whether disposal through this method is continuous or
intermittent;
(xii) Federal Indian reservations. Information concerning whether
the facility is located on a Federal Indian Reservation or whether the
facility discharges to a receiving stream that flows through a Federal
Indian Reservation; and
(xiii) Scheduled improvements, schedules of implementation. The
following information regarding scheduled improvements:
(A) The outfall number of each outfall affected;
(B) A narrative description of each required improvement;
(C) Scheduled or actual dates of completion for the following:
(1) Commencement of construction;
(2) Completion of construction;
(3) Commencement of discharge; and
(4) Attainment of operational level; and
(D) A description of permits and clearances concerning other
Federal and/or State requirements;
(2) Information on effluent discharges. Each applicant must provide
the following information for each outfall, including bypass points,
through which effluent is discharged, as applicable:
(i) Description of outfall. The following information about each
outfall:
(A) Outfall number;
(B) State, county, and city or town in which outfall is located;
(C) Latitude and longitude, to the nearest second;
(D) Distance from shore and depth below surface;
(E) Average daily flow rate, in million gallons per day;
(F) The following information for each outfall with a seasonal or
periodic discharge:
(1) Number of times per year the discharge occurs;
(2) Duration of each discharge;
(3) Flow of each discharge; and
(4) Months in which discharge occurs; and
(G) Whether the outfall is equipped with a diffuser and the type
(e.g., high-rate) of diffuser used;
[[Page 62579]]
(ii) Description of receiving waters. The following information (if
known) for each outfall through which effluent is discharged to waters
of the United States:
(A) Type (e.g., stream, river, lake, estuary, ocean) and name of
receiving water;
(B) Name of watershed/river/stream system and United States Soil
Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code;
(C) Name of State Management/River Basin and United States
Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code; and
(D) Critical flow of receiving stream and total hardness of
receiving stream at critical low flow (if applicable); and
(iii) Description of treatment. The following information
describing the treatment provided for discharges from each outfall to
waters of the United States:
(A) The highest level of treatment (e.g., primary, equivalent to
secondary, secondary, advanced, other) that is provided for the
discharge for each outfall and:
(1) Design biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 or CBOD5)
removal (percent);
(2) Design suspended solids (SS) removal (percent); and, where
applicable;
(3) Design phosphorus (P) removal (percent);
(4) Design nitrogen (N) removal (percent); and
(5) Any other removals that an advanced treatment system is
designed to achieve.
(B) A description of the type of disinfection used, and whether the
treatment plant dechlorinates (if disinfection is accomplished through
chlorination);
(3) Effluent monitoring for specific parameters. (i) As provided in
paragraphs (j)(3) (ii) through (x) of this section all applicants shall
submit to the Director effluent monitoring information for samples
taken from each outfall through which effluent is discharged to waters
of the United States, except for CSOs. The Director may allow
applicants to submit sampling data for only one outfall on a case-by-
case basis, where the applicant has two or more outfalls with
substantially identical effluent;
(ii) All applicants must sample and analyze for the pollutants
listed in Appendix J of this part, Table 1;
(iii) The following applicants must sample and analyze for the
pollutants listed in Appendix J of this part, Table 2, and for any
other pollutants for which the State or EPA have established water
quality standards applicable to the receiving waters:
(A) All POTWs with a design influent flow rate equal to or greater
than one million gallons per day;
(B) All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required
to develop a pretreatment program; and
(C) Other POTWs, as required by the Director;
(iv) Unless otherwise required by the Director, applicants are not
required to sample for the pollutants listed in Appendix J of this
part, Table 3;
(v) The Director should require sampling for additional pollutants,
as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis;
(vi) Applicants must provide data from a minimum of three samples
taken within three years prior to the date of the permit application.
Samples must be representative of the discharge from each outfall, and
at least two samples should be at least four months, but no more than
eight months apart. Existing data may be used, if available, in lieu of
sampling done solely for the purpose of this application. The Director
should require additional samples, as appropriate, on a case-by-case
basis;
(vii) All existing data for pollutants specified in paragraphs
(j)(3) (ii) through (v) of this section that is collected within three
years of the application must be included with the pollutant data
submitted by the applicant. If, however, the applicant samples for a
specific pollutant on a monthly or more frequent basis, it is only
necessary, for such pollutant, to provide all data collected within one
year of the application;
(viii) Applicants must collect samples of effluent and analyze such
samples for pollutants in accordance with analytical methods approved
under 40 CFR part 136 unless an alternative is specified in the
existing NPDES permit. When no analytical method is approved,
applicants may use any suitable method and must provide a description
of the method. Grab samples must be used for pH, temperature, cyanide,
total phenols, residual chlorine, oil and grease, fecal coliform, E.
coli, and enterococci. For all other pollutants, 24-hour flow-weighted
composite samples must be used. For a flow-weighted composite sample,
only one analysis of the composite of aliquots is required. A single
grab sample may be taken for effluent from holding ponds or other
impoundments, so long as they have a retention time of greater than 24
hours;
(ix) The effluent monitoring data provided must include at least
the following information for each parameter:
(A) Maximum daily discharge, expressed as concentration or mass,
based upon actual sample values;
(B) Average daily discharge for all samples, expressed as
concentration or mass, based upon actual sample values, and the number
of samples used to obtain this value;
(C) The analytical method used; and
(D) The threshold level (i.e., method detection limit, minimum
level, or other designated method endpoints) for the analytical method
used; and
(x) Unless otherwise required by the Director, metals must be
reported as total recoverable;
(4) Effluent monitoring for whole effluent toxicity. (i) All
applicants shall provide an identification of any biological toxicity
tests that the applicant knows or has reason to believe have been made
during the three years prior to the date of the application on any of
the applicant's discharges or on a receiving water in relation to a
discharge.
(ii) As provided in paragraphs (j)(4) (iii) through (ix) of this
section, the following applicants shall submit to the Director the
results of valid whole effluent biological toxicity tests for acute or
chronic toxicity for samples taken from each outfall through which
effluent is discharged to surface waters, except for combined sewer
overflows:
(A) All POTWs with design influent flow rate equal to or greater
than one million gallons per day;
(B) All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required
to develop a pretreatment program; and
(C) Other POTWs, as required by the Director, based on
consideration of the following factors:
(1) The variability of the pollutants or pollutant parameters in
the POTW effluent (based on chemical-specific information, the type of
treatment plant, and types of industrial contributors);
(2) The ratio of effluent flow to receiving stream flow;
(3) Existing controls on point or non-point sources, including
total maximum daily load calculations for the receiving stream segment
and the relative contribution of the POTW;
(4) Receiving stream characteristics, including possible or known
water quality impairment, and whether the POTW discharges to a coastal
water, one of the Great Lakes, or a water designated as an outstanding
natural resource water; or
(5) Other considerations (including, but not limited to, the
history of toxic impacts and compliance problems at the POTW) that the
Director determines
[[Page 62580]]
could cause or contribute to adverse water quality impacts.
(iii) Where the POTW has two or more outfalls with substantially
identical effluent discharging to the same receiving stream segment,
the Director may allow applicants to submit whole effluent toxicity
data for only one outfall on a case-by-case basis.
(iv) Each applicant required to perform whole effluent biological
toxicity testing pursuant to paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section shall
provide the results of a minimum of four quarterly tests for a year.
Applicants shall conduct tests with multiple species (no less than two
species; e.g., fish, invertebrate, plant), and test for acute or
chronic toxicity, depending on the range of receiving water dilution.
It is recommended that applicants conduct acute or chronic testing
based on the following dilutions:
(A) Acute toxicity testing if the dilution of the effluent is
greater than 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone;
(B) Acute or chronic toxicity testing if the dilution of the
effluent is between 100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
Acute testing may be more appropriate at the higher end of this range
(1000:1), and chronic testing may be more appropriate at the lower end
of this range (100:1); and
(C) Chronic testing if the dilution of the effluent is less than
100:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
(v) Each applicant required to perform whole effluent biological
toxicity testing pursuant to paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section shall
provide the number of chronic or acute whole effluent toxicity tests
that have been conducted since the last permit reissuance.
(vi) Provide the results using the form provided by the Director,
or test summaries if available and comprehensive, for each whole
effluent toxicity test conducted pursuant to paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of
this section for which such information has not been reported
previously to the Director.
(vii) Whole effluent toxicity testing conducted pursuant to
paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section shall be conducted using methods
approved under 40 CFR part 136.
(viii) For biomonitoring data submitted to the Director within
three years prior to the date of the application, applicants must
provide the dates on which the data were submitted and a summary of the
results.
(ix) Each POTW required to perform whole effluent biological
testing pursuant to paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section must provide
any information on the cause of toxicity and written details of any
toxicity reduction evaluation conducted, if any whole effluent toxicity
test conducted within the past three years revealed toxicity.
(5) Industrial discharges and pretreatment. Applicants must submit
the information in paragraphs (j)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section,
as applicable, regarding industrial user discharges to the POTW.
(i) General information. General information on industrial users.
(A) Number of significant industrial users (SIUs) and categorical
industrial users (CIUs) discharging to the POTW;
(B) Total average daily flow rate from all industrial (non-
domestic) users, from SIUs, and from all CIUs discharging to the POTW;
and
(C) Estimated percent of total influent contributed by all
industrial (non-domestic) users, by SIUs only, by CIUs only, and by
domestic sources discharging to the POTW.
(ii) Pretreatment program and local limits. POTWs with an approved
pretreatment program under 40 CFR part 403 shall provide information
concerning pretreatment program modifications that are required to be
submitted but have not been approved in accordance with 40 CFR 403.18.
(iii) Significant industrial users. POTWs with one or more
significant industrial users (SIUs) shall provide the following
information for each SIU, as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(t), that
discharges to the POTW:
(A) Name and mailing address;
(B) Description of all industrial processes that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge;
(C) Principal products and raw materials of the SIU;
(D) Average daily volume of wastewater discharged, indicating the
amount attributable to process flow and non-process flow;
(E) Whether the SIU is subject to local limits;
(F) Whether the SIU is subject to categorical standards, and if so,
under which category(ies) and subcategory(ies); and
(G) Whether any problems at the POTW (e.g., upsets, pass through,
interference) have been attributed to the SIU in the past three years;
(6) Discharges from hazardous waste generators and from waste
cleanup or remediation sites. POTWs receiving RCRA, CERCLA, or RCRA
Corrective Action wastes or wastes generated at another type of cleanup
or remediation site must provide the following information:
(i) RCRA hazardous waste. If the POTW receives by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe any wastes that are regulated as RCRA hazardous wastes
pursuant to 40 CFR part 261, or authorized State, or if it is expected
to receive such wastes during the life of the permit, the applicant
must report the following:
(A) The method by which the waste is received (i.e., whether by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe); and
(B) The hazardous waste number and amount received annually of each
hazardous waste;
(ii) CERCLA wastewaters. If the POTW receives wastewaters that
originate from response activities undertaken pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), or if it is expected to receive such wastewaters during the
life of the permit, the applicant must report the following:
(A) The identity and description of the site(s) at which the
wastewater originates or is expected to originate;
(B) The identities of the hazardous constituents in the wastewater;
and
(C) The extent of treatment, if any, the wastewater receives or
will receive before entering the POTW;
(iii) RCRA corrective action wastewaters. If the POTW receives
wastewaters that originate from remedial activities undertaken pursuant
to sections 3004(u) or 3008(h) of RCRA, or authorized State, or if it
is expected to receive such wastewaters during the life of the permit,
the applicant must report the following:
(A) The identity and description of the facility(ies) at which the
wastewater originates or is expected to originate;
(B) The identities of the hazardous constituents in the wastewater;
and
(C) The extent of treatment, if any, the wastewater receives or
will receive before entering the POTW; and
(iv) Wastewaters from other remedial activities. If the POTW
receives wastewaters that originate from remedial activities other than
those in paragraphs (j)(6) (ii) and (iii) of this section, the
applicant shall provide a written description that includes the
following information:
(A) The identity and description of the facility(ies) at which the
wastewater originates or is expected to originate;
(B) The identities of the hazardous constituents in the wastewater;
and
(C) The extent of treatment, if any, the wastewater receives or
will receive before entering the POTW;
(7) Combined sewer overflows. Each applicant with combined sewer
systems shall provide the following information:
(i) Combined sewer system information. The following information
regarding the combined sewer system:
(A) CSO discharge points. The number of combined sewer overflow
[[Page 62581]]
(CSO) discharge points in the combined sewer system to be covered by
the application;
(B) System map. A map indicating the location of the following:
(1) All CSO discharge points;
(2) Sensitive use areas potentially affected by CSOs (e.g.,
beaches, drinking water supplies, shellfish beds, sensitive aquatic
ecosystems, and outstanding natural resource waters); and
(3) Waters supporting threatened and endangered species potentially
affected by CSOs;
(C) System diagram. A diagram of the combined sewer collection
system that includes the following information:
(1) The location of major sewer trunk lines, both combined and
separate sanitary;
(2) The locations of points where separate sanitary sewers feed
into the combined sewer system;
(3) In-line and off-line storage structures;
(4) The locations of flow-regulating devices; and
(5) The locations of pump stations; and
(D) System evaluation. A list of studies, including modeling
studies, hydraulic studies, past monitoring efforts, and facility
plans, that have been performed on the collection system since the last
permit application; and
(ii) Information on CSO outfalls. The following information for
each CSO discharge point covered by the permit application:
(A) Description of outfall. The following information on each
outfall:
(1) Outfall number;
(2) State, county, and city or town in which outfall is located;
(3) Latitude and longitude, to the nearest second; and
(4) Distance from shore and depth below surface;
(B) Monitoring. Indicate if any of the following were monitored in
the past year for this CSO and provide the results of this monitoring:
(1) Rainfall;
(2) CSO flow volume;
(3) CSO water quality;
(4) Receiving water quality; and
(5) The number of storm events;
(C) CSO incidents. The following information about CSO incidents:
(1) The number of incidents in the past year;
(2) The average duration per incident;
(3) The average volume per CSO incident; and
(4) The minimum rainfall that caused a CSO incident in the last
year;
(D) Description of receiving waters. The following information
about receiving waters:
(1) Name and type of receiving water (e.g., stream/river, lake/
pond, estuary, ocean);
(2) Name of watershed/stream system and the United States Soil
Conservation Service watershed (14-digit) code (if known); and
(3) Name of State Management/River Basin and the United States
Geological Survey hydrologic cataloging unit (8-digit) code (if known);
and
(E) CSO operations. The following information concerning CSO
operations:
(1) Whether the CSO includes contributions from significant
industrial users; and
(2) A description of any known water quality impacts on the
receiving water caused by the CSO (e.g., permanent or intermittent
beach closings, permanent or intermittent shellfish bed closings, fish
kills, fish advisories, other recreational loss, or exceedance of any
applicable State water quality standard);
(8) Contractors. All applicants shall provide the name, mailing
address, telephone number, and responsibilities of all contractors
responsible for any operational or maintenance aspects of the facility;
and
(9) Signature. All applications shall be signed by a certifying
official in compliance with Sec. 122.22.
* * * * *
(q) Sewage sludge management. All treatment works treating domestic
sewage, except ``sludge-only facilities'' subject to paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section, shall provide the information in this
paragraph to the Director, using Form 2S or another form approved by
the Director. The Director may waive any requirement of this paragraph
if the Director has access to substantially identical information.
(1) Facility information. All applicants shall submit the following
information:
(i) The name, mailing address, and location of the treatment works
treating domestic sewage for which the application is submitted;
(ii) The facility's latitude and longitude to the nearest second,
and method of determination;
(iii) Whether the facility is a Class I Sludge Management Facility;
(iv) The design influent flow rate (in million gallons per day);
and
(v) The total population served;
(2) Applicant information. All applicants shall submit the
following information:
(i) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the
applicant;
(ii) Indication whether the applicant is the owner, operator, or
both; and
(iii) The applicant's status as Federal, State, private, public, or
other entity;
(3) Permit information. All applicants shall submit the facility's
NPDES permit number, if applicable, and a listing of all other Federal,
State, and local permits or construction approvals received or applied
for under any of the following programs:
(i) Hazardous Waste Management program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
(ii) UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA);
(iii) NPDES program under the Clean Water Act (CWA);
(iv) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under
the Clean Air Act;
(v) Nonattainment program under the Clean Air Act;
(vi) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) preconstruction approval under the Clean Air Act;
(vii) Dredge or fill permits under section 404 of CWA; and
(viii) Other relevant environmental permits, including State or
local permits;
(4) Federal Indian Reservations. All applicants shall identify any
generation, treatment, storage, land application, or disposal of sewage
sludge that occurs on Federal Indian Reservations;
(5) Topographic map. All applicants shall submit a topographic map
(or other map if a topographic map is unavailable) extending one mile
beyond property boundaries of the facility and showing the following
information:
(i) All sewage sludge management facilities, including use and
disposal sites;
(ii) All water bodies; and
(iii) Wells used for drinking water listed in public records or
otherwise known to the applicant within 1/4 mile of the facility
property boundaries;
(6) Sewage sludge handling. All applicants shall submit a line
drawing and/or a narrative description that identifies all sewage
sludge management practices employed during the term of the permit,
including all units used for collecting, dewatering, storing, or
treating sewage sludge, the destination(s) of all liquids and solids
leaving each such unit, and all processes used for pathogen reduction
and vector attraction reduction;
(7) Sewage sludge quality. (i) If the applicant is a ``Class I
sludge management facility,'' the applicant shall submit the results of
a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP), as described in 40
CFR part 261, conducted in the last five years to determine whether the
sewage sludge is a hazardous waste.
(ii) The applicant shall submit sewage sludge monitoring data for
the
[[Page 62582]]
parameters indicated in paragraphs (q)(7)(ii) (A) through (B) of this
section. Monitoring data shall be two years old or less. The data for
each parameter shall include the concentration in sewage sludge (mg/kg
dry weight), the sample date(s), the analytical method, and the minimum
detection level for the analysis.
(A) ``Class I Sludge Management Facilities,'' as defined in
Sec. 122.2, shall submit sewage sludge monitoring data for TKN,
ammonia, nitrate, total phosphorus, the pollutants in Appendix J of
this part, Tables 2 and 3, and any other parameters for which limits in
sewage sludge have been established in 40 CFR part 503 on the date of
permit application.
(B) All other facilities required to apply under this section shall
submit sewage sludge monitoring data for TKN, ammonia, nitrate, total
phosphorus and those pollutants for which limits in sewage sludge have
been established in 40 CFR part 503 on the date of permit application;
(8) Preparation of sewage sludge. If the applicant is a ``person
who prepares'' sewage sludge, as defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), the
applicant shall provide the following information:
(i) If the applicant's facility generates sewage sludge, the total
dry metric tons per 365-day period generated at the facility;
(ii) If the applicant's facility receives sewage sludge from
another facility, the following information for each facility from
which sewage sludge is received:
(A) The name, mailing address, and location of the other facility;
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period received from the
other facility; and
(C) A description of any treatment processes occurring at the other
facility, including blending activities and treatment to reduce
pathogens or vector attraction characteristics;
(iii) If the applicant's facility changes the quality of sewage
sludge through blending, treatment, or other activities, the following
information:
(A) Whether the Class A pathogen reduction requirements in 40 CFR
503.32(a) or the Class B pathogen reduction requirements in 40 CFR
503.32(b) are met, and a description of any treatment processes used to
reduce pathogens in sewage sludge;
(B) Whether any of the vector attraction reduction options of 40
CFR 503.33(b)(1) through (b)(8) are met, and a description of any
treatment processes used to reduce vector attraction properties in
sewage sludge; and
(C) A description of any other blending, treatment, or other
activities that change the quality of sewage sludge;
(iv) If sewage sludge from the applicant's facility meets the
ceiling concentrations in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant
concentrations in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen
requirements in 40 CFR 503.32(a), and one of the vector attraction
reduction requirements in 40 CFR 503.33(b)(1) through (b)(8), and if
the sewage sludge is applied to the land, the applicant shall provide
the total dry metric tons per 365-day period of sewage sludge subject
to this paragraph that is applied to the land;
(v) If sewage sludge from the applicant's facility is sold or given
away in a bag or other container for application to the land, and the
sewage sludge is not subject to paragraph (q)(8)(iv) of this section,
the applicant shall provide the following information:
(A) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period of sewage sludge
subject to this paragraph that is sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land; and
(B) A copy of all labels or notices that accompany the sewage
sludge being sold or given away;
(vi) If sewage sludge from the applicant's facility is provided to
another ``person who prepares,'' as defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), and the
sewage sludge is not subject to paragraph (q)(8)(iv) of this section,
the applicant shall provide the following information for each facility
receiving the sewage sludge:
(A) The name and mailing address of the receiving facility;
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period of sewage sludge
subject to this paragraph that the applicant provides to the receiving
facility;
(C) A description of any treatment processes occurring at the
receiving facility, including blending activities and treatment to
reduce pathogens or vector attraction characteristic;
(D) A copy of the notice and necessary information that the
applicant is required to provide the receiving facility under 40 CFR
503.12(g); and
(E) If the receiving facility places sewage sludge in bags or
containers for sale or give-away to application to the land, a copy of
any labels or notices that accompany the sewage sludge;
(9) Land application of bulk sewage sludge. If sewage sludge from
the applicant's facility is applied to the land in bulk form, and is
not subject to Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(iv), (v), or (vi), the applicant shall
provide the following information:
(i) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period of sewage sludge
subject to this paragraph (q)(9) that is applied to the land;
(ii) If any land application sites are located in States other than
the State where the sewage sludge is prepared, a description of how the
applicant will notify the permitting authority for the State(s) where
the land application sites are located;
(iii) The following information for each land application site that
has been identified at the time of permit application:
(A) The name (if any), and location for the land application site;
(B) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the site
owner, if different from the applicant;
(C) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person
who applies sewage sludge to the site, if different from the applicant;
(D) Whether the site is agricultural land, forest, a public contact
site, or a reclamation site, as such site types are defined under 40
CFR 503.11;
(E) The type of vegetation grown on the site, if known, and the
nitrogen requirement for this vegetation;
(F) Whether either of the vector attraction reduction options of 40
CFR 503.33(b)(9) or (b)(10) is met at the site, and a description of
any procedures employed at the time of use to reduce vector attraction
properties in sewage sludge; and
(G) Any available ground-water monitoring data, with a description
of the well locations and approximate depth to ground water, for the
land application site;
(iv) The following information for each land application site that
has been identified at the time of permit application, if the applicant
intends to apply bulk sewage sludge subject to the cumulative pollutant
loading rates in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) to the site:
(A) Whether the applicant has contacted the permitting authority in
the State where the bulk sewage sludge subject to 40 CFR 503.13(b)(2)
will be applied, to ascertain whether bulk sewage sludge subject to 40
CFR 503.13(b)(2) has been applied to the site on or since July 20,
1993, and if so, the name of the permitting authority and the name and
phone number of a contact person at the permitting authority;
(B) Identification of facilities other than the applicant's
facility that have sent, or are sending, sewage sludge subject to the
cumulative pollutant loading rates in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) to the site
since July 20, 1993, if, based on the inquiry in paragraph
(q)(9)(iv)(A) of this section, bulk sewage sludge subject to cumulative
pollutant loading rates in
[[Page 62583]]
40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) has been applied to the site since July 20, 1993;
(v) If not all land application sites have been identified at the
time of permit application, the applicant shall submit a land
application plan that, at a minimum:
(A) Describes the geographical area covered by the plan;
(B) Identifies the site selection criteria;
(C) Describes how the site(s) will be managed;
(D) Provides for advance notice to the permit authority of specific
land application sites and reasonable time for the permit authority to
object prior to land application of the sewage sludge; and
(E) Provides for advance public notice as required by State and
local law, but in all cases requires notice to landowners and occupants
adjacent to or abutting the proposed land application site;
(10) Surface disposal. If sewage sludge from the applicant's
facility is placed on a surface disposal site, the applicant shall
provide the following information:
(i) The total dry metric tons of sewage sludge from the applicant's
facility that is placed on surface disposal sites per 365-day period;
(ii) The following information for each surface disposal site
receiving sewage sludge from the applicant's facility that the
applicant does not own or operate:
(A) The site name or number, contact person, mailing address, and
telephone number for the surface disposal site; and
(B) The total dry metric tons from the applicant's facility per
365-day period placed on the surface disposal site; and
(iii) The following information for each active sewage sludge unit
at each surface disposal site that the applicant owns or operates:
(A) The name or number and the location of the active sewage sludge
unit;
(B) The total dry metric tons placed on the active sewage sludge
unit per 365-day period;
(C) The total dry metric tons placed on the active sewage sludge
unit over the life of the unit;
(D) A description of any liner for the active sewage sludge unit,
including whether it has a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-7 cm/
sec;
(E) A description of any leachate collection system for the active
sewage sludge unit, including the method used for leachate disposal,
and any Federal, State, and local permit number(s) for leachate
disposal;
(F) If the active sewage sludge unit is less than 150 meters from
the property line of the surface disposal site, the actual distance
from the unit boundary to the site property line;
(G) The remaining capacity (dry metric tons) for the active sewage
sludge unit;
(H) The date on which the active sewage sludge unit is expected to
close, if such a date has been identified;
(I) The following information for any other facility that sends
sewage sludge to the active sewage sludge unit:
(1) The name, contact person, and mailing address of the facility;
and
(2) Available information regarding the quality of the sewage
sludge received from the facility, including any treatment at the
facility to reduce pathogens or vector attraction characteristics;
(J) Whether any of the vector attraction reduction options of 40
CFR 503.33(b)(9) through (b)(11) is met at the active sewage sludge
unit, and a description of any procedures employed at the time of
disposal to reduce vector attraction properties in sewage sludge;
(K) The following information, as applicable to any ground-water
monitoring occurring at the active sewage sludge unit:
(1) A description of any ground-water monitoring occurring at the
active sewage sludge unit;
(2) Any available ground-water monitoring data, with a description
of the well locations and approximate depth to ground water;
(3) A copy of any ground-water monitoring plan that has been
prepared for the active sewage sludge unit; and
(4) A copy of any certification that has been obtained from a
qualified ground-water scientist that the aquifer has not been
contaminated; and
(L) If site-specific pollutant limits are being sought for the
sewage sludge placed on this active sewage sludge unit, information to
support such a request;
(11) Incineration. If sewage sludge from the applicant's facility
is fired in a sewage sludge incinerator, the applicant shall provide
the following information:
(i) The total dry metric tons of sewage sludge from the applicant's
facility that is fired in sewage sludge incinerators per 365-day
period;
(ii) The following information for each sewage sludge incinerator
firing the applicant's sewage sludge that the applicant does not own or
operate:
(A) The name and/or number, contact person, mailing address, and
telephone number of the sewage sludge incinerator; and
(B) The total dry metric tons from the applicants facility per 365-
day period fired in the sewage sludge incinerator;
(iii) The following information for each sewage sludge incinerator
that the applicant owns or operates:
(A) The name and/or number and the location of the sewage sludge
incinerator;
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period fired in the
sewage sludge incinerator;
(C) Information, test data, and documentation of ongoing operating
parameters indicating that compliance with the National Emission
Standard for Beryllium in 40 CFR part 61 will be achieved;
(D) Information, test data, and documentation of ongoing operating
parameters indicating that compliance with the National Emission
Standard for Mercury in 40 CFR part 61 will be achieved;
(E) The dispersion factor for the sewage sludge incinerator, as
well as modeling results and supporting documentation;
(F) The control efficiency for parameters regulated in 40 CFR
503.43, as well as performance test results and supporting
documentation;
(G) Information used to calculate the risk specific concentration
(RSC) for chromium, including the results of incinerator stack tests
for hexavalent and total chromium concentrations, if the applicant is
requesting a chromium limit based on a site-specific RSC value;
(H) The concentration (ppm) of total hydrocarbons (THC) or Carbon
Monoxide (CO) in the exit gas for the sewage sludge incinerator, as
well as supporting documentation, both before and after correction for
zero percent moisture and correction to seven percent oxygen as
required in 40 CFR 503.44;
(I) The oxygen concentration in the sewage sludge incinerator stack
exit gas;
(J) Information used to determine the moisture content of the
sewage sludge incinerator stack exit gas;
(K) The type of sewage sludge incinerator;
(L) The combustion temperature, as obtained during the performance
test of the sewage sludge incinerator to determine pollutant control
efficiencies;
(M) The following information on sewage sludge feed rate:
(1) Sewage sludge feed rate in dry metric tons per day;
(2) Identification of whether the feed rate submitted is average
use or maximum design; and
(3) A description of how the feed rate was calculated;
(N) The incinerator stack height in meters for each stack,
including identification of whether actual or creditable stack height
was used;
[[Page 62584]]
(O) The operating parameters for the sewage sludge incinerator air
pollution control device(s), as obtained during the performance test of
the sewage sludge incinerator to determine pollutant control
efficiencies;
(P) Identification of the monitoring equipment in place, including
(but not limited to) equipment to monitor the following:
(1) Total hydrocarbons or Carbon Monoxide;
(2) Percent oxygen;
(3) Percent moisture; and
(4) Combustion temperature; and
(Q) A list of all air pollution control equipment used with this
sewage sludge incinerator;
(12) Disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill. If sewage sludge
from the applicant's facility is sent to a municipal solid waste
landfill (MSWLF), the applicant shall provide the following information
for each MSWLF to which sewage sludge is sent:
(i) The name, contact person, mailing address, location, and all
applicable permit numbers of the MSWLF;
(ii) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period sent from this
facility to the MSWLF;
(iii) A determination of whether the sewage sludge meets applicable
requirements for disposal of sewage sludge in a MSWLF, including the
results of the paint filter liquids test and any additional
requirements that apply on a site-specific basis; and
(iv) Information, if known, indicating whether the MSWLF complies
with criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 258;
(13) Contractors. All applicants shall provide the name, mailing
address, telephone number, and responsibilities of all contractors
responsible for any operational or maintenance aspects of the facility;
(14) Other information. At the request of the permitting authority,
the applicant shall provide any other information necessary to
determine the appropriate standards for permitting under 40 CFR part
503, and shall provide any other information necessary to assess the
sewage sludge use and disposal practices, determine whether to issue a
permit, or identify appropriate permit requirements; and
(15) Signature. All applications shall be signed by a certifying
official in compliance with Sec. 122.22.
7. Part 122 is amended by adding Appendix J to read as follows:
Appendix J to Part 122--NPDES Permit Testing Requirements for Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (Sec. 122.21(j)) and Treatment Works Treating
Domestic Sewage (Sec. 122.21(q))
Table 1--Effluent Parameters for All POTWS
Ammonia (as N)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD-5 or CBOD-5)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
E. Coli
Enterococci
Fecal coliform
Flow Rate
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Oil and grease
pH
Phosphorus
Temperature
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Table 2--Effluent and Sewage Sludge Parameters for Selected POTWS and
Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
Metals (Total Recoverable), Cyanide and Total Phenols
Antimony
7440-36-0
Arsenic
7440-38-2
Beryllium
7440-41-7
Cadmium
7440-43-9
Chromium
7440-47-3
Copper
7440-50-8
Lead
7439-92-1
Mercury
7439-97-6
Nickel
7440-02-0
Selenium
7782-49-2
Silver
7440-22-4
Thallium
7440-28-0
Zinc
7440-66-6
Cyanide
57-12-5
Phenols, total
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acrolein
107-02-8
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
Benzene
271-43-2
Bromoform
75-25-2
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
Chlorodibromomethane
124-48-1
Chloroethane
75-00-3
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
110-75-8
Chloroform
67-66-3
Dichlorobromomethane
75-27-4
1,1-dichloroethane
75-34-3
1,2-dichloroethane
107-06-2
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
156-60-5
1,1- dichloroethylene
75-35-4
1,2-dichloropropane
78-87-5
1,3-dichloropropene
542-75-6
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
Methyl bromide
74-83-9
Methyl chloride
74-87-3
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
Tetrachloroethylene
127-18-4
Toluene
108-88-3
1,1,1-trichloroethane
71-55-6
1,1,2-trichloroethane
79-00-5
Trichloroethylene
79-01-6
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
Acid-extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-cresol
59-50-7
2-chlorophenol
95-57-8
2,4-dichlorophenol
120-83-2
222,4-dimethylphenol
105-67-9
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
534-52-1
2,4-dinitrophenol
51-28-5
2-nitrophenol
887-5-5
4-nitrophenol
100-02-7
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
Phenol
108-295-2
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
88-06-2
Base-Neutral Compounds
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
Anthracene
[[Page 62585]]
120-12-7
Benzidine
92-87-5
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
3,4 benzofluoranthene
205-99-2
Benzo(ghi)perylene
191-24-2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
111-91-1
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
111-44-4
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl ether
108-60-1
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
2-chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
7005-72-3
Chrysene
218-01-9
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
1,2-dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
1,3-dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
1,4-dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
2,4-dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
2,6-dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
122-66-7
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
Fluorene
86-73-7
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
193-39-5
Isophorone
78-59-1
Naphthalene
91-20-3
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
N-nitrosodi n-propylamine
621-64-7
N-nitrosodimethylamine
62-75-9
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
Pyrene
129-00-0
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
Table 3--Other Effluent and Sewage Sludge Parameters for Treatment
Works Treating Domestic Sewage and Selected POTWS
Metals
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
Pesticides
Aldrin
309-00-2
Alpha-BHC
319-84-6
Beta-BHC
319-85-7
Delta-BHC
319-86-8
Gamma-BHC
58-89-9
Chlordane
57-74-9
4,4'-DDD
72-54-8
4,4'-DDE
72-55-9
4,4'-DDT
50-29-3
Dieldrin
60-57-1
Alpha-endosulfan
959-98-8
Beta-endosulfan
33213-65-9
Endosulfan sulfate
1031-07-8
Endrin
72-20-8
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
Heptachlor
76-44-8
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
12674-11-2
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
11104-28-2
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
11141-16-5
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
53469-21-9
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
12672-29-6
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
11097-69-1
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
11096-82-5
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
Other
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
1746-01-6
PART 123--STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
8a. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
8b. Section 123.25 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 123.25 Requirements for permitting.
(a) * * *
(4) Sections 122.21(a), (b), (c)(2), (e) through (k), (m) through
(p), and (q)--(Application for a permit);
* * * * *
PART 403--GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
9. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 54(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, (Pub.
L. 95-217) sections 204(b)(1)(C), 208(b)(2)(C)(iii),
301(b)(1)(A)(ii), 301(b)(2)(C), 301(h)(5), 301(i)(2), 304(e),
304(g), 307, 308, 309, 402(b), 405, and 501(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Pub. L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
10. Section 403.8 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 403.8 Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and
Implementation by POTW.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) The POTW shall:
(i) Develop local limits as required in Sec. 403.5(c)(1), or
demonstrate that they are not necessary; and
(ii) Following permit issuance or reissuance, provide a written
technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits under 40 CFR
403.5(c)(1).
* * * * *
PART 501--STATE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS
11. The authority citation for part 501 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
12. Section 501.15 is amended by removing the reference
``Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(ix)'' in paragraphs (d)(4) introductory text,
(d)(4)(i)(C), and (d)(5)(ii)(B) and adding in its place
``Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(v)'', and by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
[[Page 62586]]
Sec. 501.15 Requirements for permitting.
(a) * * *
(2) Information requirements. All treatment works treating domestic
sewage shall submit to the Director the information listed at 40 CFR
122.21 (q) within the time frames established in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)
of this section.
* * * * *
Note: The following form will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 62587]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.000
[[Page 62588]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.001
[[Page 62589]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.002
[[Page 62590]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.003
[[Page 62591]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.004
[[Page 62592]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.005
[[Page 62593]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.006
[[Page 62594]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.007
[[Page 62595]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.008
[[Page 62596]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.009
[[Page 62597]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.010
[[Page 62598]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.011
[[Page 62599]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.012
[[Page 62600]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.013
[[Page 62601]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.014
[[Page 62602]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.015
[[Page 62603]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.016
[[Page 62604]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.017
[[Page 62605]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.018
[[Page 62606]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.019
[[Page 62607]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.020
[[Page 62608]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.021
[[Page 62609]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.022
[[Page 62610]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.023
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 62611]]
Instructions For Completing Form 2A
Application For a NPDES Permit
Background Information
Each wastewater treatment works that discharges treated effluent to
waters of the United States must apply for a permit for its discharges.
This permitting requirement is part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is implemented by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You can obtain a permit for your
treatment works by filling out and sending in the appropriate form(s)
to your permitting authority. If the State in which your treatment
works is located operates its own NPDES program, then the State is your
permitting authority and you should ask your State for permit
application forms. On the other hand, if EPA operates the NPDES program
in your State, then EPA is the permitting authority, and you must fill
out and send in Form 2A.
These instructions explain how to fill out each question in Form
2A. Be sure to read the Application Overview section on the cover page
of Form 2A before you start filling out the form. Not every applicant
will have to fill out every section of Form 2A. The Application
Overview section will help you determine which portions of Form 2A
apply to your treatment works.
EPA has developed Form 2A in a modular format, consisting of two
packets: The Basic Application Information packet and the Supplemental
Application Information packet. At a minimum, all applicants must
complete the Basic Application Information packet, which contains
questions 1-19. As directed by the Application Overview section on page
1 of the form, certain applicants will also need to complete one or
more parts of the Supplemental Application Information packet.
Commonly Asked Questions
What If I Need More Space for My Answer?
Some questions on Form 2A require you to write out short answers.
If you need more room for your answer than is provided on the form,
attach a separate sheet called ``Additional Information.'' At the top
of the separate sheet, put the name of your plant, your plant's NPDES
permit number, and the number of the outfall that you are writing
about. Also, next to your answer, put the question number (from Form
2A). Provide this information on any drawings or other papers that you
attach to your application as well.
Will the Public Be Able to See the Information I Submit?
Any information you submit on Form 2A will be available to the
public. If you send in more information than is requested on Form 2A
that is considered company-privileged information, you may ask EPA to
keep that extra information confidential. Note that you cannot ask EPA
to keep effluent data confidential. If you want any of your plant's
information to be confidential, tell EPA this when you submit your
application. Otherwise, EPA may make the information public without
letting you know in advance. For more information on claims of
confidentiality, see EPA's business confidentiality regulations at
Title 40, Part 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
How Do I Complete the Forms?
Answer every question on Form 2A that applies to your treatment
works. If your answer to a question requires more room than there is on
the form, attach additional sheets (see above). If a particular
question does not apply to your treatment works, write ``N/A'' (meaning
``not applicable'') as your answer to that question. If you need advice
on how to fill out these forms, write or contact your EPA Regional
Office or your State office at the following address:
Completing Form 2A
Facility Name and NPDES Permit Number
At the top of each page of Form 2A, put your plant's name and NPDES
permit number (if you already have been assigned one) in the
appropriate boxes. Also put this information on the top of any
``Additional Information'' sheets you attach. Do not write anything in
the space marked ``EPA ID Number.''
As stated above, Form 2A consists of two packets: the Basic
Application Information packet and the Supplemental Application
Information packet. These instructions provide directions for
completing both of these packets.
Basic Application Information Packet
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information (the Basic
Application Information Packet) is estimated to average 5.3 hours
per response. This estimate 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 respond to a collection of information; search existing
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.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE Regulatory Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
N.W., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include
the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the
completed application form to these addresses.
All applicants must complete the Basic Application Information
packet, which consists of questions 1-19. Note that some questions in
this packet may not apply to your treatment works. For these questions,
write ``N/A'' in the response space.
Application Overview
Read the Application Overview before completing any of Form 2A.
This section will help you determine which questions and parts of Form
2A apply to your facility. Note that the permitting authority may
require you to complete certain questions or provide additional
information as well.
As stated above, all applicants must complete the Basic Application
Information packet. However, only certain types of applicants will need
to complete the Supplemental Application Information packet. Refer to
the directions in the Application Overview section on Form 2A to
determine which parts of the Supplemental Application Information
packet you need to complete.
Treatment Works
1. Facility Information
Provide your plant's official or legal name. Do not use a nickname
or short name. Also provide your plant's mailing address, a contact
person at the plant, his/her title, and that person's work telephone
number. The contact person should be someone who has a thorough
understanding of the operation of you
FR Doc. 95-28213 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
r treatment works. The permitting
authority may call this person if there are questions about the
application. Also provide the actual facility address (if different
than the mailing address). The facility location should be a street
address (not a Post Office box number)
[[Page 62612]]
or other description of the actual location of the facility. Be sure to
provide the city or county and state in which your facility is located.
2. Applicant Information
If someone other than the facility contact person is actually
submitting this application, provide the name and mailing address of
that person's organization. Also provide the name of a contact person,
his/her title, and his/her work telephone number. The permitting
authority may call this person if there are questions about the
application.
In addition, indicate whether this applicant is the owner or
operator (or both) of the treatment works. If it is neither, describe
the relationship of the applicant to the treatment works (e.g.,
contractor). Also indicate whether you want correspondence regarding
this application (phone calls, letters, the permit, etc.) directed to
the applicant or to the facility address provided in question 1.
3. Existing Environmental Permits
Provide the permit number of each currently effective permit issued
to the treatment works for NPDES, UIC, RCRA, PSD, and any other
environmental program. If you have previously filed an application but
have not yet received a permit, give the number of the application, if
any. If you have more than one currently effective permit under a
particular permit program, list each such permit number. List any other
relevant environmental permits under ``Other.'' These may include
permits issued under the following programs: (1) Federal: Ocean Dumping
Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act; (2) State: new air emission sources in
nonattainment areas under Part D of the Clean Air Act or State permits
issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; or (3) local: any
applicable local environmental permit programs.
4. Population
For all the cities, towns, and unincorporated areas served by your
plant, enter the number of people served by your plant at the time you
complete this form. If you do not know the population of each area,
then only provide the total population for your entire treatment works.
If another treatment works discharges into your plant, give the name of
that other treatment works and the population it serves.
5. Flow
a. Provide your plant's current design maximum daily influent flow
rate. ``Design maximum daily influent flow rate'' means the average
amount of wastewater flow your plant was designed to receive on a daily
basis. Enter the flow number in million gallons per day (mgd).
Treatment works with a design flow less than 5 mgd must provide the
design influent flow rate to two decimal places. Treatment works that
are greater than or equal to 5 mgd must report this to 1 decimal place.
This is because fluctuations of 0.01 mgd to .09 mgd in smaller
treatment works represent a significant percentage of daily flow.
b. Enter the annual average daily flow rate, in million gallons per
day, that your plant actually treated this year and each of the past
two years for days that your plant actually discharges. Each year's
data must be based on a 12-month time period, with the 12th month of
``this year'' occurring no more than three months prior to this
application submittal.
c. Enter the maximum daily flow rate, in million gallons per day
(mgd), that your plant received this year and each of the past two
years. Each year's data must be based on a 12-month time period, with
the 12th month of ``this year'' occurring no more than three months
prior to this application submittal.
6. Collection System
Indicate what type of collection system brings wastewater to your
plant. If you check both of the collection systems indicated on the
form, you must also provide an estimate of what percentage (in terms of
miles of pipe) of your entire collection system each type represents.
For example, 80 percent separate sanitary sewers would mean that 80
percent of the actual miles of pipes are separate sanitary sewers (and
20 percent are combined sewers).
``Separate sanitary sewer'' means a system of pipes that
only carries:
(1) Domestic wastewater from connections to houses, hotels, non-
industrial office buildings, institutions, or sanitary waste from
industrial facilities.
(2) Industrial wastewater received through connections to
industrial plants or facilities. This consists of water that is used in
the manufacturing processes conducted at the facility.
``Combined storm and sanitary sewer'' means a system of
pipes that carries a mixture of storm water runoff and sanitary
wastewater.
7. Inflow and Infiltration
Estimate, in gallons per day (gpd), the average amount of water
that enters the treatment works through inflow and infiltration. Also
explain any actions you are taking to correct or decrease inflow and
infiltration.
``Inflow'' means that water enters the sewer system from
the land's surface in an uncontrolled way. Usually, this happens when
surface water runs in through unsealed manhole covers. It may also
happen when people illegally connect their foundation drains, roof
leaders, cellar drains, yard drains, or catch basins to the sewer
system.
``Infiltration'' happens when non-wastewater seeps into
the sewer system from the ground. Ground water usually leaks into the
sewer system through defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or
manholes.
8. Topographic Map
Provide a topographic map or maps of the area extending at least to
one mile beyond the property boundaries of the facility which clearly
show the following:
The area surrounding the treatment plant, including all
unit processes;
The pipes or other structures through which wastewater
enters the treatment plant and the pipes or other structures through
which treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant.
Include outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable;
Each well where wastewater from the plant is injected
underground;
Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking
water wells that are: (1) Within \1/4\ mile of the property boundaries
of the treatment plant, and(2) listed in the public record or otherwise
known to you;
Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the
treatment plant is stored, treated, or disposed;
If the treatment works receives waste that is classified
as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by
truck, rail, or special pipe, show on the map where that hazardous
waste enters the treatment plant and where it is treated stored, and/or
disposed.
If a discharge structure, hazardous waste disposal site, or
injection well associated with the facility is located more than one
mile from the plant, include it on the map, if possible. If not, attach
additional sheets describing the location of the structure, disposal
site, or well, and identify the U.S. Geological Survey (or other) map
corresponding to the location.
On each map, include the map scale, a meridian arrow showing north
and
[[Page 62613]]
latitude and longitude at the nearest whole second. On all maps of
rivers, show the direction of the current, and in tidal waters, show
the directions of the ebb and flow tides. Use a 7\1/2\ minute series
map published by the U.S. Geological Survey, which may be obtained
through the U.S. Geological Survey Offices listed below. If a 7\1/2\
minute series map has not been published for your facility, then you
may use a 15 minute series map from the U.S. Geological Survey. If
neither a 7\1/2\ minute or 15 minute series map has been published for
your facility site, use a plat map or other appropriate map, including
all the requested information; in this case, briefly describe land uses
in the map area (e.g., residential, commercial).
Maps may be purchased at local dealers (listed in your local yellow
pages) or purchased over the counter at the following USGS Earth
Science Information Centers (ESIC):
Anchorage-ESIC, 4230 University Dr., Rm. 101, Anchorage, AK 99508-
4664, (907)786-7011
Lakewood-ESIC, Box 25046, Bldg. 25, Rm. 1813, Denver Federal Center,
MS 504, Denver, CO 80225-0046, (303)236-5829
Lakewood Open Files-ESIC, Box 25286, Bldg. 810, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO
Menlo Park-ESIC, Bldg. 3, Rm. 3128, MS 532, 345 Middlefield Rd.,
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591, (415)329-4309
Reston-ESIC, 507 National Center, Reston, VA 22092, (703)648-6045
Rolla-ESIC, 1400 Independence Rd., MS 231, Rolla, MO 65401-2602,
(314)341-0851
Salt Lake City-ESIC, 2222 West 2300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84119,
(801)975-3742
Sioux Falls-ESIC, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198-0001,
(605)594-6151
Spokane-ESIC, U.S. Post Office Bldg., Rm. 135, 904 W. Riverside
Ave., Spokane, WA 99201-1088, (509)353-2524
Stennis Space Center-ESIC, Bldg. 3101, Stennis Space Center, MS
39529, (601)688-3541
Washington, D.C.-ESIC, U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1849 C St., NW, Rm.
2650, Washington, D.C. 20240, (202)208-4047
All maps should be either on paper or other material appropriate
for reproduction. If possible, all sheets should be approximately
letter size with margins suitable for filing and binding. As few sheets
as necessary should be used to clearly show what is involved. Each
sheet should be labeled with your facility's name, permit number,
location (city, county, or town), date of drawing, and designation of
the number of sheets of each diagram as ``page ____ of ____.''
9. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic
Provide a process flow diagram or schematic that shows how
wastewater flows through your plant. On your diagram, include all
bypass piping. ``Bypass piping'' is a system of pipes, conduits, gates,
and valves that can be used to intentionally divert wastewater flow
from any part of your plant directly to a discharge point. A bypass
happens before the wastewater has been fully treated. Title your
diagram ``Schematic Wastewater Flow.'' An example of a diagram or
schematic is shown in Figure A below. Also write a brief description of
your diagram.
In addition to the diagram, provide a water balance that shows the
following items:
All treatment units. Treatment units include all processes
used to treat wastewater, such as chlorination and dechlorination
units.
The daily average flow rate (in mgd) that has entered your
plant and that has been discharged from your plant over the past 12
months.
The daily average flow rate (in mgd) between treatment
units in your facility for the past 12 months.
Figure A--Process Flow Diagram
If possible, submit diagrams that are approximately letter size
(8\1/2\ x 11 inches) and leave blank room at the edges so the
permitting authority can file or bind the diagram(s) with your
application. Submit the fewest number of diagrams that show the whole
area. Label all of your plant's discharge points with their outfall
numbers. At the top of each sheet, write your plant's name, NPDES
permit number, location (city, county, or town), the date you made the
diagram, and the number of each diagram sheet as ``page ____ of ____''
(e.g., page 2 of 4).
10. Bypass
A ``bypass'' is the intentional diversion of wastewater (e.g.,
through an arrangement of pipes, conduits, gates, and/or valves) from
any portion of your treatment plant to a discharge point before that
wastewater is fully treated. Bypasses are prohibited unless the
criteria in 40 CFR 122.41(m) are satisfied. For questions 10.a-10.c.,
provide information on both wet weather and dry weather bypasses if the
treatment plant has the ability to bypass untreated or partially
treated wastewater.
a. Provide the number of bypass incidents that occurred at your
plant during the past 12 months. Indicate whether this is an actual or
approximate number.
b. Provide the average number of hours that each bypass lasted
during the past 12 months. Indicate whether this is an actual or
approximate number.
c. Provide the average volume (in million gallons) of the bypasses
over the past 12 months. The average volume is the total number of
gallons that were diverted from your plant divided by the number of
bypasses. Indicate whether this is an actual or approximate number.
d. Describe why bypasses happen at your plant.
e. Provide information regarding the presence and use of backup
generators at your plant.
11. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods
a. Indicate whether your treatment works discharges effluent to
waters of the United States. If the answer to 11.a. is ``No,'' then go
to 11.b.
List the number of each type of outfall to waters of the United
States your treatment works has. If your plant has outfalls (other than
bypass points) that discharge something other than treated sanitary
effluent, give the total number of these outfalls and describe what
type of effluent is discharged through them.
Note: If your treatment works discharges to waters of the United
States, then you must also complete the following sections of Form
2A:
Questions 15-18;
Refer to the Application Overview section to determine
whether you must also complete the Effluent Testing Information in
Part A of the Supplemental Application Information packet.
b. A surface impoundment with no point source discharge (to waters
of the U.S.) is a holding pond or basin that is large enough to contain
all wastewaters discharged into it. It has no places where water
overflows from it. It is used for evaporation of water and very little
water seeps into the ground. Your plant must report the location of
each surface impoundment, on average how much water is placed in the
impoundment each day, and how often water is discharged into the
surface impoundment (continuous or intermittent). If your plant
discharges to more than one surface impoundment, use an additional
sheet (or sheets) to give this information for each impoundment. Attach
the additional sheet(s) to the application form. The information on the
location of the surface impoundment may be referenced on the
topographic map prepared under question 8.
c. Land application is the spraying or spreading of treated
wastewater over an area of land. If your plant applies wastewater to
land, you must list the site location, how many acres the site is, how
much water is applied (as annual average daily application), and how
often the wastewater is applied to the site (continuous or
intermittent). If your plant applies wastewater to more than
[[Page 62614]]
one site, provide the information for each site on a separate sheet (or
sheets). Attach the additional sheet(s) to your application form. The
information on the location of the surface impoundment may be
referenced on the topographic map prepared under question 8.
d. If your plant discharges treated or untreated wastewater to
another treatment works (including a municipal waste transport or
collection system), provide the information requested in question 11.d.
If your plant sends wastewater to more than one treatment works,
provide this information for each treatment works on an additional
sheet (or sheets). Attach the additional sheet(s) to your application
form. Describe how the wastewater is transported to the other treatment
works. Also provide the name and mailing address of the company that
transports your plant's wastewater to this treatment works as well as
the name, phone number, and title of the contact person at the
transportation company.
Provide the name and mailing address of each treatment works that
receives wastewater from your plant as well as the name, phone number,
and title of the contact person at the treatment works that receives
your plant's wastewater. Also, provide the NPDES number for the
treatment works, if you know it. Indicate the average daily flow, in
million gallons per day, that is sent from your plant to the other
treatment works.
e. Indicate whether your treatment works discharges, or has the
potential to discharge, through combined sewer overflows. If your
response to this question is ``Yes,'' then you must also complete Part
D of the Supplemental Application Information packet.
f. If your plant disposes of its wastewater in some way that was
not described by 11.a.-11.e., briefly describe how your plant
discharges or disposes of its wastewater. Also give the annual daily
volumes disposed of this way and indicate whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent. Other ways to discharge or dispose include
underground percolation and well injection.
12. Federal Indian Reservation
Federal Indian Reservation means all land within the limits of any
Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States
Government notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including
rights-of-way running through the reservation. Indicate whether your
plant is located on (i.e., within the limits of) a Federal Indian
Reservation and whether the water body into which your plant discharges
flows through a Federal Indian Reservation after it receives your plant
discharge. If you mark ``Yes'' for either of these questions, describe
which parts of your plant are located on a Federal Indian Reservation
or indicate how far upstream from a Federal Indian Reservation your
plant's discharge is.
13. Operation/Maintenance Performed by Contractor(s)
If a contractor carries out any operational or maintenance aspects
associated with wastewater treatment or effluent quality at this
facility, provide the name, mailing address, and telephone number of
each such contractor. Also provide a description of the activities
performed by the contractor. Attach additional pages if necessary.
14. Scheduled Improvements, Schedules of Implementation
Provide information on any improvements to your treatment works
that you are currently planning. Include only those improvements that
will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design
capacity of your treatment works (such improvements may include
regionalization of treatment works). Also list the schedule for when
these improvements will be started and finished. If your treatment
works has more than one improvement planned, use a separate sheet of
paper to provide information for each one.
a. List each outfall number that is covered by the implementation
schedule. The outfall numbers you use must be the same as the ones
provided under question 15.
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation
schedules are required by or planned independently of any local, state,
or Federal agencies.
c. Provide a brief description of the improvements to be made for
the outfalls listed in question 14.a.
d. If you are submitting Form 2A for a renewal of an existing NPDES
permit and you plan to change your treatment works' influent design
flow rate, then provide the proposed new maximum daily influent design
flow rate in mgd.
e. Provide the information requested for each planned improvement.
Supply dates for the following stages of any compliance schedule. For
improvements that are planned independently of local, State, or Federal
agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as applicable.
If a step has already been finished, give the date when that step was
completed.
``Begin Construction'' means the date you plan to start
construction.
``End Construction'' means the date you expect to finish
construction.
``Begin Discharge'' means the date that you expect a
discharge will start.
``Attain Operational Level'' means the date that you
expect the effluent level will meet your plant's implementation
schedule conditions.
f. Note whether your treatment works has received appropriate
permits or clearances that are required by other Federal or State
requirements. If you have received such permits, describe them.
Note: If this treatment works discharges treated wastewater to
waters of the United States, go to question 15. If this treatment
works does not discharge treated wastewater to waters of the United
States, do not complete questions 15-18. Instead, go to question 19
(Certification Statement). (You may also be required to complete
portions of the Supplemental Application Information packet.)
Effluent Discharges
Answer questions 15-17 once for each outfall through which your
treatment works discharges effluent to surface waters of the United
States. Do not include information about combined sewer overflow
discharge points. Surface water means creeks, streams, rivers, lakes,
estuaries, and oceans. If your treatment works has more than one
outfall, copy and complete questions 15-17 once for each outfall.
15. Description of Outfall
a.-e. Give the outfall number and its location. For location,
provide the city or town (if applicable); ZIP code; the county; the
state; and the latitude and longitude to the nearest second. If this
outfall is a subsurface discharge (e.g., into an estuary, lake, or
ocean), indicate how far the outfall is from shore and how far below
the water's surface it is. Measure the distances in feet. Give these
distances at the lowest point of low tide. Also provide the average
daily flow rate in million gallons per day.
f. Mark whether this outfall is a periodic or intermittent
discharge. A ``periodic discharge'' is one that happens regularly (for
example, monthly or seasonally), but is not continuous all year. An
``intermittent discharge'' is one that happens sometimes, but not
regularly. Discharges from holding ponds, lagoons, etc., may be
included as periodic or intermittent. Do not include discharges from
bypass points or combined sewer overflows in your answer. Give the
number of times per year a discharge occurs from this outfall. Also
tell how long each
[[Page 62615]]
discharge lasts and how much water is discharged, in million gallons
per day. List each month when discharge happens. If you do not have
records of exact months in which such discharges occurred, provide an
estimate based on the best available information.
g. Note whether the outfall is equipped with a diffuser. If so,
provide a brief description of the type of diffuser used (e.g., high-
rate).
16. Description of Receiving Waters
a. Indicate which type of water this outfall discharges into--
stream/river, lake, estuary, ocean, or other (describe).
b. Give the names of the surface waters to which this outfall
discharges. For example, ``Control Ditch A, then into Stream B, then
into River C, and finally into River D in River Basin E.''
c. Provide the name of the watershed/river/stream system in which
the receiving water (identified in question 16.b.) is located. If
known, also provide the 14-digit watershed code assigned to this
watershed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
d. Provide the name of the State Management/River Basin into which
this outfall discharges. If known, also provide the 8-digit hydrologic
cataloging unit code assigned by the U.S. Geological Survey.
e. If the water body is a river or stream, provide the acute and
chronic critical low flow in cubic feet per second (cfs). If you are
unsure of these numbers, the U.S. Geological Survey may be able to give
them to you. Or you may be able to get these numbers from prior
studies.
f. Give the total hardness of the receiving stream at critical low
flow, in milligrams per liter of CaCO3, if applicable.
17. Description of Treatment
a. Indicate the highest level of treatment that your plant provides
for the discharge from this outfall.
b. Give the design removal rates, in percent, for biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) or carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD5), suspended solids (SS), phosphorus (P), and nitrogen (N).
c. Describe the type of disinfection your plant uses (for example,
chlorination, ozonation, ultraviolet, etc.) and any seasonal variation
that may occur. If your plant uses chlorination, indicate whether it
also dechlorinates.
d. Note whether the facility has post aeration.
Effluent Testing Data
18. Effluent Testing Information: Conventional and Nonconventional
Pollutants
All applicants that discharge effluent to waters of the United
States must complete question 18. Refer to the Application Overview
section to determine if you must also complete the Effluent Testing
Information in Part A of the Supplemental Application Information
packet.
Do not include information about combined sewer overflow discharge
points in question 18.
Refer to the following table to determine which effluent testing
information questions you must complete and to determine the number of
pollutant scans on which to base your data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum No.
of scans
Treatment works characteristics Form 2A requirements (see
Appendix A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design flow rate less than Question 18.......... 3
1 mgd, and.
Not required to have (or
does not have) a pretreatment
program.
Design flow rate greater Question 18 and Part 3
than or equal to 1 mgd, or . A of Supplemental
Application
Information Packet.
Required to have a
pretreatment program (or has one
in place), or.
Otherwise required by the
permitting authority to provide
the data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete question 18 once for each outfall through which effluent
is discharged to waters of the United States. Indicate on each page the
outfall number (as assigned in questions 15-17) for which the data are
provided. Using the blank rows provided on the form, submit any data
the facility may have for pollutants not specifically listed in
question 18.
For specific instructions on completing the pollutant tables in
question 18, refer to Appendix A of these instructions.
Certification
19. Certification
Note: Before completing the Certification statement, review the
Application Overview section on the cover page of Form 2A to make
sure that you have completed all applicable sections of Form 2A,
including any parts of the Supplemental Application Information
packet.
All permit applications must be signed and certified. Also indicate
in the boxes provided which sections of Form 2A you are submitting with
this application.
An application submitted by a municipality, State, Federal, or
other public agency must be signed by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official. A principal executive officer of a
Federal agency includes: (1) The chief executive officer of the agency,
or (2) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A responsible corporate officer means:
(1) A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president in charge of a
principal business function, or any other person who performs similar
policy- or decision-making functions; or (2) the manager of
manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than
250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign
documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a partnership or sole proprietorship
must be signed by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
After completing the certification statement (all applicable
sections of Form 2A must also be complete), submit the application to:
Supplemental Application Information Packet
EPA has developed Form 2A in a modular format, consisting of two
packets: the Basic Application Information packet and the Supplemental
Application Information packet. At a minimum, all applicants must
complete the Basic Application Information packet. As directed by the
Application Overview section on the
[[Page 62616]]
cover page of the form, certain applicants will also need to complete
one or more parts of the Supplemental Application Information packet.
The Supplemental Application Information packet is divided into the
following parts:
Part A Expanded Effluent Testing Data
Part B Toxicity Testing Data
Part C Industrial User Discharges, Pretreatment, and RCRA/
CERCLA Wastes
Part D Combined Sewer Systems
Refer to the Application Overview section to determine which
part(s) of the Supplemental Application Information packet you must
complete.
Part A: Expanded Effluent Testing Data
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information (Part A:
Expanded Effluent Data) is estimated to average 5.7 hours per
response. This estimate 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 respond to a collection of information; search existing
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.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE Regulatory Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include
the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the
completed application form to these addresses.
Note: All applicants that discharge effluent to waters of the
United States must complete question 18 of the Basic Application
Information packet. Refer to the Application Overview section to
determine if you must also complete the Effluent Testing Information
in Part A of the Supplemental Application Information packet.
Refer to the following table to determine which effluent testing
information questions you must complete and to determine the number of
pollutant scans on which to base your data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum No.
of scans
Treatment works characteristics Form 2A requirements (see
appendix A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design flow rate less than Question 18.......... 3
1 mgd, and.
Not required to have (or ..................... ............
does not have) a pretreatment
program.
Design flow rate greater Question 18 and Part 3
than or equal to 1 mgd, or. A of Supplemental
Application
Information Packet.
Required to have a ..................... ............
pretreatment program (or has one
in place) or.
Otherwise required by the ..................... ............
permitting authority to provide
the date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following instructions apply only to treatment works completing
Part A of the Supplemental Application Information packet. Note that
the permitting authority may require additional testing on a case-by-
case basis.
Complete Part A once for each outfall through which effluent is
discharged to waters of the United States. Indicate on each page the
outfall number (as assigned in questions 15-17 of the Basic Application
Information packet) for which the data are provided. Using the blank
rows provided on the form, submit any data the facility may have for
pollutants not specifically listed in Part A.
For specific instructions on completing the pollutant tables in
Part A, refer to Appendix A of these instructions.
Note: After completing Part A, refer to the Application Overview
section to determine which other sections of Form 2A you must
complete. If you have completed all other required sections of Form
2A, you may proceed to the Certification Statement in question 19 of
the Basic Application Information packet.
Part B. Toxicity Testing Data
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information (Part B:
Toxicity Testing Data) is estimated to average 4.5 hours per
response. This estimate 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 respond to a collection of information; search existing
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.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE Regulatory Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
N.W., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include
the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the
completed application form to these addresses.
Treatment works meeting one or more of the following criteria must
submit the results of whole effluent toxicity testing:
1. Treatment works with a design influent flow rate greater than or
equal to one mgd; or
2. Treatment works with an approved pretreatment program (as well
as those required to have one); or
3. Treatment works otherwise required by the permitting authority
to submit the results of whole effluent toxicity testing.
Applicants completing Part B must submit the results from any whole
effluent toxicity test conducted during the past three years that have
not been reported or submitted to the permitting authority for each
outfall discharging effluent to the waters of the United States. Do not
include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. If the
applicant conducted a whole effluent toxicity test during the past
three years that revealed toxicity, then provide any information
available on the cause of the toxicity or any results of a toxicity
reduction evaluation, if one was conducted.
Test results provided in Part B must be based on multiple species
being
[[Page 62617]]
tested quarterly for a minimum of one year. For multiple species, EPA
requires a minimum of two species (e.g., vertebrates and
invertebrates). The permitting authority may require the applicant to
include other species (e.g., plants) as well. Applicants must provide
these tests for acute or chronic toxicity, depending on the range of
the receiving water dilution. EPA recommends that applicants conduct
acute or chronic toxicity testing based on the following dilutions:
Acute toxicity testing if the dilution of the effluent is
greater than 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
Acute or chronic toxicity testing if the dilution of the
effluent is between 100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
Acute testing may be more appropriate at the higher end of this range
(1000:1), and chronic testing may be more appropriate at the lower end
of this range (100:1).
Chronic toxicity testing if the dilution of the effluent
is less than 100:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
All data provided in Part B must be based on tests performed within
three years prior to completing this application. The tests must have
been conducted since the last NPDES permit issuance or permit
modification under 40 CFR 122.62(a). In addition, applicants only need
to submit data that have not previously been submitted to the
permitting authority. Thus, if test data have already been submitted
(within the last three years) in accordance with an issued NPDES
permit, the treatment works may note the dates the tests were submitted
and need not fill out the information requested in question B.2. for
that test.
Additional copies of Part B may be used in submitting the required
information. A permittee having no significant toxicity in the effluent
over the past year and who has submitted all toxicity test results
through the end of the calendar quarter preceding the time of permit
application would need to supply no additional data as toxicity testing
data as part of this application. Instead, the applicant should
complete question B.4., which requests a summary of bioassay test
information already submitted. (See below for more detailed
instructions on completing question B.4.)
Where test data are requested to be reported, the treatment works
has the option of reporting the requested data on Form 2A or on reports
supplied by the laboratories conducting the testing, provided the data
requested are complete and presented in a logical fashion. The
permitting authority reserves the right to request that the data be
reported on Form 2A.
B.1. Required Tests
a. Provide the total number of chronic and acute whole effluent
toxicity tests conducted in the past three years. A ``chronic''
toxicity test continues for a relatively long period of time, often
one-tenth the life span of the organism or more. An ``acute'' toxicity
test is one in which the effect is observed in 96 hours or less.
B.2. Individual Test Data
Complete B.2. for each test conducted in the last three years for
which data has not been submitted. Use the columns provided on the form
for each test and specify the test number at the top of each column.
Use additional copies of question B.2. if more than three tests are
being reported. The parameters listed on the form are based on EPA-
recommended test methods. Permittees may be required by the permitting
authority to submit additional test parameter data for the purposes of
quality assurance.
If the treatment works is conducting whole effluent toxicity tests
and reporting its results in accordance with an NPDES permit
requirement, then the treatment works may note the dates the tests were
submitted and need not fill out the information requested in question
B.2. for those tests (unless otherwise required by the permitting
authority).
a. Provide the information requested on the form for each test
reported. Under ``Test species,'' provide the scientific name of the
organism used in the test. The ``Outfall number'' reported must
correlate to the outfall numbers listed in questions 15-17 of the Basic
Application Information packet.
b. Provide the source of the toxicity test methods followed. In
conducting the tests, the treatment works must use methods approved in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 [Note: Approved methods are currently
under development].
c. Indicate whether 24-hour composite or grab samples were used for
each test. For multiple grab samples, provide the number of grab
samples used. Refer to Appendix A of the instructions for a definition
of composite and grab samples.
d. Indicate whether the sample was taken before or after
disinfection and/or after dechlorination.
e. Provide a description of the point in the treatment process at
which the sample was collected.
f. Indicate whether the test was intended to assess chronic or
acute toxicity.
g. Indicate which type of test was performed. A ``static'' test is
a test performed with a single constant volume of water. In a ``static-
renewal'' test, the volume of water is renewed at discrete intervals.
In a ``flow-through'' test, the volume of water is renewed
continuously.
h. Indicate whether laboratory water or the receiving water of the
tested outfall was used as the source of dilution water. If laboratory
water was used, provide the type of water used.
i. Indicate whether fresh or salt water was used as the dilution
water. For salt water, specify whether the salt water was natural or
artificial (specify the type of artificial water used).
j. For each concentration in the test series, provide the
percentage of effluent used.
k. Provide the minimum and maximum parameters measured during the
test for pH, salinity, temperature, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen.
l. Provide the results of each test performed. For acute toxicity
tests, provide the percent survival of the test species in 100 percent
effluent. Also provide the LC50 (Lethal Concentration to 50
percent) of the test. ``LC50'' is the effluent (or toxicant)
concentration estimated to be lethal to 50 percent of the test
organisms during a specific period. Indicate any other test results in
the space provided.
For chronic toxicity tests, provide data at the most sensitive
endpoint. While this is generally expressed as a ``NOEC'' (No Observed
Effect Concentration), it may be expressed as an ``Inhibition
Concentration'' (e.g., ``IC25''--Inhibition Concentration to 25
percent). The NOEC is the highest measured concentration of an effluent
(or a toxicant) at which no significant adverse effects are observed on
the test organisms at a specific time of observation. The IC25 is
the effluent (or toxicant) concentration estimated to cause a 25
percent reduction in reproduction, fecundity, growth, or other non-
quantal biological measurements. Indicate any other test results in the
space provided.
m. Provide the mortality (in percent) of the control group.
Indicate any other relevant information about the control group in the
space provided.
B.3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
A Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) is a site-specific study
conducted in a stepwise process designed to identify the causative
agents of effluent toxicity, evaluate the effectiveness of
[[Page 62618]]
toxicity control options, and then confirm the reduction in effluent
toxicity. If the treatment works is conducting a TRE as part of a NPDES
permit requirement or enforcement order, then you only need to provide
the date of the last progress report concerning the TRE in the area
reserved for details of the TRE.
B.4. Summary of Submitted Biomonitoring Test Information
As stated above, applicants that have already submitted the results
of biomonitoring test information over the past three years do not need
to resubmit this data with Form 2A. Instead, indicate in question B.4.
the date you submitted each report and provide a summary of the test
results for each report. Include in this summary the following
information: the outfall number and collection dates of the samples
tested, dates of testing, toxicity testing method(s) used, and a
summary of the results from the test (e.g, 100% survival in 40%
effluent).
Note: After completing Part B, refer to the Application Overview
section to determine which other sections of Form 2A you must
complete. If you have completed all other required sections of Form
2A, you may proceed to the Certification Statement in question 19 of
the Basic Application Information packet.
Part C. Industrial User Discharges, Pretreatment, and RCRA/CERCLA
Wastes
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information (Part C:
Industrial User Discharges, Pretreatment, and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes) is
estimated to average 4.3 hours per response. This estimate 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 respond to a collection of
information; search existing 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.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE Regulatory Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
N.W., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include
the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the
completed application form to these addresses.
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant
industrial users (SIUs) or facilities that receive RCRA or CERCLA
wastes must complete Part C.
A ``categorical industrial user'' is an industrial user that is
subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40
CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, which are technology-based standards
developed by EPA setting industry-specific effluent limits. (A list of
Industrial Categories subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards is
included in Appendix B.)
A ``significant industrial user'' is defined in 40 CFR 403.3(t) as
an industrial user that:
(1) is subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR
403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N; and
(2) any other industrial user that: discharges an average of 25,000
gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment works
(excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling and boiler blowdown
wastewater); contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent
or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the
treatment works; or is designated as such by the Control Authority as
defined in 40 CFR 403.12(a) on the basis that the industrial user has a
reasonable potential for adversely affecting the treatment works
operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement (in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6)).
An ``industrial user'' means any industrial or commercial entity
that discharges wastewater that is not domestic wastewater. Domestic
wastewater includes wastewater from connections to houses, hotels, non-
industrial office buildings, institutions, or sanitary waste from
industrial facilities. The number of ``industrial users'' is the total
number of industrial and commercial users that discharge to the
treatment works.
For the purposes of completing the application form, please provide
information on non-categorical SIUs and categorical industrial users
separately.
General Information
C.1. Number of Industrial Users
Provide the number of SIUs and the number of categorical industrial
users only that discharge to your treatment works.
C.2. Average Daily Flow From Industrial Users
Provide an estimate of the daily flow of wastewater, in mgd,
received from all industrial users, significant industrial users only,
and categorical industrial users only.
C.3. Industrial User Contributions
Estimate the contribution (in terms of the percent of total daily
influent) from all industrial users, significant industrial users only,
categorical industrial users only, and domestic sources only.
C.4. Pretreatment Program
Indicate whether the treatment works has an approved pretreatment
program. An ``approved pretreatment program'' is a program administered
by a treatment works that meets the criteria established in 40 CFR
403.8 and 403.9 and that has been approved by a Regional Administrator
or State Director. If the answer to question C.4. is no, go to C.5.
Naote If this treatment works has or is required to have a
pretreatment program, you must also complete Parts A and B of the
Supplemental Application Information packet.
If the treatment works has an approved pretreatment program,
identify any substantial modifications to the POTW's approved
pretreatment program that have not been approved in accordance with 40
CFR 403.18.
Significant Industrial User (SIU) Information
All treatment works that receive discharges from SIUs must complete
questions C.5.-C.10.
If your treatment works receives wastewater from more than one SIU,
complete questions C.5.-C.10. once for each SIU.
C.5. Significant Industrial User Information
Provide the name and mailing address of each SIU. Submit additional
pages as necessary.
C.6. Industrial Processes
Describe the actual process(es) (rather than simply listing them)
at the SIU that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge. For
example, in describing a metal finishing operation, include such
information as how the product is cleaned prior to finishing, what type
of plating baths are in operation (e.g., nickel, chromium), how paint
is applied, and how the product is polished. Attach additional sheets
if necessary.
[[Page 62619]]
C.7. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s)
List principal products that the SIU generates and the raw
materials used to manufacture the products.
C.8. Flow Rate
``Process wastewater'' means any water that, during manufacturing
or processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, byproduct, or waste product. Indicate the average daily
volume, in gallons per day, of process wastewater and non-process
wastewater that the SIU discharges into the collection system. Specify
whether the discharges are continuous or non-continuous.
C.9. Pretreatment Standards
Indicate whether the SIU is subject to local limits and categorical
pretreatment standards. ``Local limits'' are enforceable local
requirements developed by treatment works to address Federal standards
as well as state and local regulations.
``Categorical pretreatment standards'' are national technology-
based standards developed by EPA, setting industry-specific effluent
limits. These standards are implemented by 40 CFR 403.6.
C.10. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharged by
the SIU
Provide information concerning any problems the treatment works has
experienced that are attributable to discharges from the SIUs. Problems
may include upsets or interference at the plant, corrosion in the
collection system, or other similar events.
RCRA Hazardous Waste Received by Truck, Rail or Dedicated Pipeline
C.11. RCRA Waste
As defined in Section 1004(5) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), ``Hazardous waste'' means ``a solid waste, or
combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may:
(A) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality
or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or
disposed of, or otherwise managed.''
Those solid wastes that are considered hazardous are listed under
40 CFR Part 261. Treatment works that accept hazardous wastes by truck,
rail, or dedicated pipeline (a pipeline that is used to carry hazardous
waste directly to a treatment works without prior mixing with domestic
sewage) within the property boundary of the treatment works are
considered to be hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) and, as such, are subject to regulations under RCRA.
Under RCRA, mixtures of domestic sewage and other wastes that commingle
in the treatment works collection system prior to reaching the property
boundary, including those wastes that otherwise would be considered
hazardous, are excluded from regulation under the domestic sewage
exclusion. Hazardous wastes that are delivered directly to the
treatment works by truck, rail, or dedicated pipeline do not fall
within the exclusion. Hazardous wastes received by these routes may
only be accepted by treatment works if the treatment works complies
with applicable RCRA requirements for TSDFs.
Applicants completing questions C.11.-C.13. should have indicated
all points at which RCRA hazardous waste enters the treatment works by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe in the map provided in question 8 of the
Basic Application Information packet.
C.12. Waste Transport
Indicate the method by which RCRA waste is received at the
treatment works.
C.13. Waste Description
Provide the EPA hazardous waste numbers, which are located in 40
CFR Part 261, Subparts C & D, and the amount (in volume or mass)
received.
CERCLA (Superfund) Wastewater and RCRA Remediation/Corrective Action
Wastewater
Substances that are regulated under Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are described and
listed in 40 CFR Part 302. Questions C.14.-C.22. apply to the type,
origin, and treatment of CERCLA wastes currently (or expected to be)
discharged to the treatment works.
C.14. CERCLA Waste
Indicate whether this treatment works currently receives waste from
a CERCLA (Superfund) site or plans to accept waste from a CERCLA site
in the next five years. If it does, provide the information requested
in C.15-C.17.
If the treatment works receives, or plans to receive, CERCLA waste
from more than one site, complete questions C.15-C.17, once for each
site.
C.15. Waste Origin
Provide information about the CERCLA site that is discharging waste
to the treatment works. Information must include a description of the
type of facility and an EPA identification number if one exists.
C.16. Pollutants
Provide a list of the pollutants that are or will be discharged by
the CERCLA site and the volume and concentration of such pollutants.
C.17. Waste Treatment
Provide information concerning the treatment used (if any) by the
CERCLA site to treat the waste prior to discharging it to the treatment
works. The information should include a description of the treatment
technology, information on the frequency of the discharge (continuous
or intermittent) and any data concerning removal efficiency.
C.18. RCRA Corrective Action Waste
Indicate whether this treatment works currently receives RCRA
Corrective Action Waste or plans to accept RCRA Corrective Action Waste
in the next five years. If it does, provide the information requested
in C.19.-C.21.
If there is more than one site from which RCRA Corrective Action
Waste is, or is expected to be, received, attach additional sheets with
the information requested in questions C.19.-C.21. for each site.
C.19. Waste Origin
Provide a description of the site and of the type of facility that
discharges or is expected to discharge the RCRA corrective action
waste.
C.20. Pollutants
Provide a list of the pollutants that are or will be discharged by
each RCRA corrective action site.
C.21. Waste Treatment
Provide information concerning the treatment used (if any) by the
RCRA corrective action site to treat the waste prior to discharging it
to the treatment works. The information should include a description of
the treatment technology, any data concerning removal efficiency, and
information on the frequency of the discharge (continuous or
intermittent). If the discharge is intermittent, describe the discharge
schedule.
C.22. Other Wastes From Remediation/Clean-up Sites
Describe any wastewater received or expected to be received from
leaking
[[Page 62620]]
underground tank remediation sites and from remediation/cleanup sites
that are regulated by other laws (state, municipal, etc.).
Note: After completing Part C, refer to the Application Overview
section to determine which other sections of Form 2A you must
complete. If you have completed all other required sections of Form
2A, you may proceed to the Certification Statement in question 19 of
the Basic Application Information packet.
Part D. Combined Sewer Systems
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information (Part D:
Combined Sewer Systems) is estimated to average 8.2 hours per
response. This estimate 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 respond to a collection of information; search existing
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.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE Regulatory Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
N.W., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include
the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the
completed application form to these addresses.
D.1. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Discharge Points
A combined sewer system collects a mixture of both sanitary
wastewater and storm water runoff.
Indicate the number of CSO discharge points in the combined sewer
system covered by this application. Complete questions D.5.-D.9. once
for each discharge point. Attach additional pages as necessary.
D.2. System Map
Indicate on a system map all CSO discharge points. For each such
point, indicate any sensitive use areas and any waters supporting
threatened or endangered species that are potentially affected by CSOs.
Sensitive use areas include beaches, drinking water supplies, shellfish
beds, sensitive aquatic ecosystems, and outstanding natural resource
waters.
Applicants may provide the information requested in question D.2.
on the map submitted in response to question 8 in the Basic Application
Information packet.
All maps should be either on paper or other material appropriate
for reproduction. If possible, all sheets should be approximately
letter size with margins suitable for filing and binding. As few sheets
should be used as necessary to show clearly what is involved. All
discharge points should be identified by outfall number. Each sheet
should be labeled with the applicant's name, NPDES permit number,
location (city, county, or town), date of drawing, and designation of
the number of sheets of each diagram as ``page ________ of ________.''
D.3. System Diagram
Diagram the location of combined and separate sanitary major sewer
trunk lines and indicate any connections where separate sanitary sewers
feed into the combined sewer system. Clearly indicate the location of
all flow controlling devices in the system. Include storage equipment,
flow regulating devices, and pump stations. Also indicate the areas of
drainage associated with each CSO and the pumping capacity of each pump
station.
The drawing should be either on paper or other material appropriate
for reproduction. If possible, all sheets should be approximately
letter size with margins suitable for filing and binding. As few sheets
should be used as necessary to show clearly what is involved. All
discharge points should be identified by outfall number. Each sheet
should be labeled with the applicant's name, NPDES permit number,
location (city, county, or town), date of drawing, and designation of
the number of sheets of each diagram as ``page ________ of ________''.
D.4. System Evaluation
List any studies that have been performed on the combined sewer
system since the last permit application, including inflow/infiltration
studies, engineering studies, hydraulic studies, and water quality
studies.
CSO Outfalls
Fill out a copy of questions D.5.-D.9. once for each CSO discharge
point. Attach additional pages as necessary.
D.5. Description of Outfall
a.-d. Provide the outfall number and location (including city or
town if applicable, state, county, and latitude and longitude to the
nearest second). For subsurface discharges (e.g., discharges to lakes,
estuaries, and oceans), provide the distance (in feet) of the discharge
point from the shore and the depth (in feet) of the discharge point
below the surface of the discharge point. Provide these distances at
the lowest point of low tide.
D.6. Monitoring
Indicate whether rainfall, CSO flow volume, CSO water quality, and/
or receiving water quality were monitored during the past 12 months.
Provide the number of storm events monitored during the past 12 months
as well.
D.7. CSO Incidents
a. Provide the number of CSO incidents that have occurred in the
past 12 months. Indicate whether this is an actual or approximate
number.
b. Provide the average duration (in hours) per CSO event. Indicate
whether this is an actual or approximate value.
c. Provide the average volume (in million gallons) of discharge per
CSO incidents over the past 12 months. Indicate whether this is an
actual or approximate number.
d. Provide the minimum amount of rainfall that caused a CSO
incident in the past 12 months.
D.8. Description of Receiving Waters
a. Indicate the type of water body into which the CSO outfall
(identified in D.5.a.) discharges.
b. List the name(s) of immediate receiving waters starting at the
CSO discharge point and moving downstream. For example, ``Control Ditch
A, thence to Stream B, thence to River C, and thence to River D in the
River Basin E.''
c. Provide the name of the watershed/river/stream system in which
the receiving water (identified in question D.8.b.) is located. If
known, also provide the 14-digit watershed code assigned to this
watershed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
d. Provide the name of the State Management/River Basin into which
this outfall discharges. If known, also provide the 8-digit hydrologic
cataloging unit code assigned by the U.S. Geological Survey.
D.9. CSO Operations
a. Indicate whether wastewater from significant industrial users
(refer to the instructions to Part C for a definition) can enter the
combined sewer system.
b. Provide a description of any known water quality impacts on the
receiving water caused by CSO from this discharge point.
[[Page 62621]]
Note: After completing Part D, refer to the Application Overview
section to determine which other sections of Form 2A you must
complete. If you have completed all other required sections of Form
2A, you may proceed to the Certification Statement in question 19 of
the Basic Application Information packet.
Appendix A--Guidance for Completing the Effluent Testing Information
All Treatment Works
All applicants must provide data for each of the pollutants in
question 18 of the Basic Application Information packet. Some
applicants must also provide data for the pollutants in Part A of the
Supplemental Application Information packet. All applicants submitting
effluent testing data must base this data on a minimum of three
pollutant scans. All samples analyzed must be representative of the
discharge from the sampled outfall.
If you have existing data that fulfills the requirements described
below, you may use that data in lieu of conducting additional sampling.
If you measure more than the required number of daily values for a
pollutant and those values are representative of your wastestream, you
must include them in the data you report. In addition, use the blank
rows provided on the form to provide any existing sampling data that
your facility may have for pollutants not listed in the appropriate
sections. All data provided in the application must be based on samples
taken within three years prior to the time of this permit application.
Sampling data must be representative of the treatment works'
discharge and take into consideration seasonal variations. At least two
of the samples used to complete the effluent testing information
questions must have been taken no fewer than 4 months and no more than
8 months apart. For example, one sample may be taken in April and
another in October to meet this requirement. Applicants unable to meet
this time requirement due to periodic, discontinuous, or seasonal
discharges can obtain alternative guidance on this requirement from
their permitting authority.
The collection of samples for the reported analyses should be
supervised by a person experienced in performing wastewater sampling.
Specific requirements contained in the applicable analytical methods
should be followed for sample containers, sample preservation, holding
times, and collection of duplicate samples. Samples should be taken at
a time representative of normal operation. To the extent feasible, all
processes that contribute to wastewater should be in operation and the
treatment system should be operating properly with no system upsets.
Samples should be collected from the center of the flow channel (where
turbulence is at a maximum), at a location specified in the current
NPDES permit, or at any location adequate for the collection of a
representative sample.
A minimum of four grab samples must be collected for pH,
temperature, cyanide, total phenols, residual chlorine, oil and grease,
fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococci (applicants need only provide
data on either fecal coliform or E. coli and enterococci). For all
other pollutants, 24-hour composite samples must be collected. However,
a minimum of one grab sample, instead of a 24-hour composite, may be
taken for effluent from holding ponds or other impoundments that have a
retention period greater than 24 hours.
Grab and composite samples are defined as follows:
Grab sample: an individual sample of at least 100
milliliters collected randomly for a period not exceeding 15 minutes.
Composite sample: a sample derived from two or more
discrete samples collected at equal time intervals or collected
proportional to the flow rate over the compositing period. The
composite collection method may vary depending on pollutant
characteristics or discharge flow characteristics.
The permitting authority may allow or establish appropriate site-
specific sampling procedures or requirements, including sampling
locations, the season in which sampling takes place, the duration
between sampling events, and protocols for collecting samples under 40
CFR Part 136. Contact EPA or the State permitting authority for
detailed guidance on sampling techniques and for answers to specific
questions. The following instructions explain how to complete each of
the columns in the pollutant tables in the effluent testing information
sections of Form 2A.
Maximum Daily Discharge. For composite samples, the daily discharge
is the average pollutant concentration and total mass found in a
composite sample taken over a 24-hour period. For grab samples, the
daily discharge is the arithmetic or flow-weighted total mass or
average pollutant concentration found in a series of at least four grab
samples taken during the operating hours of the treatment works during
a 24-hour period.
To determine the maximum daily discharge values, compare the daily
discharge values from each of the sample events. Report the highest
total mass and highest concentration level from these samples.
``Concentration'' is the amount of pollutant that is
present in a sample with respect to the size of the sample. The daily
discharge concentration is the average concentration of the pollutant
throughout the 24-hour period.
``Mass'' is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant
discharged over the 24-hour period.
All data must be reported as both concentration and mass
(where appropriate). Use the following abbreviations in the columns
headed ``Units.''
ppm Parts per million.
gpd Gallons per day.
mgd Million gallons per day.
su Standard units.
mg/l Milligrams per liter.
ppb Parts per billion.
ug/l Micrograms per liter.
lbs Pounds.
ton Tons (English tons).
mg Milligrams.
g Grams.
kg Kilograms.
T Tonnes (metric tons).
Average Daily Discharge. The average daily discharge is determined
by calculating the arithmetic mean daily pollutant concentration and
the arithmetic mean daily total mass of the pollutant from each of the
sample events within the three years prior to this permit application.
Report the concentration, mass, and units used under the Average Daily
Discharge column, along with the number of samples on which the average
is based. Use the unit abbreviations shown above in ``Maximum Daily
Discharge.''
If data requested in Form 2A have been reported on the treatment
works' Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), you may compile such data
and report it under the maximum daily discharge and the average daily
discharge columns of the form.
Analytical Method. All information reported must be based on data
collected through analyses conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods.
Applicants should use methods that enable pollutants to be detected at
levels adequate to meet water quality-based standards. Where no
approved method can detect a pollutant at the water quality-based
standards level, the most sensitive approved method should be used. If
the applicant believes that an alternative method should be used (e.g.,
due to matrix interference), the applicant should obtain prior approval
from the permitting authority. If an alternative method is specified in
the existing permit, the applicant should
[[Page 62622]]
use that method unless otherwise directed by the permitting authority.
Where no approved analytical method exists, an applicant may use a
suitable method but must provide a description of the method. For the
purposes of the application, ``suitable method'' means a method that is
sufficiently sensitive to measure as close to the water quality-based
standard as possible.
Indicate the method used for each pollutant in the ``Analytical
Method'' column of the pollutant tables. If a method has not been
approved for a pollutant for which you are providing data, you may use
a suitable method to measure the concentration of the pollutant in the
discharge, and provide a detailed description of the method used or a
reference to the published method. The description must include the
sample holding time, preservation techniques, and the quality control
measures used. In such cases, indicate the method used and attach to
the application a narrative description of the method used.
Reporting
FR Doc. 95-28213 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
Levels. The applicant should provide the method detection
limit (MDL), minimum level (ML), or other designated method endpoint
reflecting the precision of the analytical method used.
All analytical results must be reported using the actual numeric
values determined by the analysis. In other words, even where
analytical results are below the detection or quantitation level of the
method used, the actual data should be reported, rather than reporting
``non-detect'' (``ND'') or ``zero'' (``0''). Because the endpoint of
the method has also been reported along with the test results, the
permitting authority will be able to determine if the data are in the
``non-detect'' or ``below quantitation'' range.
For any dilutions made and any problems encountered in the
analysis, the applicant should attach an explanation and any supporting
documentation with the application. For GC/MS, report all results found
to be present by spectral confirmation (i.e., quantitation limits or
detection limits should not be used as a reporting threshold for GC/
MS).
Total Recoverable Metals. Total recoverable metals are measured
from unfiltered samples using EPA methods specified in 40 CFR Part
136.3. A digestion procedure is used to solubilize suspended materials
and destroy possible organic metal complexes. The method measures
dissolved metals plus those metals recovered from suspended particles
by the method digestion.
Appendix B: Industrial Categories Subject to National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards
Industrial Categories With Pretreatment Standards in Effect
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Builder's Paper and Board Mills
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic Components
Electroplating
Feedlots
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Grain Mills Manufacturing
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
Paint Formulating
Paving and Roofing
Pesticide Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
Soap and Detergents Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generating
Sugar Processing
Timber Products Manufacturing
Industrial Categories With Effluent Guidelines Currently Under
Development (Proposed and Final Action Dates)
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (12/17/93-TBD)
Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging (4/14/94-8/95)
Centralized Waste Treatment (12/15/94-9/96)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (2/95-8/96)
Metal Products and Machinery, Phase I (3/95-9/96)
Industrial Laundries (12/96-12/98)
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (12/96-12/98)
Landfills and Incinerators (3/97-3/99)
Metal Products and Machinery, Phase II (12/97-12/99)
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 62623]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.024
[[Page 62624]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.025
[[Page 62625]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.026
[[Page 62626]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.027
[[Page 62627]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.028
[[Page 62628]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.029
[[Page 62629]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.030
[[Page 62630]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.031
[[Page 62631]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.032
[[Page 62632]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.033
[[Page 62633]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.034
[[Page 62634]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.035
[[Page 62635]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.036
[[Page 62636]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.037
[[Page 62637]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.038
[[Page 62638]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.039
[[Page 62639]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.040
[[Page 62640]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.041
[[Page 62641]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.042
[[Page 62642]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.043
[[Page 62643]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.044
[[Page 62644]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.045
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 62645]]
Instructions for Completing Form 2S
Application for a Sewage Sludge Permit
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 11.6 hours per response. This estimate 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 respond to a collection of
information; search existing 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.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE Regulatory Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
N.W., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include
the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the
completed application form to these addresses.
Overview
This application form collects information from persons that are
required to apply for a sewage sludge use or disposal permit.
Who Must Submit Application Information?
The following persons are ``treatment works treating domestic
sewage'' that are required to submit sewage sludge permit application
information:
Any person who generates sewage sludge that is ultimately
regulated by Part 503 (i.e., it is applied to the land, placed on a
surface disposal site, fired in a sewage sludge incinerator, or placed
in a municipal solid waste landfill unit);
Any person who derives material from, or otherwise changes
the quality of, sewage sludge (e.g., an intermediate treatment facility
such as a composting facility, or a facility that processes sewage
sludge for sale or give away in a bag or other container for
application to the land), if that sewage sludge is used or disposed in
a manner subject to Part 503;
Any person who owns or operates a sewage sludge surface
disposal site;
Any person who fires sewage sludge in a sewage sludge
incinerator; and
Any other person required by the permitting authority to
submit permit application information.
For purposes of this form, you refers to the applicant. This
facility and your facility refer to the facility for which application
information is being submitted.
Facility should be interpreted to include activities potentially
subject to regulation under the sewage sludge program--e.g., areas of
sewage sludge treatment, storage, land application, surface disposal,
or incineration, even if such activities do not occur at the same
location.
Which Parts of The Form Apply?
Form 2S is presented in a modular format, enabling information
collection to be tailored to your facility's sewage sludge generation,
treatment, use, or disposal practices. The form is divided into two
main parts:
Part 1 is limited screening information that must be
submitted by ``sludge-only'' (non-NPDES) facilities that are not
applying for site-specific pollutant limits and have not been directed
to submit a full permit application at this time.
Part 2 must be submitted by facilities that are submitting
a full permit application at this time. These include the following:
--Facilities with a currently effective NPDES permit.
--Facilities that are required to have, or are requesting, site-
specific pollutant limits, including ``sludge-only'' facilities that
are applying for site-specific pollutant limits. (Note: all sewage
sludge incinerators are required to have site-specific pollutant
limits.)
--Facilities that have been directed by the permitting authority to
apply for a permit at this time.
Complete either Part 1 or Part 2, but not both (unless otherwise
instructed by the permitting authority).
Part 2 is divided into the following sections:
Section A is general information to be provided by all
applicants that fill out Part 2.
Section B must be completed by any facility that generates
sewage sludge or derives a material from sewage sludge.
Section C must be completed by any facility that applies
bulk sewage sludge to the land, or whose bulk sewage sludge is applied
to the land. (Most applicants that provide this information will also
submit Section B information, because it is unlikely that EPA would
permit a land applier who does not generate or change the quality of
sewage sludge.)
Section D must be completed by the owner/operator of a
surface disposal site.
Section E must be completed by the owner/operator of a
sewage sludge incinerator.
You need only submit the Sections of Part 2 that apply.
Part 1: Limited Background Information
Part 1 requests a limited amount of information from ``sludge-
only'' facilities (facilities without a currently-effective NPDES
permit) that are not requesting site-specific permit limits and are not
directed by the permitting authority to submit a full permit
application at this time. This limited screening information must be
submitted as expeditiously as possible, but no later than 180 days
after publication of an applicable use or disposal standard. It is
intended to allow the permitting authority to identify these
facilities, track sewage sludge use and disposal, and establish
priorities for permitting.
1. Facility Information.
a. Provide the facility's official or legal name. Do not use a
colloquial name.
b. Provide the complete mailing address of the office where
correspondence should be sent. This may differ from the facility
location given in Question 1.d.
c. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility and with
the facts reported in this application, and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
d. Provide the physical location of the facility. If the facility
lacks a street address or route number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (e.g., township and range, section
or quarter section number, or nearby highway intersection).
e. Indicate the type of facility.
A publicly owned treatment works (POTW) is any device or system
used in the treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of
municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature which is owned
by a State or municipality. This definition includes sewers, pipes, or
other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing
treatment.
A privately owned treatment works is any device or system which is
(a) used to treat wastes from any facility whose
[[Page 62646]]
operator is not the operator of the treatment works and (b) not a POTW
or federally owned treatment works.
A federally owned treatment works is a facility that is owned and
operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal
Government that treats wastewater, a majority of which is domestic
sewage, prior to discharge in accordance with a permit issued under
section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
A blending or treatment operation means any sewage sludge or
wastewater treatment device or system, regardless of ownership
(including Federal facilities), used in the storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of domestic sewage, including land dedicated
for the disposal of sewage sludge. For purposes of this form, such
devices or systems include blending or treatment operations that derive
material from sewage sludge but do not generate sewage sludge.
A surface disposal site is an area of land that contains one or
more active sewage sludge units.
An active sewage sludge unit is land on which only sewage sludge is
placed for final disposal. This does not include land on which sewage
sludge is either stored or treated. Land does not include waters of the
United States, as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an enclosed device in which only
sewage sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired.
2. Applicant Information.
a. If someone other than the facility contact person is submitting
this application, provide the name of that person's organization.
b. Provide the complete mailing address of the applicant's
organization.
c. Provide the name and work telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility and with the
facts reported in this application, and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
d. Indicate whether this applicant is the owner or operator (or
both) of the facility. If it is neither, describe the relationship of
the applicant to the facility.
e. Indicate whether you want correspondence regarding this
application directed to the applicant or to the facility address
provided in question 1.
3. Sewage Sludge Amount. List, on a dry weight basis, the total dry
metric tons of sewage sludge per latest 365-day period handled at this
facility.
Dry weight basis means calculated on the basis of having been dried
at 105 degrees C until reaching a constant weight (i.e., essentially
100 percent solids content).
a. The amount generated is, for purposes of this application, the
amount of sewage sludge generated during the treatment of domestic
sewage at the facility.
b. The amount received from off site is any additional amount of
sewage sludge handled at your facility that is not generated during the
treatment of domestic sewage at your facility.
c. The amount treated or blended on site is the amount of sewage
sludge generated on site, plus the amount received from off site, that
undergoes treatment on site. Treatment is the preparation of sewage
sludge for final use or disposal. Treatment, for purposes of this form,
includes the following:
Thickening and stabilization;
Processing (e.g., composting) for purposes of pathogen
reduction and vector attraction reduction; and
Blending with a bulking agent or with sewage sludge from
another facility.
Treatment does not include storage of sewage sludge.
d. The amount sold or given away in a bag or other container for
application to the land is the amount placed in a bag or other
container at your facility.
An other container is either an open or closed receptacle,
including but not limited to, a bucket, box, carton, vehicle, or
trailer with a load capacity of one metric ton or less.
e. The amount of bulk sewage sludge shipped off site for treatment
or blending is the amount of sewage sludge that is shipped to another
facility in bulk form (i.e., not in a bag or other container), where
the other facility derives a material from the sewage sludge (i.e., it
is a ``person who prepares'').
This question does not cover sewage sludge sent directly to a land
application site, surface disposal site, municipal solid waste
landfill, or sewage sludge incinerator.
f. The amount applied to the land in bulk form is the amount of
bulk sewage sludge from your facility that is sent directly to a land
application site from your facility. It does not cover sewage sludge
placed in a bag or other container, nor does it cover sewage sludge
shipped off site for treatment or for sale or give-away in a bag or
other container.
g. The amount placed on a surface disposal site is the amount of
sewage sludge from your facility that is placed on a surface disposal
site, regardless of whether you own or operate the surface disposal
site.
h. The amount fired in a sewage sludge incinerator is the amount of
sewage sludge from your facility that is fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator, regardless of whether you own or operate the sewage sludge
incinerator.
i. The amount sent to a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) is
the amount of sewage sludge from your facility that is sent directly to
a MSWLF, which is a discrete area of land or an excavation that
receives household waste and other solid wastes.
j. The amount used or disposed by another practice is the amount of
sewage sludge generated on site or received from off site that is not
covered in Questions 3.d-3.i above.
4. Pollutant Concentrations. Provide available data on the
concentrations of the listed pollutants in the sewage sludge from this
facility. If concentration data are available for pollutants not on
this list, provide those data as well. Provide up to three data points
taken at least one month apart during the last two years. If data from
the last two years are unavailable, provide the most recent data.
Express pollutant concentrations as dry weight concentrations.
You may use a separate attachment in addition to, or instead of,
the table provided.
You need not perform additional pollutant monitoring to comply with
this requirement; rather, only available data are requested.
Calculations on a dry weight basis are based on sewage sludge
having been dried at 105 degrees Celsius until reaching a constant
weight (i.e., essentially 100 percent solids content).
The Part 503 sewage sludge use or disposal regulation requires the
use of Test Method SW-846 (in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' Second and Third Editions) to
analyze samples of sewage sludge for compliance with Part 503. SW-846
is recommended, but not required, for purposes of providing sewage
sludge quality information in the permit application.
5. Treatment Provided at Your Facility. Provide the following
information regarding sewage sludge treatment on site. This question
does not request information on sewage sludge treatment at an off-site
use or disposal facility.
a. Indicate the class of pathogen reduction (Class A or Class B)
that is achieved at your facility. You may select ``neither or
unknown'' only if sewage sludge is placed on an active sewage sludge
unit that is covered with soil or other material at the end of each
operating day, sent to another facility
[[Page 62647]]
for additional treatment, fired in a sewage sludge incinerator, or
placed on a municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Options for meeting Class A pathogen reduction are listed at
Sec. 503.32(a). Options for meeting Class B pathogen reduction are
listed at Sec. 503.32(b).
b. Provide a written description of any treatment processes used to
reduce pathogens in sewage sludge, including an indication of how the
treatment fulfills one of the options for meeting Class A or Class B
pathogen reduction. You may attach existing documentation (e.g.,
technical or process specifications) to meet this requirement.
c. Indicate whether any of the vector attraction reduction options
in Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(11) are met before sewage sludge leaves the
facility. Options 1-8 are typically met at the point where sewage
sludge is generated or where a material is derived from sewage sludge,
and Options 9-11 are typically met at the point of use or disposal.
You may select ``none or unknown'' only in the following cases:
If sewage sludge is fired in a sewage sludge incinerator;
or
If sewage sludge is placed on a municipal solid waste
landfill unit.
Land application: Sewage sludge applied to agricultural land, a
forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site must meet one of
the vector attraction reduction options 1-10, which are defined at
Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(10), respectively. Sewage sludge applied to a lawn
or home garden, or placed in a bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land, must meet any of options 1-8, defined
at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(8), respectively.
Surface disposal: Sewage sludge placed on an active sewage sludge
unit must meet one of vector attraction reduction options 1-11, which
are defined at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(11), respectively.
d. Provide a written description of any treatment processes used to
reduce vector attraction characteristics of sewage sludge, including an
indication of how the treatment fulfills one of options 1-11 for vector
attraction reduction. You may attach existing documentation (e.g.,
technical or process specifications) to meet this requirement.
6. Sewage Sludge Sent to Other Facilities. If sewage sludge from
your facility is sent to an off-site facility for treatment,
distribution, use, or disposal, provide the information requested below
for each receiving facility. If sewage sludge is sent to more than one
off-site facility, attach additional pages if necessary.
For purposes of this form, an off-site facility is a facility or
site that is located on land physically separate from the land used in
connection with your facility. ``Off site'' may include facilities or
sites that you own if they are not located on the same property or on
adjacent property.
a. Provide the facility's official or legal name. Do not use a
colloquial name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility receiving
the sewage sludge, and who can be contacted by the permitting authority
if necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing address at the off-site facility
where correspondence should be sent.
d. Indicate which activities the receiving facility performs on the
sewage sludge from your facility.
7. Use and Disposal Sites. If sewage sludge is sent directly from
your facility to a use or disposal site (i.e., it is not sent to
another facility), provide the following information for each such site
(attach additional pages if necessary):
a. Provide the site name and/or number. The name and/or number is
any designation commonly used to refer to the site. If the site has
been previously designated in another permit, use that designation.
b. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the use or disposal
site, and who can be contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
c. Answer either question 1 or question 2.
1. Provide the physical location (street address) of the site. If
the site lacks a street address or route number, provide the most
accurate alternative geographic information (e.g., township and range,
section or quarter section number, nearby highway intersection).
2. Provide the latitude and longitude of the center of the site. If
a map was used to obtain latitude and longitude, provide map datum
(e.g., NAD 27, NAD 83) and map scale (e.g., 1:24000, 1:100000).
d. The site type is the intended end use of the land. Applicable
sewage sludge use and disposal standards, and thus permit conditions,
differ according to type of site.
Agricultural land is land on which a food crop, a feed crop, or a
fiber crop is grown. This includes range land, which is open land with
indigenous vegetation, and pasture, which is land on which animals feed
directly on crops such as grasses, grain stubble, or stover.
Forest is a tract of land thick with trees and underbrush.
A public contact site is land with a high potential for contact by
the public. Public contact sites include public parks, ball fields,
cemeteries, plant nurseries, turf farms, and golf courses.
A reclamation site is land that has been drastically disturbed by
strip mining, fires, construction, etc. As part of the reclamation
process, sewage sludge is applied for its nutrient and soil
conditioning properties to help stabilize and revegetate the land.
For purposes of this form, a lawn or home garden is privately-owned
land on which crops or other vegetation are grown for private, non-
commercial use and on which use by the general public does not occur.
A surface disposal site is an area of land that contains one or
more active sewage sludge units. An active sewage sludge unit is land
on which only sewage sludge is placed for final disposal.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an enclosed device in which sewage
sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired.
A municipal solid waste landfill is a discrete area of land or an
excavation that receives household waste and other solid wastes.
8. Certification. All permit applications must be signed and
certified.
An application submitted by a municipality, State, Federal, or
other public agency must be signed by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official. A principal executive officer of a
Federal agency includes: (1) The chief executive officer of the agency,
or (2) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A responsible corporate officer means:
(1) A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president in charge of a
principal business function, or any other person who performs similar
policy- or decision-making functions; or (2) the manager of
manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than
250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign
documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a partnership or sole proprietorship
must be signed by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
[[Page 62648]]
Part 2: Permit Application Information
Part 2 of this form pertains to facilities that are submitting a
full permit application at this time. This includes facilities applying
for an NPDES permit as well as ``sludge-only'' facilities that are
applying for site-specific pollutant limits.
Review items 1-5 of the Application Overview section to determine
which sections of Part 2 cover your facility's sewage sludge use or
disposal practices. Table 1, below, summarizes which sections cover
which activities.
Table 1.--Guidelines for Completing Part 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity(ies) performed A B C D E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generates sewage sludge or derives
material from sewage sludge..............
(B.1-B.3)
That meets ceiling concentrations in
Table 1 of 40 CFR 503.13, pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of Sec.
503.13, Class A pathogen requirements
in Sec. 503.32, and one of the eight
vector attraction reduction options
in Sec. 503.33 (b) (1)-(8)...........
(B.4)
That is sold or given away in bag or
other container for application to
the land.............................
(B.5)
That is shipped off site for treatment
or blending..........................
(B.6)
That is applied to the land in bulk
form.................................
(B.7)
That is placed on a surface disposal
site.................................
(B.8)
That is fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator..........................
(B.9)
That is sent to a municipal solid
waste landfill.......................
(B.10)
Applies bulk sewage sludge to land........
Owns or operates a surface disposal site..
Fires sewage sludge in a sewage sludge
incinerator..............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section A: General Information
All applicants must complete Section A, which requests general
information about the facility.
A.1. Facility Information.
a. Provide the facility's official or legal name. Do not use a
colloquial name.
b. Provide the complete mailing address of the office where
correspondence should be sent. This may differ from the facility
location given in Question 1.d.
c. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility and with
the facts reported in this application, and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
d. Provide the physical location (street address) of the facility.
If the facility lacks a street address or route number, provide the
most accurate alternative geographic information (e.g., township and
range, section or quarter section number, nearby highway intersection).
e. Provide the latitude and longitude of the facility. This
information is required by EPA's Locational Data Policy. If a map was
used to obtain latitude and longitude, provide map datum (e.g., NAD 27,
NAD 83) and map scale (e.g., 1:24000, 1:100000).
f. Indicate whether the facility is a Class I sludge management
facility. A Class I sludge management facility is either:
Any POTW required to have an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CFR 403.8(a), including any POTW located in a State assuming
local pretreatment program responsibilities pursuant to 40 CFR
403.10(e)); or
Any treatment works treating domestic sewage, as defined
in 40 CFR 122.2, classified as a Class I sludge management facility by
the EPA Regional Administrator, or, in the case of approved State
programs, the Regional Administrator in conjunction with the State
Director, because of the potential for its sewage sludge use or
disposal practices to adversely affect public health and the
environment.
If your facility is a Class I sludge management facility, you must
perform a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) on this
facility's sewage sludge. Submit the results (pass or fail) of all TCLP
tests you have performed during the past five years that you have not
already submitted to the permitting authority.
g. Provide the facility's design influent flow rate. ``Design
influent flow rate'' means the average flow the treatment works was
designed to treat. Enter the design influent flow rate in million
gallons per day (mgd), to two decimal places (e.g., 3.12 mgd translates
to three million one hundred twenty thousand gallons per day).
h. For all areas served by the treatment works (municipalities and
unincorporated service areas), enter the best estimate of the actual
population served at the time of application. If another treatment
works discharges into this treatment works, provide on a separate
attachment the name of the other treatment works and the actual
population it serves (it is not necessary to list the communities
served by the other treatment works).
i. Indicate the type of facility.
A publicly owned treatment works (POTW) is any device or system
used in the treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of
municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature which is owned
by a State or municipality. This definition includes sewers, pipes, or
other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing
treatment.
A privately owned treatment works is any device or system which is
(a) used to treat wastes from any facility whose operator is not the
operator of the treatment works and (b) not a POTW or federally owned
treatment works.
A federally owned treatment works is a facility that is owned and
operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal
government that treats wastewater, a majority of which is domestic
sewage, prior to discharge in accordance with a permit issued under
section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
A blending or treatment operation means any sewage sludge or
wastewater treatment device or system, regardless of ownership
(including Federal facilities), used in the storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of domestic sewage, including land dedicated
for the disposal of sewage sludge. For purposes of this form, such
devices or systems include blending or treatment operations that derive
material from sewage sludge but do not generate sewage sludge.
[[Page 62649]]
A surface disposal site is an area of land that contains one or
more active sewage sludge units. An active sewage sludge unit is land
on which only sewage sludge is placed for final disposal. This does not
include land on which sewage sludge is either stored or treated. Land
does not include waters of the United States, as defined in 40 CFR
122.2.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an enclosed device in which sewage
sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired.
A.2. Applicant Information.
a. If someone other than the facility contact person is submitting
this application, provide the name of that person's organization.
b. Provide the complete mailing address of the applicant's
organization.
c. Provide the name and work telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility and with the
facts reported in this application, and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
d. Indicate whether this applicant is the owner or operator (or
both) of the facility. If it is neither, describe the relationship of
the applicant to the facility.
e. Indicate whether you want correspondence regarding this
application directed to the applicant or to the facility address
provided in question 1.
A.3. Permit Information. Provide the facility's NPDES permit
number, if any. Also provide the number and type of any relevant
Federal, State, or local environmental permits or construction
approvals received or applied for, including but not limited to permits
issued under any of the following programs:
Hazardous Waste Management program under RCRA;
UIC program under SDWA;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program
under the Clean Air Act;
Nonattainment program under the Clean Air Act;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) preconstruction approval under the Clean Air Act;
Ocean dumping permits under the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act; or
Dredge or fill permits under Section 404 of CWA.
A.4. Federal Indian Reservation. Identify any generation,
treatment, storage, application to land, or disposal of sewage sludge
that occurs on a Federal Indian Reservation.
A.5. Topographic Map. Provide a topographic map or maps (or other
appropriate map(s) if a topographic map is unavailable) that shows the
items identified below, including the areas one mile beyond the
property boundaries of the facility.
a. Location of all sewage sludge management facilities, including
land application sites and locations where sewage sludge is generated,
treated, or disposed;
b. Location of all water bodies within one mile beyond the
facility's property boundaries; and
c. Location of all wells used for drinking water listed in public
records or otherwise known to you within \1/4\ mile of the facility
property boundaries.
On each map, include the map scale, a meridian arrow showing north,
and latitude and longitude at the nearest whole second. Use a 7\1/2\-
minute series map published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which
may be obtained through the USGS Earth Science Information Center
(ESIC) listed below. If a 7\1/2\-minute series map has not been
published for your facility site, then you may use a 15-minute series
map from the U.S. Geological Survey. If neither a 7\1/2\-minute nor 15-
minute series map has been published for your facility site, use a plat
map or other appropriate map, including all the requested information;
in this case, briefly describe land uses in the map area (e.g.,
residential, commercial). If you have previously prepared a map that
includes these three items, that map may be submitted to fulfill this
requirement if it is still accurate.
Maps may be purchased at local dealers (listed in your local yellow
pages) or purchased over the counter at the following USGS Earth
Science Information Centers (ESIC):
Anchorage-ESIC, 4230 University Dr., Rm. 101, Anchorage, AK 99508-
4664, (907)786-7011
Lakewood-ESIC, Box 25046, Bldg. 25, Rm. 1813, Denver Federal Center,
MS 504, Denver, CO 80225-0046, (303)236-5829
Lakewood Open Files-ESIC, Box 25286, Bldg. 810, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO
Menlo Park-ESIC, Bldg. 3, Rm. 3128, MS 532, 345 Middlefield Rd.,
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591, (415)329-4309
Reston-ESIC, 507 National Center, Reston, VA 22092, (703)648-6045
Rolla-ESIC, 1400 Independence Rd., MS 231, Rolla, MO 65401-2602,
(314)341-0851
Salt Lake City-ESIC, 2222 West 2300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84119,
(801)975-3742
Sioux Falls-ESIC, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198-0001,
(605)594-6151
Spokane-ESIC, U.S. Post Office Bldg., Rm. 135, 904 W. Riverside
Ave., Spokane, WA 99201-1088, (509)353-2524
Stennis Space Center-ESIC, Bldg. 3101, Stennis Space Center, MS
39529, (601)688-3541
Washington, D.C.-ESIC, U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1849 C St., NW, Rm.
2650, Washington, D.C. 20240, (202)208-4047
All maps should be either on paper or other material appropriate
for reproduction. If possible, all sheets should be approximately
letter size with margins suitable for filing and binding. As few sheets
as necessary should be used to clearly show what is involved. Each
sheet should be labeled with your facility's name, permit number,
location (city, county, or town), date of drawing, and designation of
the number of sheets of each diagram as ``page ________ of ________.''
A.6. Line Drawing. Attach to this form a line drawing, simple flow
diagram, or narrative description that identifies all sewage sludge
processes employed during the permit term, including the information
requested on the application form.
A.7. Contractor Information.
If a contractor carries out any operational or maintenance aspects
associated with this facility, provide the name, mailing address, and
telephone of each such contractor. Also provide a description of the
activities performed by the contractor. Attach additional pages if
necessary.
A.8. Pollutant Concentrations.
All facilities must complete Section A.8.a. (Part 503
Metals, Nutrients, and percent solids).
Complete Section A.8.b. if this facility is a Class I
sludge management facility.
A Class I sludge management facility is either:
--Any POTW required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40
CFR 403.8(a), including any POTW located in a State assuming local
pretreatment program responsibilities pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10(e)); or
--Any treatment works treating domestic sewage, as defined in 40 CFR
122.2, classified as a Class I sludge management facility by the EPA
Regional Administrator, or, in the case of approved State programs, the
Regional Administrator in conjunction with the State Director, because
of the potential for its sewage sludge use or disposal practices to
adversely affect public health and the environment.
Provide pollutant concentration data as follows:
Submit data for each of the pollutants listed in the
appropriate section.
For the listed pollutants, data may not be more than two
years old. If existing data are not available for a pollutant, you must
obtain and analyze at least one sample for that pollutant.
[[Page 62650]]
In addition, if you have any available concentration data
for pollutants not listed in the section you are completing, provide
those data as well. If data for such additional pollutants are not
available from the last two years, provide the most recent data.
Express pollutant concentrations as dry weight
concentrations.
You may use a separate attachment in addition to or
instead of the table provided.
Calculations on a dry weight basis are based on sewage sludge
having been dried at 105 degrees Celsius until reaching a constant
weight (i.e., essentially 100 percent solids content).
The Part 503 sewage sludge use or disposal regulation requires the
use of Test Method SW-846 (in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' Second and Third Editions) to
analyze samples of sewage sludge for compliance with Part 503. SW-846
is recommended, but not required, for purposes of providing sewage
sludge quality information in the permit application.
A.9. Certification. All permit applications must be signed and
certified. Also indicate in the boxes provided, which sections of Form
2S you are submitting with this application.
An application submitted by a municipality, State, Federal, or
other public agency must be signed by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official. A principal executive officer of a
Federal agency includes: (1) The chief executive officer of the agency,
or (2) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A responsible corporate officer means:
(1) A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president in charge of a
principal business function, or any other person who performs similar
policy- or decision-making functions; or (2) the manager of
manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than
250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign
documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a partnership or sole proprietorship
must be signed by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
Section B: Generation of Sewage Sludge or Preparation of a Material
Derived From Sewage Sludge
Complete this section if you are a ``person who prepares sewage
sludge.'' A person who prepares sewage sludge is a person who generates
sewage sludge during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment
works or who derives a material from sewage sludge. This section,
therefore, pertains to any POTW or other treatment works that generates
sewage sludge, as well as to any facility that derives a material from
sewage sludge (e.g., it composts sewage sludge or blends sewage sludge
with another material). Simply distributing sewage sludge or placing it
in a bag or other container for sale or give-away for application to
the land is not considered ``deriving a material'' from sewage sludge
(because it does not change sludge quality), and thus a facility that
only distributes or bags a sewage sludge would not be automatically
required to provide the information in this section.
B.1. Amount Generated On Site. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period of sewage sludge that is generated at your facility.
Report only the amount of sewage sludge that is generated during
treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works, not the amount of
material that is derived from sewage sludge.
B.2. Amount Received from Off Site. Provide the following
information if your facility receives any sewage sludge from an off-
site facility for further treatment (including blending), use, or
disposal at your facility. If your facility receives sewage sludge from
more than one off-site facility, provide this information separately
for each such facility. Attach additional pages as necessary.
For purposes of this form, an off-site facility is a facility or
site that is located on land physically separate from the land used in
connection with your facility. ``Off site'' may include facilities or
sites that you own if they are not located on the same property or on
adjacent property.
a. Provide the official or legal name of the off-site facility. Do
not use a colloquial name.
b. Provide the name and work telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation of the off-site facility and
with the facts reported in this section, and who can be contacted by
the permitting authority if necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing address at the off-site facility
where correspondence should be sent.
d. Provide the physical location (street address) of the off-site
facility. If the facility lacks a street address or route number,
provide the most accurate alternative geographic information (e.g.,
township and range, section or quarter section number, nearby highway
intersection).
The off-site facility providing the sewage sludge is, by
definition, also a ``person who prepares sewage sludge''. Both you and
the off-site facility are required to apply for a permit and are
required to ensure that applicable Part 503 requirements are met.
e. Provide the total dry metric tons per 365-day period received
from the off-site facility.
f. Describe any treatment processes occurring at the off-site
facility, including blending activities and treatment to reduce
pathogens or vector attraction characteristics. ``Treatment'' does not
include dewatering.
B.3. Treatment Provided at Your Facility. Provide the following
information regarding sewage sludge treatment at your facility. This
question does not request information on sewage sludge treatment at an
off-site use or disposal facility.
a. Indicate the class of pathogen reduction (Class A or Class B)
that is achieved before sewage sludge leaves the facility. You may
select ``neither or unknown'' only if sewage sludge is placed on an
active sewage sludge unit that is covered with soil or other material
at the end of each operating day, sent to another facility for
additional treatment, fired in a sewage sludge incinerator, or placed
on a municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Options for meeting Class A pathogen reduction are listed at
Sec. 503.32(a). Options for meeting Class B pathogen reduction are
listed at Sec. 503.32(b).
b. Provide a written description of any treatment processes used to
reduce pathogens in sewage sludge, including an indication of how the
treatment fulfills one of the options for meeting Class A or Class B
pathogen reduction. You may attach existing documentation (e.g.,
technical or process specifications) to meet this requirement.
c. Indicate whether any of vector attraction reduction options 1-8
are met before sewage sludge leaves the facility. Options 1-8 are
published at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(8), and typically are met at the point
of sewage sludge generation.
Options 9, 10, and 11 (published at Sec. 503.33(b) (9)-(11),
respectively) are also available, but are typically met at the point of
use or disposal and are covered elsewhere in this form.
You may select ``none or unknown'' only in the following cases:
If sewage sludge is sent to another facility for
additional treatment;
[[Page 62651]]
If option 9 (injection below land surface) or option 10
(incorporation into soil within six hours) is met at a land application
site;
If option 9 (injection below land surface), option 10
(incorporation into soil within six hours), or option 11 (daily cover)
is met at an active sewage sludge unit at a surface disposal site;
If sewage sludge is fired in a sewage sludge incinerator;
or
If sewage sludge is placed on a municipal solid waste
landfill unit.
Land application: Sewage sludge applied to agricultural land, a
forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site must meet one of
the vector attraction reduction options 1-10, which are defined at
Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(10), respectively. Sewage sludge applied to a lawn
or home garden, or placed in a bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land, must meet any of options 1-8, defined
at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(8), respectively.
Surface disposal: Sewage sludge placed on an active sewage sludge
unit must meet one of vector attraction reduction options 1-11, which
are defined at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(11), respectively.
d. Provide a written description of any treatment processes used to
reduce vector attraction characteristics of sewage sludge, including an
indication of how the treatment fulfills one of options 1-8 for vector
attraction reduction. You may attach existing documentation (e.g.,
technical or process specifications) to meet this requirement.
e. Provide a written description of any other treatment or blending
activities not described in B.3.b or B.3.d above. ``Other treatment''
does not include dewatering or placement of sewage sludge in a bag or
other container for sale or give-away for application to land. You may
attach existing documentation (e.g., technical or process
specifications) to meet this requirement.
B.4. Preparation of Sewage Sludge Meeting Ceiling Concentrations,
Pollutant Concentrations, Class A Pathogen Requirements, and One of
Vector Attraction Reduction Options 1-8.
Complete this section if sewage sludge from this facility meets all
of the following criteria:
The ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of Sec. 503.13(b)(1)
and the pollutant concentrations in Table 3 of Sec. 503.13(b)(3);
The Class A pathogen reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.32(a); and
One of the vector attraction reduction options in
Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(8).
Sewage sludge meeting all of these criteria is exempt from the
general requirements of Sec. 503.12 and the management practices of
Sec. 503.14, and thus fewer permitting and permit application
requirements typically pertain to facilities generating such sludge.
For this reason, if you are eligible to complete Section B.4, you may
skip Sections B.5--B.7 unless specifically required to complete any of
them by the permitting authority.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons per 365-day period of sewage
sludge that is applied to the land and that meets the Table 1 ceiling
concentrations, the Table 3 pollutant concentrations, Class A pathogen
requirements, and one of vector attraction reduction options 1-8.
b. Indicate whether sewage sludge that meets the Table 1 ceiling
concentrations, the Table 3 pollutant concentrations, Class A pathogen
requirements, and one of vector attraction reduction options 1-8 is
placed in bags or other containers at your facility.
Sewage sludge placed in a bag or other container must meet the
Table 1 ceiling concentrations, the Class A pathogen requirements, one
of vector attraction reduction options 1-8, and either the Table 3
pollutant concentrations or the annual pollutant loading rates (APLRs)
in Table 4 of Sec. 503.13. This question does not pertain to sewage
sludge meeting APLRs.
An other container is either an open or closed receptacle,
including but not limited to a bucket, a box, a carton, and a vehicle
or trailer with a load capacity of one metric ton or less.
B.5. Sale or Give-Away in a Bag or Other Container for Application
to the Land. Complete this section if sewage sludge from this facility
is sold or given away in a bag or other container for application to
the land. Skip this section, however, for any sewage sludge you
reported in Section B.4 (i.e., sludge meeting Table 1 ceiling
concentrations, Table 3 pollutant concentrations, Class A pathogen
requirements, and one of vector attraction reduction options 1-8).
A bag or other container includes an open or closed receptacle such
as a bucket, box, carton, or vehicle or trailer with a load capacity of
one metric ton or less.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons per 365-day period placed in
bags or other containers for sale or give-away.
b. Attach with this application a copy of any label or information
sheet that accompanies the product being sold or given away. When
sewage sludge is placed in a bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land, either a label must be affixed to the
bag or other container, or an information sheet must be provided to the
person receiving the sewage sludge. The label or information sheet must
contain the following information:
The name and address of the person who prepared the sewage
sludge that is sold or given away in a bag or other container for
application to the land;
A statement that application of the sewage sludge to the
land is prohibited except in accordance with the instructions on the
label or information sheet; and
The annual whole sludge application rate for the sewage
sludge that does not cause any of the annual pollutant loading rates in
Table 4 of Sec. 503.13 to be exceeded.
B.6. Shipment-Off Site for Treatment or Blending. Complete this
section if you provide sewage sludge to another facility, and that
facility provides treatment or blending (i.e., it derives a material
from sewage sludge).
Skip this section, however, for any sewage sludge that is:
Covered in Section B.4 (i.e., it meets the Table 1 ceiling
concentrations, the Table 3 pollutant concentrations, Class A pathogen
reduction requirements, and one of vector attraction reduction options
1-8);
Covered in Section B.5 (i.e., it is placed in a bag or
other container at your facility); or
Sent directly from your facility to a land application
site or surface disposal site.
If you provide sewage sludge to more than one facility that
provides treatment or blending, complete Section B.6 for each such
facility. Attach additional pages as necessary.
a. Provide the official or legal name of the facility receiving the
sewage sludge. Do not use a colloquial name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility receiving
the sewage sludge, and who can be contacted by the permitting authority
if necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing address of the receiving facility
where correspondence should be sent.
d. Provide the total dry metric tons per 365-day period your
facility sends to the receiving facility. Do not include sewage sludge
that other facilities send to the receiving facility.
e. Indicate whether the facility receiving the sewage sludge
provides additional treatment to reduce pathogens in sewage sludge from
your facility. Also indicate whether Class A or Class B pathogen
reduction is
[[Page 62652]]
achieved before the sewage sludge leaves the receiving facility.
Options for meeting Class A pathogen reduction are listed at
Sec. 503.32(a). Options for meeting Class B pathogen reduction are
listed at Sec. 503.32(b).
Provide a written description of any treatment processes used at
the receiving facility to reduce pathogens in sewage sludge, including
an indication of how the treatment fulfills one of the options for
meeting Class A or Class B pathogen reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g., technical or process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
f. Indicate whether the facility receiving the sewage sludge
provides additional treatment to reduce vector attraction
characteristics of the sewage sludge from your facility. Also indicate
whether any of vector attraction reduction options 1-8 are met before
the sewage sludge leaves the receiving facility. Options 1-8 are
typically met at the point of sewage sludge generation or treatment;
additional options are available, but these are typically met at the
point of use or disposal.
Land application: Sewage sludge applied to agricultural land,
forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site must meet one of
vector attraction reduction options 1-10, which are defined at
Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(10), respectively. Sewage sludge applied to a lawn
or home garden, or placed in a bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land, must meet one of vector attraction
reduction options 1-8, defined at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(8), respectively.
Surface disposal: Sewage sludge placed on an active sewage sludge
unit meet one of vector attraction reduction options 1-11, which are
defined at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(11), respectively.
Provide a written description of any treatment processes used at
the receiving facility to reduce vector attraction reduction
characteristics of sewage sludge, including an indication of how the
treatment fulfills one of options 1-8 for vector attraction reduction.
You may attach existing documentation (e.g., technical or process
specifications) to meet this requirement.
g. Provide a written description of any other treatment or blending
not described in B.6.e or B.6.f above. This does not include dewatering
of sewage sludge. You may attach existing documentation (e.g.,
technical or process specifications) to meet this requirement.
h. If you generate sewage sludge or derive a material from sewage
sludge, and you provide that sewage sludge to another person who
derives a material from the sewage sludge, Sec. 503.12(g) requires you
to provide that person with notice and necessary information to comply
with land application requirements of Part 503. If you answered ``yes''
to B.6.e, B.6.f, or B.6.g, the receiving facility is a ``person who
prepares sewage sludge'' and you must provide, with this application, a
copy of any notice and other information you provide to the receiving
facility.
i. If the receiving facility places sewage sludge from your
facility in a bag or other container for sale or give-away for
application to the land, provide a copy of all labels or notices that
accompany the product being sold or given away.
A bag or other container includes an open or closed receptacle such
as a bucket, box, carton, or vehicle or trailer with a load capacity of
one metric ton or less.
When sewage sludge is placed in a bag or other container for sale
or give-away for application to the land, either a label must be
affixed to the bag or other container, or an information sheet must be
provided to the person receiving the sewage sludge. The label or
information sheet must contain the following information:
The name and address of the person who prepared the sewage
sludge that is sold or given away in a bag or other container for
application to the land;
A statement that application of the sewage sludge to the
land is prohibited except in accordance with the instructions on the
label or information sheet; and
The annual whole sludge application rate for the sewage
sludge that does not cause any of the annual pollutant loading rates in
Table 4 of Sec. 503.13 to be exceeded.
B.7. Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge. Complete this section
if bulk sewage sludge from your facility is sprayed or spread onto the
land surface, injected below the land surface, or incorporated into the
soil in order to condition the soil or fertilize crops or vegetation
grown in the soil.
Skip this section, however, for sewage sludge that is:
Covered in Section B.4 (i.e., it meets the ceiling
concentrations in Table 1 of Sec. 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of Sec. 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in Sec. 503.32(a), and one of the vector
attraction reduction options in Sec. 503.33(b)(1)-(8)); 1
Covered in Section B.5 (i.e., it is placed in a bag or
other container for sale or give-away for application to the land); or
Covered in Section B.6 (i.e., it is sent to another
facility for treatment or for blending).
Bulk sewage sludge is defined as sewage sludge that is not sold or
given away in a bag or other container for application to the land. (A
bag or other container includes an open or closed receptacle such as a
bucket, box, carton, or vehicle or trailer with a load capacity of one
metric ton or less.)
If you complete this section (which requests summary information
for all bulk sewage sludge that is applied to the land), also complete
Section C for each land application site.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons per 365-day period your
facility sends to all land application sites. Do not include sewage
sludge sent to land application sites by other facilities.
b. Indicate whether all land application sites are identified in
Section C of this application. If you are not identifying all sites in
Section C, provide a copy of the land application plan with this permit
application. (Information is collected in Section C for each land
application site that has been identified at the time of permit
application.)
Current regulations require you to submit a land application plan
at the time of permit application if you intend to apply sewage sludge
to land application sites that have not been identified at the time of
permit application. (This requirement does not apply if your sewage
sludge meets the ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of
Sec. 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant concentrations in Table 3 of
Sec. 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.32(a), and one of the vector attraction reduction options in
Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(8).)
At a minimum, the land application plan must:
Describe the geographical area covered by the plan;
Identify site selection criteria;
Describe how sites will be managed;
Provide for advance notice to the permitting authority of
specific land application sites and a reasonable time for the
permitting authority to object prior to the sewage sludge application;
and
Provide for advance public notice as required by State and
local law, but in all cases require notice to land owners and occupants
adjacent to or abutting the proposed land application sites.
The permit writer will work with you to develop additional details
of the land application plan on a case-by-case basis.
[[Page 62653]]
Such details include site selection criteria (site slope, run-on and
run-off control, etc.) and site management guidelines (sludge
application rates, access controls, etc.).
The land application plan is an alternative to either (1) requiring
identification of, and permit conditions for, all potential land
application sites at the time of permit issuance, or (2) requiring an
individual permit action for each approval of a land application site.
A land application plan provides for public notice when the land
application plan is developed as part of the permit, and it discusses
how the public will be notified on a case-by-case basis. For this
reason, public notice of the permit will be required to reach areas
within the territorial scope of the land application plan. The public
notice must indicate that the permit includes a land application plan,
and the fact sheet must briefly describe the contents of the land
application plan.
c. If any land application sites are located in States other than
the State where you generate the bulk sewage sludge or derive the
material from sewage sludge, describe how the permitting authority will
be notified in the States where the land application sites are located.
The permitting authority is either:
The State, in cases where the State has an EPA-approved
sewage sludge management program; or
The EPA Region, in cases where a State sewage sludge
management program has not yet been approved.
The notice must include the following:
The physical location, by either street address or
latitude and longitude, of each land application site;
The approximate time period bulk sewage sludge will be
applied to the site;
The name, address, and telephone number of the person who
prepares the bulk sewage sludge and the NPDES permit number (if
applicable) of their facility; and
The name, address, and telephone number of the person who
will apply the bulk sewage sludge and the NPDES permit number (if
applicable) for their facility.
B.8. Surface Disposal. Complete this section if sewage sludge from
your facility is placed on a surface disposal site. If you own or
operate a surface disposal site, also complete Section D.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons per 365-day period that is
sent from your facility to all surface disposal sites. Do not include
sewage sludge sent to surface disposal sites by other facilities.
A surface disposal site is an area of land that contains one or
more active sewage sludge units. An active sewage sludge unit is a
sewage sludge unit that has not closed. A sewage sludge unit is land on
which only sewage sludge is placed for final disposal, excluding land
on which sewage sludge is either stored or treated.
b. If sewage sludge from your facility is placed on any surface
disposal sites that you do not own or operate, complete B.8.c-B.8.f for
each surface disposal site that you do not own or operate. If you send
sewage sludge to more than one surface disposal site that you do not
own or operate, attach additional pages as necessary.
c. Provide the official or legal name (or number) of the site
receiving the sewage sludge. Do not use a colloquial name.
d. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the surface disposal
site, and who can be contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
Indicate whether the facility contact is the site owner, the site
operator, or both. For purposes of this form, the owner is the person
that owns a part of or the entire facility. The operator is the person
responsible for the overall operation of the facility, and may be
different from the owner. In general, the operator is the person
responsible for the daily functioning of the facility, including sewage
sludge use or disposal.
e. Provide the complete mailing address for the surface disposal
site where correspondence should be sent.
f. Provide the total dry metric tons of sewage sludge per 365-day
period from your facility placed on this surface disposal site. Do not
include sewage sludge sent to this surface disposal site by other
facilities.
B.9. Incineration. Complete this section if sewage sludge from your
facility is fired in a sewage sludge incinerator. If you own or operate
a sewage sludge incinerator, also complete Section E.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons of sewage sludge per 365-day
period that is sent from your facility to all sewage sludge
incinerators. Do not include sewage sludge sent to sewage sludge
incinerators by other facilities.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an enclosed device in which sewage
sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired. Auxiliary fuel is fuel used to
augment the fuel value of sewage sludge, including natural gas, fuel
oil, coal, gas generated during anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge,
and municipal solid waste (not to exceed 30 percent of the dry weight
of sewage sludge and auxiliary fuel together).
b. If you do not own or operate a sewage sludge incinerator in
which sewage sludge from your facility is fired, complete B.9.c-B.9.f
each sewage sludge incinerator that you do not own or operate.
c. Provide the official or legal name or number of the sewage
sludge incinerator. Do not use a colloquial name.
d. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the sewage sludge
incinerator, and who can be contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
Indicate whether the incinerator contact is the owner, the
operator, or both. For purposes of this form, the owner is the person
that owns a part of or the entire facility. The operator is the person
responsible for the overall operation of the facility, and may be
different from the owner. In general, the operator is the person
responsible for the daily functioning of the facility, including sewage
sludge use or disposal.
e. Provide the complete mailing address at the sewage sludge
incinerator where correspondence should be sent.
f. Provide the total dry metric tons of sewage sludge per 365-day
period from your facility fired in this sewage sludge incinerator. Do
not include sewage sludge sent to this incinerator by other facilities.
B.10. Disposal on a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Complete this section if sewage sludge from your facility is placed
on a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) unit.
Provide the information in this section once for each MSWLF on
which sewage sludge from your facility is placed. If sewage sludge from
your facility is placed on more than one MSWLF, attach additional pages
as necessary.
The Part 503 sewage sludge use or disposal regulation does not
impose additional requirements on sewage sludge that is sent to a
MSWLF, but they cross-reference existing criteria for MSWLFs at 40 CFR
Part 258. Therefore, if sewage sludge from your facility is placed on a
MSWLF unit, your permit must contain conditions regulating such
disposal.
A MSWLF unit is a discrete area of land or an excavation that
receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit,
surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are
defined under Sec. 257.2. A
[[Page 62654]]
MSWLF unit also may receive other types of RCRA subtitle D wastes, such
as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, small quantity
generator waste and industrial solid waste. Such a landfill may be
publicly or privately owned.
a. Provide the official or legal name of the MSWLF. Do not use a
colloquial name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the MSWLF, and who can
be contacted by the permitting authority if necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing address for the MSWLF where
correspondence should be sent. This may differ from the MSWLF location
given below.
d. Provide the physical location (street address) of the MSWLF. If
the MSWLF lacks a street address or route number, provide the most
accurate alternative geographic information (e.g., township and range,
section or quarter section number, nearby highway intersection).
e. Provide the total dry metric tons per 365-day period that is
sent from your facility to this MSWLF. Do not include sewage sludge
sent to the MSWLF by other facilities.
f. Provide the number and type of any relevant Federal, State, or
local environmental permits or construction approvals received or
applied for by the MSWLF.
g. Submit information to determine whether the sewage sludge placed
on this MSWLF meets applicable requirements for disposal of sewage
sludge on a MSWLF.
Sewage sludge placed on a MSWLF must meet requirements in Part 258
concerning the quality of materials placed on a MSWLF unit. In
particular:
Placement on a MSWLF of bulk or noncontainerized liquid
waste, as determined using the Paint Filter Liquids Test (Method 9095
in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical
Methods--EPA Pub. No. SW-846.), is prohibited.
Placement on a MSWLF of a regulated hazardous waste, as
defined in 40 CFR 261.3, is prohibited.
If sewage sl
FR Doc. 95-28213 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
udge is used as a cover at a MSWLF, the MSWLF
owner/operator must demonstrate that the sewage sludge is suitable for
use as a cover, and that it provides sufficient control of disease
vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging and does not
present a threat to human health and the environment.
h. Indicate whether the MSWLF complies with criteria set forth in
40 CFR Part 258.
Part 258 specifies minimum Federal criteria for MSWLFs, including
landfills that accept sewage sludge along with household waste. Among
these requirements are location restrictions, facility design and
operating criteria, ground-water monitoring, and corrective action,
closure and post-closure care, along with financial assurance
requirements. In contrast to Part 503, Part 258 controls sewage sludge
placed on MSWLFs through a facility design and management practice
approach. In Part 503, EPA has adopted the Part 258 criteria as the
appropriate standard for sewage sludge disposed of with municipal
waste. EPA concluded that if sewage sludge is disposed of in a MSWLF
complying with Part 258 criteria, public health and the environment are
protected.
Note that the POTW is legally responsible for knowing whether a
MSWLF is in compliance with Part 258 and may be liable if it sends its
sludge to an MSWLF that is not in compliance with Part 258.
Section C: Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge
Complete this section if you completed Section B.7 (Land
Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge). Unless the permitting authority
specifically requires you to complete this section, you may skip this
section for sewage sludge that is covered in any of the following
sections of this application:
Section B.4 (the sewage sludge meets the ceiling
concentrations in Table 1 of Sec. 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of Sec. 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in Sec. 503.32(a), and one of the vector
attraction reduction options in Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(8)). Such sewage
sludges are exempt from the general requirements and management
practices of Part 503 when they are land applied (unless the permitting
authority requires otherwise), and thus the site information in Section
C is not required for permitting.
Section B.5 (the sewage sludge is placed in a bag or other
container for sale or give-away for application to the land). Section C
does not cover the sale or give-away of sewage sludge in a bag or other
container for application to the land because EPA typically will not
control the users of such sewage sludge (typically, home gardeners or
other small-scale users), or the land on which the sludge is applied,
through the generator's permit.
Section B.6 (the sewage sludge is sent to another facility
for treatment or for blending). Section C does not apply to a generator
that sends sewage sludge to another facility for treatment or for
blending, because the Part 503 requirements addressed by Section C will
largely be the responsibility of the receiving facility.
Bulk sewage sludge is defined as sewage sludge that is not sold or
given away in a bag or other container for application to the land. (A
bag or other container includes an open or closed receptacle such as a
bucket, box, carton, or vehicle or trailer with a load capacity of one
metric ton or less.)
Provide the information in this section for each land application
site that has been identified at the time of permit application. Attach
additional pages as necessary. In cases where the sewage sludge is
applied to numerous sites with similar characteristics, you may combine
the information for several sites under a single response (the name and
address of each site must still be provided, however).
C.1. Identification of Land Application Site.
a. Provide the site name or number. The name or number is any
designation commonly used to refer to the site. If the site has been
previously designated in another permit, use that designation.
b. Answer either question 1 or question 2.
1. Provide the physical location (street address) of the land
application site. If the site lacks a street address or route number,
provide the most accurate alternative geographic information (e.g.,
township and range, section or quarter section number, nearby highway
intersection).
2. Provide the latitude and longitude of the facility. If a map was
used to obtain latitude and longitude, provide map datum (e.g., NAD 27,
NAD 83) and map scale (e.g., 1:24000, 1:100000).
C.2. Owner Information.
a. Indicate whether you are the owner of this land application
site. For purposes of this form, the owner is the person that owns a
part of or the entire land application site.
b. If you are not the owner of this land application site, provide
the name, telephone number, and complete mailing address for the site
owner.
C.3. Applier Information.
a. Indicate whether you are the person who applies sewage sludge to
this land application site.
b. If you are not the person who applies sewage sludge to this land
application site, provide the name,
[[Page 62655]]
telephone number, and mailing address of the person who applies sewage
sludge to this land application site.
C.4. Site Type. The ``type of land application site'' is the
intended end use of the land. Part 503 regulates bulk sewage sludge
applied to agricultural land, forest, public contact sites, reclamation
sites, and lawns and home gardens. Proper identification of the type of
land application site is important because the applicable Part 503
requirements--and thus permit conditions--differ according to the type
of site.
Agricultural land is land on which a food crop, a feed crop, or a
fiber crop is grown. This includes range land, which is open land with
indigenous vegetation, and pasture, which is land on which animals feed
directly on crops such as grasses, grain stubble, or stover.
Forest is a tract of land thick with trees and underbrush.
A public contact site is land with a high potential for contact by
the public. Public contact sites include public parks, ball fields,
cemeteries, plant nurseries, turf farms, and golf courses.
A reclamation site is land that has been drastically disturbed by
strip mining, fires, construction, etc. As part of the reclamation
process, sewage sludge is applied for its nutrient and soil
conditioning properties to help stabilize and revegetate the land.
C.5. Crop or Other Vegetation Grown on Site.
a. Identify the type of crop or other vegetation grown on this land
application site. If the crop or vegetation to be grown on the site is
not yet known, or is likely to change in an unforeseeable manner during
the life of the permit, you may so indicate instead of providing the
type of crop or other vegetation.
b. Provide the nitrogen requirement for the crop or other
vegetation listed in C.5.a. Information on the nitrogen content of
vegetation grown on the site may be obtained from local agricultural
extension services, a local Farm Advisor's Office, or published
sources.
C.6. Vector Attraction Reduction. Identify any vector attraction
reduction requirements that are met at the land application site.
a. Specifically, indicate whether vector attraction reduction
option 9 (injection below soil surface) or option 10 (incorporation
into soil within 6 hours) is met.
Bulk sewage sludge that is applied to the land may meet any of
vector attraction reduction options 1-10, as identified in
Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(10), respectively. Options 1-8 were covered in
Section B.3, which requests information on sewage sludge treatment at
the facility generating the sewage sludge. If you met any of options 1-
8 (e.g., processes to reduce volatile solids, reduce specific oxygen
uptake rate, raise pH, raise percent solids), you should have
identified that option in Question B.3.c and described how the option
is met in Question B.3.d.
By contrast, vector attraction reduction options 9 and 10 are
typically met at the land application site. Options 9 and 10 are not
available for sewage sludge applied to a lawn or home garden.
b. Provide a written description of how the vector attraction
reduction is met.
C.7. Ground-Water Monitoring. If any ground-water monitoring data
are available for this land application site, submit the following with
the application:
Available ground-water monitoring data; and
A written description of the well locations, approximate
depth to ground water, and the ground-water monitoring procedures used
to obtain these data (you may attach existing documentation to fulfill
this requirement).
For purposes of this form, ground-water monitoring means the
installation and periodic sampling and analysis of small-diameter wells
screened in the aquifer below the base of the deepest active sewage
sludge unit.
C.8. Cumulative Loadings and Remaining Allotments.
Complete Section C.8. only for sewage sludge that is applied to the
site subject to cumulative pollutant loading rates (CPLRs). Sewage
sludge applied to the site on or before July 20, 1993, is not subject
to this section.
a. Indicate whether you have contacted the permitting authority in
the State where the bulk sewage sludge will be applied to ascertain
whether bulk sewage sludge subject to CPLRs has been applied to the
site since July 20, 1993.
If applicable, provide the name of the permitting authority and the
name and phone number of the contact person at the permitting
authority.
You may not apply bulk sewage sludge subject to CPLRs to the site
until you have contacted the permitting authority in that State.
The permitting authority is either:
The State, in cases where the State has an EPA-approved
sewage sludge management program; or
The EPA Region, in cases where a State sewage sludge
management program has not yet been approved.
If you answered yes to C.8.a, continue on to C.8.b. If you answered
no, skip the rest of Section C.8.
b. Indicate whether, based on your investigation in Section C.8.a
or other information, sewage sludge subject to CPLRs has been applied
to the site since July 20, 1993.
If you answered yes to C.8.b, continue on to C.8.c. If you answered
no, skip the rest of Section C.8.
c. Provide the following information for every other facility that
sends (or has sent since July 20, 1993) bulk sewage sludge subject to
CPLRs to this site:
The official or legal name of the facility. Do not use a
colloquial name.
If available, the name, title, and work telephone number
of a person who is thoroughly familiar with the facility, and who can
be contacted by the permitting authority if necessary.
The complete mailing address at the facility where
correspondence should be sent.
Section D: Surface Disposal
Complete this section if you own or operate a surface disposal site
and are required to submit a full permit application (i.e., Part 2 of
Form 2S) at this time.
A sewage sludge surface disposal site is, by definition, a
treatment works treating domestic sewage, and the owner/operator of the
site is required to apply for a permit. You are required to submit Part
2 of this form (including Section D) if:
The surface disposal site is already covered by an NPDES
permit (e.g., a POTW's NPDES permit);
You are requesting site-specific pollutant limits for an
active sewage sludge unit at the surface disposal site; or
You have been required by the permitting authority to
submit a full permit application at this time.
If none of these criteria apply, you should submit Part 1 instead
of Part 2 (and may therefore skip Section D). Part 1 requests a limited
amount of information from so-called ``sludge-only'' facilities
(facilities without a currently-effective NPDES permit) that are not
requesting site-specific permit limits and are not otherwise required
to submit a full permit application at this time. Part 1 is intended to
allow the permitting authority to identify these facilities, track
sewage sludge use and disposal, and establish priorities for
permitting.
D.1. Information on Active Sewage Sludge Units. Complete Sections
D1. through D5 for each active sewage sludge unit you own or operate.
If you own or operate more than one active
[[Page 62656]]
sewage sludge unit, attach additional pages as necessary.
An active sewage sludge unit is an area of land on which only
sewage sludge is placed for final disposal. Sewage sludge units
include, but are not limited to, natural topographical depressions,
man-made excavations, or diked areas designed to dispose of (not treat)
sewage sludge. Sewage sludge units do not include areas where sewage
sludge is generated as a result of ongoing treatment (e.g., polishing
ponds) or land on which sewage sludge is placed for either treatment or
storage. Sewage sludge may be stored on an area of land for a period
equal to or less than two years. If sewage sludge remains on an area of
land for greater than two years, the person who prepares the sewage
sludge must develop a rationale for why the land should not be
considered an active sewage sludge unit.
Most requirements for surface disposal of sewage sludge under Part
503 pertain to individual active sewage sludge units at a surface
disposal site. Permit conditions for your facility may be developed on
a unit-by-unit basis, or may be developed for the entire surface
disposal site if all units are sufficiently similar.
a. Provide the name or number of the active sewage sludge unit. The
name or number is any designation commonly used to refer to the unit.
If the active sewage sludge unit has been previously designated in
another permit, use that designation.
b. Provide the physical location (street address) of the active
sewage sludge unit. If the active sewage sludge unit lacks a street
address or route number, provide the most accurate alternative
geographic information (e.g., township and range, section or quarter
section number, nearby highway intersection).
c. Provide the total dry metric tons per 365-day period placed on
the active sewage sludge unit. The amount of sewage sludge placed on an
active sewage sludge unit determines the frequency of monitoring for
sewage sludge placed on the active sewage sludge unit.
d. Provide the total number of dry metric tons of sewage sludge
placed on the active sewage sludge unit over the life of the unit to
date.
e. Indicate whether the active sewage sludge unit has a liner. A
liner is defined as soil or synthetic material with a maximum hydraulic
conductivity (permeability) of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec.
If the active sewage sludge unit has a liner, describe the material
from which the liner is constructed and specify the design hydraulic
conductivity of that material.
f. Indicate whether the active sewage sludge unit has a leachate
collection system. A leachate collection system is a system or device
installed immediately above a liner that is designed, constructed,
maintained, and operated to collect and remove leachate from a sewage
sludge unit.
If the active sewage sludge unit has a leachate collection system,
describe how the system is designed and operated. Also describe the
method used for leachate disposal, such as discharge to surface water
(provide all applicable permit numbers) or disposal at a hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility (provide Federal, State,
and local permit numbers for this facility).
g. If you answered yes to both D.1.e and D.1.f, pollutant limits do
not apply to the active sewage sludge unit.
If the boundary of the active sewage sludge unit without a liner
and leachate collection system is less than 150 meters from the
property line of the surface disposal site, provide the actual distance
in meters.
When the boundary of an active sewage sludge unit without a liner
and leachate collection system is less than 150 meters from the
property line of the surface disposal site, the pollutant limits for
the unit are determined according to the actual distance, as indicated
in Table 2 of Sec. 503.23.
h. Provide the remaining capacity of the active sewage sludge unit,
in dry metric tons, and the anticipated closure date of the active
sewage sludge unit, if known. Attach to the application a copy of any
closure plan that has been developed for the active sewage sludge unit.
D.2. Sewage Sludge from Other Facilities. If sewage sludge is sent
to this active sewage sludge unit by any facilities other than your
facility, complete this section for each such facility. If sewage
sludge from more than one facility other than your facility is placed
on this active sewage sludge unit, attach additional pages as
necessary.
a. Provide the official or legal name of the facility providing the
sewage sludge. Do not use a colloquial name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work telephone number of a person
who is thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility that is
providing the sewage sludge, and who can be contacted by the permitting
authority if necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing address of the facility providing
the sewage sludge.
d. Indicate the class of pathogen reduction that is achieved before
sewage sludge leaves the facility that generates the sewage sludge.
Options for meeting Class A pathogen reduction are listed at
Sec. 503.32(a). Options for meeting Class B pathogen reduction are
listed at Sec. 503.32(b).
e. Provide a written description of any treatment processes used at
the facility providing the sewage sludge to reduce pathogens in the
sewage sludge, including, where applicable, how the treatment fulfills
one of the options for meeting Class A or Class B pathogen reduction.
You may attach existing documentation (e.g., technical or process
specifications) to meet this requirement.
f. Indicate whether any of the vector attraction reduction options
1-8, (at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-(8), respectively) are met at the facility
providing the sewage sludge. Options 1-8 are typically met at the point
of sewage sludge generation. Additional options are available, but
these are typically met at the point of disposal.
You may select ``none or unknown'' only if option 9 (injection
below land surface), option 10 (incorporation into soil within six
hours), or option 11 (daily cover) is met at the point of disposal at
this active sewage sludge unit (see Section D.3.a).
g. Provide a written description of any treatment processes used at
the facility providing the sewage sludge to reduce vector attraction
reduction characteristics of sewage sludge, including an indication of
how the treatment fulfills one of options 1-8 for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this requirement.
h. Provide a written description of any other treatment processes
at the facility providing the sewage sludge that are not described in
D.2.d-D.2.g. You may attach existing documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this requirement.
D.3. Vector Attraction Reduction. Complete this section for each
active sewage sludge unit.
a. Indicate whether any of vector attraction reduction options 9-11
(at Sec. 503.33(b) (9)-(11), respectively) are met when the sewage
sludge is placed on this active sewage sludge unit.
Sewage sludge placed on an active sewage sludge unit must meet one
of vector attraction reduction options defined at Sec. 503.33(b) (1)-
(11). Options 1-8 are typically met at the point of sewage sludge
generation (see Question D.2.f). Options 9-11 are typically met at the
point of disposal.
[[Page 62657]]
b. Provide a written description of any treatment processes used at
the active sewage sludge unit to reduce vector attraction reduction
characteristics of sewage sludge, including an indication of how the
treatment fulfills one of options 9-11 for vector attraction reduction.
You may attach existing documentation (e.g., technical or process
specifications) to meet this requirement.
D.4. Ground-Water Monitoring.
Placement of sewage sludge on an active sewage sludge unit must not
contaminate an aquifer. Compliance must be demonstrated through either:
(1) the results of a ground-water monitoring program developed by a
qualified ground-water scientist, or (2) certification by a qualified
ground-water scientist that contamination has not occurred.
Contaminate an aquifer means to introduce a substance that causes
the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate in 40 CFR 141.11 to be
exceeded in ground water, or that causes the existing concentration of
nitrate in ground water to increase when the existing concentration of
nitrate in the ground water exceeds the MCL for nitrate in 40 CFR
141.11.
The MCL for nitrate is 10 milligrams/liter.
This section solicits existing ground-water monitoring data and
other documentation to indicate the potential for contamination of an
aquifer at the active sewage sludge unit, and the capability of the
owner/operator of the surface disposal site to demonstrate that
contamination has not occurred.
a. If ground-water monitoring is conducted for this active sewage
sludge unit, provide the following:
Available ground-water monitoring data; and
A written description of the well locations, approximate
depth to ground water, and the ground-water monitoring procedures used
to obtain these data (you may attach existing documentation to fulfill
this requirement).
For purposes of this application, ground-water monitoring means the
installation and periodic sampling and analysis of small-diameter wells
in the aquifer below the base of the deepest active sewage sludge unit.
b. If a ground-water monitoring program has been prepared for this
active sewage sludge unit (regardless of whether ground-water
monitoring is currently conducted), submit a copy of the program with
this permit application. The program should include the number, depth,
and location of all wells; the frequency and method of sampling; and
the parameters for which the ground water is tested.
c. If you have obtained a certification from a qualified ground-
water scientist that contamination of the aquifer below the active
sewage sludge unit has not occurred, submit a copy of the certification
with this permit application.
A qualified ground-water scientist is an individual with a
baccalaureate or post-graduate degree in the natural sciences or
engineering who has sufficient training and experience in ground-water
hydrology and related fields, as may be demonstrated by State
registration, professional certification, or completion of accredited
university programs, to make sound professional judgments regarding
ground-water monitoring, pollutant fate and transport, and corrective
action.
D.5. Site-Specific Limits. Indicate whether you are seeking site-
specific pollutant limits in your permit for the sewage sludge placed
on this active sewage sludge unit.
After August 18, 1993, you are allowed to seek site-specific
pollutant limits only for good cause, and must do so within 180 days of
becoming aware that good cause exists. If you request site-specific
pollutant limits with this permit application, you are required to
submit information supporting the request, including a demonstration
that existing values for site parameters specified by the permitting
authority differ from the values for those parameters used to develop
the pollutant limits in Table 1 of Sec. 503.23. You must also submit
follow-up information at the request of the permitting authority.
If the permitting authority determines that site-specific pollutant
limits are appropriate, the permitting authority may specify site-
specific limits in the permit as long as the existing concentrations of
the pollutants in the sewage sludge are not exceeded.
Section E: Incineration
Complete this section if you own or operate a sewage sludge
incinerator. If you own or operate more than one sewage sludge
incinerator, complete this section for each incinerator unit. Attach
additional pages as necessary.
A sewage sludge incinerator is, by definition, a treatment works
treating domestic sewage, and the owner/operator of a sewage sludge
incinerator is required to submit a full permit application (i.e., Part
2 of Form 2S).
E.1. Incinerator Identification.
a. Provide the name or number of the sewage sludge incinerator
unit. The name or number is any designation commonly used to refer to
the unit. If the unit has been previously designated in another permit,
use that designation.
b. Provide the physical location (street address) of the sewage
sludge incinerator. If the incinerator lacks a street address or route
number, provide the most accurate alternative geographic information
(e.g., township and range, section or quarter section number, nearby
highway intersection).
E.2. Amount Fired. Provide the total dry metric tons of sewage
sludge (dry weight basis) fired in the sewage sludge incinerator unit
per 365-day period.
E.3. Beryllium NESHAP.
The firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator must not
violate the National Emission Standard (NESHAP) for beryllium as
established in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 61. The beryllium NESHAP only
applies, however, to sewage sludge incinerators firing ``beryllium-
containing waste.'' The beryllium NESHAP is 10 grams of beryllium in
the exit gas over a 24-hour period, unless the incinerator owner/
operator has been approved to meet a 30-day average ambient
concentration limit on beryllium in the vicinity of the sewage sludge
incinerator of 0.01 g/m\3\. Complete this section to
demonstrate compliance with the beryllium NESHAP.
a. Indicate whether sewage sludge fired in this sewage sludge
incinerator is beryllium-containing waste. Beryllium-containing waste
is material contaminated with beryllium or beryllium compounds used or
generated during any process or operation performed by one of several
sources.
Submit information, test data, and a description of measures taken
that demonstrate whether the sewage sludge fired in this sewage sludge
incinerator is beryllium-containing waste, and will continue to remain
as such.
b. If the sewage sludge fired in this sewage sludge incinerator is
beryllium-containing waste, submit a complete report of the latest
beryllium emission rate testing, as well as documentation of ongoing
incinerator operating parameters indicating that the NESHAP emission
rate limit for beryllium has been and will continue to be met.
E.4. Mercury NESHAP.
The firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator must not
violate the NESHAP for mercury as established in Subpart E of 40 CFR
Part 61. Complete this section to demonstrate compliance with the
mercury NESHAP.
a. Indicate whether stack testing or sewage sludge sampling is
being used to demonstrate compliance with the mercury NESHAP. If stack
testing is
[[Page 62658]]
used, complete E.4.b. below. If sewage sludge sampling is used,
complete E.4.c. below.
b. Stack testing option. Stack testing must be conducted using
Method 101A in 40 CFR Part 61, Appendix B (``Determination of
Particulate and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Sewage Sludge
Incinerators''). The total quantity of mercury emitted into the
atmosphere from all incinerators at a site must not exceed 3200 grams
over a 24-hour period.
If stack testing is used, submit the following with this
application:
A complete report of stack testing and documentation of
ongoing incinerator operating parameters indicating that the
incinerator has and will continue to meet the mercury NESHAP emission
rate limit.
Copies of mercury emission rate tests for the two most
recent years in which testing was conducted.
c. Sampling option. Sewage sludge must be sampled and analyzed
using Method 105 in 40 CFR Part 61 Appendix B (``Determination of
Mercury in Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage Sludge''), and the mercury
emissions calculated using the following equation must not exceed 3200
grams over a 24-hour period:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.046
where:
EHg=mercury emissions, g/day
M=mercury concentration in sewage sludge on a dry solids basis, in
micrograms/gram
Q=sludge charging rate, in kg/day
Fsm = weight fraction of solids in the collected sewage sludge
after mixing.
If sewage sludge sampling is used, submit a complete report of
sewage sludge sampling and documentation of ongoing incinerator
operating parameters indicating that the incinerator has and will
continue to meet the mercury NESHAP emission rate limit.
E.5. Dispersion Factor.
a. Provide the dispersion factor, in micrograms/cubic meter/gram/
second, for the sewage sludge incinerator.
The dispersion factor is the ratio of the increase in the ground-
level ambient air concentration for a pollutant at or beyond the
property line of the site where the sewage sludge incinerator is
located to the mass emission rate for the pollutant from the
incinerator stack. The dispersion factor is calculated individually by
each applicant based on the results of an air dispersion model
specified by the permitting authority.
b. Provide the name and type of the air dispersion model used to
obtain the dispersion factor.
Approved air dispersion models are listed in EPA's Guideline on Air
Quality Models and EPA's Support Center for Regulatory Air Models
(SCRAM) bulletin board. Unless a pre-existing modeling effort has been
used to calculate dispersion factor (and the results have been approved
by EPA), you should work closely with the permitting authority to
prepare a modeling protocol.
c. Submit a copy of the modeling results and supporting
documentation with this application.
E.6. Control Efficiency.
a. Provide the control efficiency, in hundredths, for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel at this sewage sludge incinerator.
Control efficiency is the mass of a pollutant in the sewage sludge
fed to an incinerator minus the mass of that pollutant in the exit gas
from the incinerator stack, divided by the mass of the pollutant in the
sewage sludge fed to the incinerator.
b. Submit a copy of the results of performance testing and
supporting documentation, including testing dates.
Control efficiency must be determined by a performance test, the
protocol for which must be approved by EPA.
E.7. Risk Specific Concentration for Chromium. The risk specific
concentration (RSC) for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel is used
to calculate pollutant limits for these metals in the permit. With the
exception of chromium, the RSC for these metals is provided in Table 1
of Sec. 503.43. The RSC for chromium, however, may be determined in two
ways: (1) it may be located in Table 2 of Sec. 503.43 according to the
type of incinerator; or (2) it may be calculated based on the ratio of
hexavalent chromium to total chromium in the exhaust stack gas.
a. Provide the RSC to be used in establishing a permit limit for
chromium, in micrograms per cubic meter.
b. Specify whether the RSC was:
Provided in Table 2 of Sec. 503.43; or
Calculated, using Equation 6 in 40 CFR 503.43, based on
the ratio of hexavalent chromium to total chromium in the exhaust stack
gas.
c. If the RSC was looked up in Table 2 of Sec. 503.43, identify
which category of incinerator type you used to obtain the RSC.
d. If you calculated the RSC using Equation 6 in 40 CFR 503.43,
provide the decimal fraction of hexavalent chromium concentration to
total chromium concentration in the stack exit gas. Also submit the
results of incinerator stack tests for hexavalent and total chromium
concentrations, including date(s) of test.
E.8. Operational Standard for Total Hydrocarbons (THC) or Carbon
Monoxide (CO).
Total hydrocarbons (THC) means the organic compounds in the exit
gas from a sewage sludge incinerator stack, as measured using a flame
ionization detection instrument referenced to propane. Carbon monoxide
(CO) can be monitored instead of THC. The operational standard for THC
or CO requires that the THC or CO concentration in the exit gas be
corrected for zero percent moisture and to seven percent oxygen.
a. Provide the raw value for the THC or CO concentration in stack
emissions, in parts per million (ppm). The raw value is the
concentration measured directly by the flame ionization detection
instrument.
b. Provide the percent of moisture content in stack gas. This is
used to correct the raw THC or CO concentration value for zero percent
moisture.
c. Provide percent oxygen concentration in stack gas (in dry
volume/dry volume). This is used, after correction of the THC or CO
concentration for zero percent moisture, to correct the THC or CO
concentration to seven percent oxygen.
d. Provide the corrected value for the THC or CO concentration in
stack emissions, in ppm. The corrected value is the raw concentration,
corrected for zero percent moisture and to seven percent oxygen.
The raw THC or CO value is first corrected for zero percent
moisture by multiplying by the following correction factor (from 40 CFR
503.44):
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.047
where X is the decimal fraction of the percent moisture in the sewage
sludge incinerator exit gas in hundredths.
The dry value is then corrected to seven percent oxygen using the
correction factor determined according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP06DE95.048
where Y = percent oxygen concentration in the sewage sludge incinerator
stack exit gas (dry volume/dry volume).
e. Submit documentation used to derive the raw THC or CO
[[Page 62659]]
concentration, moisture content, oxygen concentration, and corrected
THC or CO concentration.
E.9. Operating Parameters.
a. Provide the type of sewage sludge incinerator--i.e., whether the
incinerator is multiple hearth, fluidized bed, flash drying, electric
furnace, or other.
b. Provide with the application the following data on combustion
temperature: temperature data (including testing date(s)), a
description of temperature measurement and data recording and handling
systems, and a description of how such combustion temperature data have
been averaged.
The permitting authority will use performance test data to specify
the maximum combustion temperature in the permit as a ``never to
exceed'' value. Regulated facilities must also install, calibrate,
operate, and maintain an instrument that measures and records
combustion temperatures continuously.
c. Provide the sewage sludge feed rate in dry metric tons per day,
and indicate whether the average daily amount or the maximum design
capacity feed rate was used. Submit supporting documentation describing
how the feed rate was calculated.
The average daily amount feed rate is the average daily amount of
sewage sludge fired in all sewage sludge incinerators within the
property line of the site where the sewage sludge incinerators are
located for the number of days in a 365-day period that each sewage
sludge incinerator operates.
The maximum design capacity feed rate is the average daily design
capacity for all sewage sludge incinerators within the property line of
the site where the sewage sludge incinerators are located.
The permitting authority will use the feed rate you report as the
basis for calculating pollutant limits and will include it as an
enforceable condition in the permit.
d. Provide the incinerator stack height (in meters) for each stack,
and indicate whether actual or creditable stack height was used.
The actual stack height is the difference between the elevation at
the top of the stack and the elevation of the ground at the base of the
stack, when the difference is equal to or less than 65 meters.
The creditable stack height is used if the difference is greater
than 65 meters. This is determined in accordance with 40 CFR
51.100(ii).
e. Submit information documenting the operating parameters for the
air pollution control device(s) used for this sewage sludge
incinerator.
E.10. Monitoring Equipment. Provide a detailed list of the
equipment in place to monitor total hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide,
percent oxygen, moisture content, and combustion temperature.
Monitoring equipment includes, but is not limited to, thermocouples,
oxygen continuous emissions monitors, furnace temperature gauges,
sewage sludge and auxiliary fuel feed rate monitors, differential
pressure detectors, liquid or gas flow detectors, and air pollution
control devices.
E.11. Air Pollution Control Equipment. Provide a list of the
equipment in place to control emissions from the sewage sludge
incinerator stack. Indicate the type and capacity for each piece of
equipment listed.
[FR Doc. 95-28213 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.