35680 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS

AND FUEL ADDITIVES

1. The authority citation for part 80

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of

the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.

7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

2. Section 80.2 is amended by adding

paragraph (vv) to read as follows:

§ 80.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Opt-in area. An area which becomes

a covered area under § 80.70 pursuant to

section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act.

3. Section 80.70 is amended by

revising paragraph (j) introductory text;

by removing paragraphs (j)(5)(viii),

(5)(ix), (j)(10)(i), (10)(iii), (10)(v) through

(10)(xi); by redesignating paragraphs

(j)(10)(ii) and (iv) as (10)(i) and (10)(ii);

by removing paragraph (j)(11) and

redesignating (j)(12) through (14) as

(j)(11) through (13) respectively; and by

adding a new paragraph (l) to read as

follows:

§ 80.70 Covered areas.

* * * * *

(j) The ozone nonattainment areas

listed in this paragraph (j) are covered

areas for purposes of subparts D, E, and

F of this part. The geographic extent of

each covered area listed in this

paragraph (j) shall be the nonattainment

area boundaries as specified in 40 CFR

part 81, subpart C:

* * * * *

(l) Upon the effective date for removal

under § 80.72(a), the geographic area

covered by such approval shall no

longer be considered a covered area for

purposes of subparts D, E and F of this

part.

4. Section 80.72 is added to read as

follows:

§ 80.72 Procedures for opting out of the

covered areas.

(a) For petitions received prior to and

including December 31, 1997 and in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this

section, the Administrator may approve

a petition from a state asking for

removal of any opt-in area, or portion of

an opt-in area, from inclusion as a

covered area under § 80.70. If the

Administrator approves a petition, he or

she shall set an effective date as

provided in paragraph (c) of this

section. The Administrator shall notify

the state in writing of the Agency’s

action on the petition and the effective

date of the removal when the petition is

approved.

(b) To be approved under paragraph

(a) of this section, a petition must be

signed by the governor of a state, or his

or her authorized representative, and

must include the following:

(1) A geographic description of each

opt-in area, or portion of each opt-in

area, which is covered by the petition;

(2) A description of all ways in which

reformulated gasoline is relied upon as

a control measure in any approved state

or local implementation plan or plan

revision, or in any submission to the

Agency containing any proposed plan or

plan revision (and any associated

request for redesignation) that is

pending before the Agency when the

petition is submitted; and

(3) For any opt-in areas covered by the

petition for which reformulated gasoline

is relied upon as a control measure as

described under paragraph (b)(2) of this

section, the petition shall include the

following information:

(i) Identify whether the state is

withdrawing any such pending plan

submission;

(ii)(A) Identify whether the state

intends to submit a revision to any such

approved plan provision or pending

plan submission that does not rely on

reformulated gasoline as a control

measure, and describe the alternative air

quality measures, if any, that the state

plans to use to replace reformulated

gasoline as a control measure;

(B) A description of the current status

of any proposed revision to any such

approved plan provision or pending

plan submission, as well as a projected

schedule for submission of such

proposed revision;

(iii) If the state is not withdrawing any

such pending plan submission and does

not intend to submit a revision to any

such approved plan provision or

pending plan submission, describe why

no revision is necessary;

(iv) If reformulated gasoline is relied

upon in any pending plan submission,

other than as a contingency measure

consisting of a future opt-in, and the

Agency has found such pending plan

submission complete or made a

protectiveness finding under 40 CFR

51.448 and 93.128, demonstrate whether

the removal of the reformulated gasoline

program will affect the completeness

and/or protectiveness determinations;

(4) The Governor of a State, or his or

her authorized representative, shall

submit additional information upon

request of the Administrator,

(c) (1) Except as provided in

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the

Administrator shall set an effective date

for removal of an area under paragraph

(a) of this section of 90 days from the

Agency’s written notification to the state

approving the opt-out petition.

(2) If reformulated gasoline is

contained as an element of any plan or

plan revision that has been approved by

the Agency, other than as a contingency

measure consisting of a future opt-in,

then the effective date under paragraph

(a) of this section shall be 90 days from

the effective date for Agency approval of

a revision to the plan that removes

reformulated gasoline as a control

measure.

(d) The Administrator shall publish a

notice in the Federal Register

announcing the approval of any petition

under paragraph (a) of this section, and

the effective date for removal.

[FR Doc. 96–16668 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 425

RIN 2040–AC48

[FRL–5527–4]

Leather Tanning and Finishing Effluent

Limitations Guidelines; Pretreatment

Standards; New and Existing Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating changes

modifying the pretreatment standards

for existing and new sources applicable

to certain facilities in the leather

tanning and finishing point source

category that conduct unhairing

operations and that discharge process

wastewater to publicly owned treatment

works (‘‘POTW’’). This rule responds to

a petition submitted by the leather

tanning industry. The Agency

conducted an informal survey of a small

number of POTWs, permitting

authorities, and industry representatives

knowledgeable of leather processing

operations and wastewater treatment.

EPA is promulgating these changes as a

‘‘direct’’ final rule because the Agency

does not expect significant adverse or

critical comments. EPA also wants to

provide prompt implementation of the

rule to minimize any potential hazards

to worker safety and health that may

occur in the absence of this rule. Prompt

implementation will also allow affected

facilities in this category to reduce the

use of treatment chemicals.

DATES: This rule is effective on October

7, 1996 unless significant adverse or

critical comments are received by

September 6, 1996. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send comments in triplicate

on this rule to Mr. Ed Terry, Engineering

and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA,

401 M St. S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 35681

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ed Terry, Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M St.,

S.W., Washington, DC 20460, or

telephone 202–260–7128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated entities. Entities potentially

regulated by this action are those

facilities in the leather tanning and

finishing point source category that

conduct unhairing operations and that

discharge process wastewater to

publicly owned treatment works, and

entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry Leather tanning facilities that conduct beamhouse operations

and indirectly discharge process wastewater to publicly

owned treatment works

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 425.15,

§ 425.25, § 425.65, or § 425.85 of the

rule. If you have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

Organization of this document:

I. Legal Authority

II. Clean Water Act

III. Overview of the Leather Tanning Industry

IV. Regulatory Activities and Responses

V. Petition Submitted by Industry

VI. Agency Action in Response to Petition

VII. Options Considered

A. Selected Option

B. Other Options Considered

(1) Option 2

(2) Option 3

VIII. Scope of This Rule

IX. Executive Order 12866

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

XII. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

XIV. Administrative Procedure Requirements

I. Legal Authority

These regulations are being

promulgated under the authority of

sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and

501 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act of 1972, as amended

(known as the Clean Water Act), 33

U.S.C. sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,

1318, and 1361.

II. Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution Control

Act of 1972 (‘‘the Act’’) established a

comprehensive program to ‘‘restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the Nation’s

waters’’ [Section 101(a)]. By July 1,

1977, existing industrial dischargers

were to achieve ‘‘effluent limitations

requiring the application of the best

practicable control technology currently

available’’ (‘‘BPT’’)[Section

301(b)(1)(A)]; and by July 1, 1983,

dischargers of certain pollutants were

required to achieve ‘‘effluent limitations

requiring the application of the best

available technology economically

achievable * * * which will result in

reasonable further progress toward the

national goal of eliminating the

discharge of all pollutants’’ (‘‘BAT’’)

[Section 301(b)(2)(A)]. New industrial

direct dischargers were required, under

Section 306, to comply with new source

performance standards (‘‘NSPS’’), based

on the best available demonstrated

technology; and new and existing

dischargers to publicly owned treatment

works (‘‘POTW’’) were subject to

pretreatment standards under Sections

307(b) and of the Clean Water Act. The

requirements for direct dischargers were

to be incorporated into National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(‘‘NPDES’’) permits issued under

Section 402 of the Act, and pretreatment

standards were made enforceable

directly against dischargers to POTWs

(‘‘indirect dischargers’’).

III. Overview of the Leather Tanning

Industry

Leather tanning is a general term for

the various processing steps involved in

converting animal skins or hides into

leather. The three major hide and skin

types used to manufacture leather are

cattle hides, sheepskins and pigskins.

The three primary steps of processing

hides or skins are: beamhouse

operations which wash and soak the

hides or skins and (at most tanneries)

chemically remove the attached hair;

tanyard processes in which the tanning

agent (primarily chromium) reacts with

and stabilizes the proteinaceous matter

in the hides or skins; and retanning and

wet finishing processes which

accomplish further processing by using

additional tanning agents (again

primarily chromium although other

agents are also used) and other chemical

agents such as dyes, lubricants and

various finishes.

The U.S. leather tanning industry,

identified by the Department of

Commerce’s Standard Industrial

Classification as industry number 3111,

is an old industry. The number of

tanneries in the U.S. has steadily

decreased from around 7,500 in 1865 to

approximately 1,000 by the year 1900.

In 1982, EPA data indicated there were

158 tanneries producing leather and

discharging wastewaters to surface

streams or to POTWs. According to

estimates in the U.S. Industrial

Outlook—1993, in 1992 the leather

tanning and finishing industry

employed about 12,700 people,

distributed among 110 facilities, or an

average of about 115 employees per

facility. Tanneries are clustered in the

northeast and mid-Atlantic states, the

Chicago-Milwaukee area and the

Gloversville-Johnstown area of New

York State. Other facilities are scattered

around the U.S. Cattle hides represent

the bulk of raw material utilized for

tanning done in the U.S. The following

is a brief description of the three

primary areas of process operations of

facilities in the leather tanning and

finishing industry.

The first primary area of process

operations is the beamhouse in which

the raw hides and skins are prepared by

cleaning and soaking to make them

more pliable, and unhairing, or hair

removal, to make the hides more

attractive and useful. Beamhouse

operations usually start with siding and

trimming, followed by washing and

soaking, fleshing and unhairing. The

unhairing operation includes lime and

sodium sulfide as the primary chemicals

which dissolve the hair. Wastewaters

are highly alkaline, in a pH range of 10

to 12.

The second primary area of process

operations is the tanyard in which a

durable material is produced from the

animal hides or skins. The

proteinaceous matter in the hides reacts

with the tanning agent and becomes

stabilized. The tanning is accomplished

by trivalent chromium, by vegetable

tannins extracted from the bark of

certain trees, or by synthetic tanning

agents. These operations occur in an

acidic medium and the wastewater

generated usually has a pH in the range

of 2.5 to 3.5. The resulting stabilized

materials will not degrade by physical

or biological mechanisms.

The third primary area of process

operations is retanning and wet

finishing which gives the tanned hides

special or desired features, such as

bleached appearance, added coloring,

lubricants, or further tanning for

finished leather properties. These

operations usually do not have a

significant effect on the acidity/

alkalinity of associated wastewaters.
35682 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

IV. Regulatory Activities and Responses

On April 9, 1974 (39 FR 12958) EPA

promulgated the original regulation for

the leather tanning industry,

establishing effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for the

industry based on the best practicable

control technology currently available

(‘‘BPT’’), the best available technology

economically achievable (‘‘BAT’’), new

source performance standards (‘‘NSPS’’)

for new direct dischargers, and

pretreatment standards for new indirect

dischargers (‘‘PSNS’’). These

requirements were codified at 40 CFR

Part 425, Subparts A–F.

The Tanners Council of America, Inc.

(now the Leather Industries of America,

Inc.), challenged the 1974 promulgated

rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit left BAT and PSNS

undisturbed, but remanded the BPT and

NSPS limitations and standards.

On March 23, 1977 (42 FR 15696),

EPA promulgated pretreatment

standards for existing sources (‘‘PSES’’)

for the leather tanning industry. These

standards included only a pH range and

did not establish limits on chromium or

sulfide.

On July 2, 1979 (44 FR 38746), EPA

proposed revised effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for the leather

tanning and finishing point source

category. EPA proposed to replace the

remanded BPT and NSPS limitations

and standards, establish new best

conventional pollutant control

technology (‘‘BCT’’) limitations, and

revise BAT, PSES and PSNS limitations

and standards.

On November 23, 1982 (47 FR 52848)

EPA promulgated a final regulation for

the leather tanning and finishing

industry point source category,

establishing effluent limitations and

standards to control specific toxic,

nonconventional and conventional

pollutants for nine subcategories in the

leather tanning and finishing point

source category. The pretreatment

standards for indirect dischargers to

POTWs established categorical limits on

the discharge of chromium and sulfides

and revised pH limits in certain

subcategories.

The Tanners Council of America (now

known as the Leather Industries of

America, Inc. (LIA)) filed a petition for

judicial review of several aspects of the

promulgated regulation. This action was

followed by the filing of an

administrative Petition for

Reconsideration with EPA. The Agency

conducted an extensive review of the

existing data base and acquired

additional data. Following discussions

between the Agency and the LIA, the

parties entered into a settlement

agreement.

The settlement agreement, signed on

December 11, 1984, addressed the issues

raised in the LIA petition. EPA agreed

to propose amendments to the 1982 rule

and to solicit comments on these issues.

LIA agreed to dismiss its petition for

judicial review and to withdraw the

Petition for Reconsideration if EPA

promulgated rules consistent with the

proposed amendments.

In response to the 1984 settlement

agreement on the revised effluent

guidelines, EPA published on January

21, 1987 (52 FR 2370) proposed

amendments to the 1982 rule and

preamble language with solicitation of

comments. As one of the provisions of

the settlement agreement, EPA agreed to

propose to delete the upper pH limit for

vegetable tanners in Subpart C [Hair

Save or Pulp, Non-chrome Tan, RetanWet Finish subcategory (§ 425.35(a))]

only. Also, as part of the settlement

agreement, LIA and EPA jointly

requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Fourth Circuit to stay the

effectiveness of the sections of 40 CFR

Part 425 which EPA had agreed to

propose to amend, pending final action

by EPA on the proposed amendments.

On February 22, 1985, the Court entered

an Order staying specified sections of

Part 425, pending final promulgation of

an amendment to the regulation

consistent with the settlement

agreement.

On March 21, 1988 (53 FR 9176) EPA

promulgated amendments to 40 CFR

Part 425. The promulgated rule added

an alternative sulfide analytical method,

clarification of the procedures that

support applicability of sulfide

pretreatment standards, revisions to

certain BPT effluent limitations,

corrections to NSPS, and an allowance

for small tannery exemptions under

certain conditions. The preamble to the

promulgated rule stated that the Agency

would not consider a waiver from the

upper pH limit of 10.0 for other

subcategories than Subpart C because it

would be unduly complicated.

V. Petition Submitted by Industry

On March 18, 1993, Counsel for the

leather tanning industry submitted a

petition to the Agency, requesting that

the Agency amend the upper pH limit

for leather tanning facilities that

conduct unhairing (‘‘beamhouse’’)

operations with indirect discharge to

publicly owned treatment works

(‘‘POTWs’’). The petition asks the

Administrator ‘‘* * * to include within

the relevant regulatory section language

allowing a POTW, subject to EPA

review, to waive the upper pH limit for

regulated discharges upon a showing

that any such waiver will not ‘interfere,’

cause a ‘pass through’ or be

‘incompatible’ with a POTW’s treatment

works.’’ The petitioners go on to say:

‘‘The rulemaking is requested because,

as a result of changes in operating

conditions and an incorrect assumption

that flow equalization alone would

allow continuous control of tannery

wastewaters to a level between 7.0 and

10.0, the existing upper pH limit cannot

always be safely met.’’

Since 1977, EPA has prohibited the

discharge into POTWs of effluent from

such facilities where the discharge

failed to fall within a pH range of 7.0 to

10.0. This limitation was established

primarily due to concerns over the

solubility of chromium at higher pH

levels and the potential for upsetting

biological treatment systems of POTWs.

To meet the pH requirement, leather

tanning facilities would mix high pH

beamhouse wastewaters with low pH

tanyard wastewaters in a flow

equalization process, resulting in a

wastewater discharge that would meet

the pH requirement.

In 1982, EPA subsequently set

chromium pretreatment standards for

the industry. The treatment technology

for chromium reduction is precipitation

at a pH range of 8.5 to 9.0, thus

requiring tanyard wastewater to be

raised from its usual range of 2.5 to 3.5.

However, this treatment was not

required at most facilities because

POTWs would grant removal credits

allowing chromium to be discharged

without pretreatment.

Following the invalidation of the

original removal credit regulation in

1986, see NRDC v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289

(3rd Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S.

1084 (1987), leather tanning facilities

raised the pH of the tanyard

wastewaters in order to achieve

necessary chromium reduction. The

petitioners assert that because the

resulting wastewaters, when combined

with the beamhouse wastewaters, are

still at a pH outside the pretreatment

standard, plants have found it necessary

to add acid to the combined wastewater

before discharge.

The petitioners indicate this

acidification is problematic for several

reasons. First, this adjustment to the pH

may result in the generation and release

of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a highly toxic

gas, in the leather tanning facility or in

the POTW. In addition, the petitioners

assert that many municipal authorities

believe that tannery wastewater

alkalinity and buffering capacity are

highly beneficial in counteracting sewer

corrosion and H2S generation within the

sewer system.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 35683

VI. Agency Action in Response to

Petition

In response to the petition, the

Agency conducted an informal survey of

a small number of POTWs receiving

leather tanning wastewaters, permitting

authorities, and industry representatives

knowledgeable of leather processing

operations and wastewater treatment.

Eight POTW managers and operators

were contacted regarding the issues

raised in the petition. Three of the

POTWs contacted were identified in the

petition and five of the POTWs

contacted were known by EPA to be

receiving wastewater from leather

tanning facilities. All those contacted

were amenable to receiving leather

tanning and finishing wastewaters with

a higher pH at the point of discharge to

the POTW. Four operators stated that

wastewaters with alkaline pH contribute

to more efficient POTW operation.

Three operators expressed the opinion

that higher pH levels inhibit corrosion.

Two operators stated that high pH at the

user’s point of discharge reduces or

eliminates the need for adding caustic to

the POTW treatment system to

maximize removal efficiency. One

POTW operator stated that his system

had not had any operating or

performance problems associated with

too high a pH in his system.

Based on review of the petition,

telephone discussions with operators

and managers of POTWs receiving

leather tanning wastewater, and

regulatory personnel, EPA has

determined that there is sufficient basis

for promulgating amendments to the

upper pH limit contained in the

pretreatment standards for existing and

new sources in the subparts identified

below.

VII. Options Considered

A. Selected Option

EPA is promulgating this rule to

revise the existing pretreatment

standards to eliminate upper (alkaline)

pH limits for plants in four

subcategories in which unhairing

operations are conducted. This minor

revision will benefit POTW operations

by lowering operating costs and

reducing potential risks for worker

safety and health. This option was

selected because EPA believes that

interference with the operation of

POTWs (i.e., damage to POTW

collection systems and upset of

biological treatment processes, and

potential for adverse effect on the health

and safety of POTW workers) and

potential for pass through of pollutants

are not likely events. Affected POTWs

may still elect to set an alternative

upper (alkaline) pH limit based on local

circumstances.

B. Other Options Considered

The following options were

considered but not selected.

(1) Option 2

EPA would promulgate a rule to

develop new upper (alkaline) pH limits

for all indirect dischargers in each of the

four subcategories affected by the

petition. This option was not selected

because EPA does not have sufficient

data to develop different pH limits.

Even if sufficient data were available to

develop different pH limits, this option

also may leave individual cases where

new pH limits still may not fit local

circumstances, thus requiring further

regulatory action. Moreover, as

indicated above, the information

currently available to the Agency

indicate that no upper (alkaline) pH

limits are necessary.

(2) Option 3

EPA would promulgate a rule adding

a new section to 40 CFR Part 425 which

would establish a procedure for use by

individual POTWs in changing the pH

range specified in the categorical

pretreatment standards. The procedure

would allow individual POTWs

receiving these wastewaters to

determine the appropriate upper

(alkaline) pH limit for each of the

affected leather tanning and finishing

facilities. POTWs would determine the

appropriate upper pH limit applicable

to each indirect discharging leather

tanning and finishing facility with

operations in the affected subcategories

based on consideration of all relevant

factors pertinent to the POTW,

including but not limited to those that

EPA might present in support of such an

option. EPA did not select this option

because of the added unnecessary

procedural burden this would place on

POTWs; as indicated above, EPA does

not believe that such limits are

necessary. Where local conditions make

such limits appropriate, POTWs should

be free to set limits based on existing

procedures rather than a new procedure

developed for this rule.

VIII. Scope of This Rule

This notice of a ‘‘direct’’ final rule

addresses only certain leather tanning

facilities that conduct beamhouse

operations and indirectly discharge

process wastewater to publicly owned

treatment works. Thus this final rule

applies to the standards in Subparts A,

B, F, and H of 40 CFR Part 425, at

§§ 425.15, 425.25, 425.65, and 425.85.

The petition submitted by the Leather

Industries of America, Inc., sought to

amend only the Pretreatment Standards

for Existing Sources (PSES). Because

EPA set Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS) equal to PSES, this final

rule applies to both existing and new

indirect dischargers. However, because

PSNS were set equal to PSES in each

subcategory, EPA need only promulgate

an amendment to PSES to effect the

elimination of the upper (alkaline) pH

limit for both existing and new sources

in these four subcategories.

The petitioners also asked for relief

from 40 CFR Part 425 Subpart C—

Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources—Hair Save or Pulp, NonChrome Tan, Retan—Wet Finish

subcategory. However, EPA’s

rulemaking to implement the 1984

settlement agreement addressed removal

of the upper (alkaline) pH limit for this

subcategory.

IX. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
35684 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted.

Under section 204 of the UMRA, EPA

generally must develop a process to

permit elected officials of State, local

and tribal governments (or their

designated employees with authority to

act on their behalf) to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulations containing

significant Federal intergovernmental

mandates. These consultation

requirements build on those of

Executive Order 12875 (‘‘Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership’’).

Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must

have developed under section 203 of the

UMRA a small government agency plan.

The plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments,

enabling officials of affected small

governments to have meaningful and

timely input in the development of EPA

regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. This

rule is intended to reduce the burden of

compliance by affected industries with

certain federal effluent requirements. In

addition, the approach selected for

altering the existing regulations is

intended also to decrease

implementation burdens for State and

local governments. Thus, today’s rule is

not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Similarly, EPA has also determined

that this rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments and

thus this rule is not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

However, EPA has nonetheless involved

state and local governments in the

process of developing this rule. The

Agency consulted with representatives

of selected POTWs regarding the

underlying technical aspects of this

rule. The Agency will continue this

process of consulting with state, local

and other affected parties after issuance

of the rule in order to further minimize

the potential for unfunded mandates.

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C 601 et seq., requires EPA and

other agencies to prepare a final

regulatory flexibility analysis for

regulations that have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This regulatory action does not

have any adverse impact on either small

or large entities. Therefore, a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Administrator certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

XII. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted a report containing

this rule and other required information

to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section

804(2) of the APA as amended.

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3500

et seq., EPA must submit a copy of any

rule that contains a collection-ofinformation requirement to the Director

of the Office of Management and Budget

for review and approval. This rule

contains no additional information

collection requirements beyond those

already required by 40 CFR part 403 and

40 CFR part 122 and by 40 CFR Part

425, and therefore the review

requirement of the Paperwork

Reduction Act is not applicable.

XIV. Administrative Procedure

Requirements

The Agency is publishing this action

as a ‘‘direct final’’ rule. A direct final

rule is not an ‘‘interim final’’ rule (i.e.

a rule which provides for public

comment after it has gone into effect);

rather it is a rule which is published

with a delayed effective date allowing

for the receipt of and response to public

comment before the rule goes into effect.

A response to all comments received

will be placed in the docket for this rule

prior to the effective date. This rule thus

fully complies with notice-andcomment requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

EPA has chosen to use the direct final

approach for this rule because the

Agency does not expect to receive

adverse or critical comment and to

allow for the most expeditious

implementation possible, consistent

with the APA. However, consistent with

APA requirements, if EPA does receive

significant adverse or critical comment,

EPA will withdraw this rule prior to its

effective date and proceed with a

normal rulemaking process. As a result,

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,

EPA is also proposing this rule; if EPA

decides to withdraw the direct final rule

based on public comment, EPA will

proceed with a revised rule based on

this proposal. There will not be an

additional comment period, so parties

interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 425

Leather, Leather Tanning and

Finishing, Water Pollution Control,

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal,

Pretreatment Standards for Existing and

New Sources.

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 425, subchapter N,

chapter I, of title 40, Code of Federal

Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 425—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 425

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314 (b), (c), (e)

and (g), 1316 (b) and (c), 1317 (b) and (c),

1318 and 1361.

Subpart A—Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan,

Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory

2. Section 425.15(a) is amended by

revising the footnote to the table to read

as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 35685

§ 425.15 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

(a) * * * lllllll 1Not less than 7.0.

* * * * *

Subpart B—Hair Save, Chrome Tan,

Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory

3. Section 425.25 is amended by

revising the footnote to the table to read

as follows:

§ 425.25 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *

lllllll 1Not less than 7.0.

Subpart F—Through-the-Blue

Subcategory

4. Section 425.65 is amended by

revising the footnote to the table to read

as follows:

§ 425.65 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *

lllllll 1Not less than 7.0.

Subpart H—Pigskin Subcategory

5. Section 425.85 is amended by

revising the footnote to the table to read

as follows:

§ 425.85 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *

lllllll 1Not less than 7.0.

[FR Doc. 96–17023 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Part 201–39

RIN 3090–AF89

Amendment of FIRMR Schedule

Provisions

AGENCY: Office of Policy, Planning and

Evaluation, GSA.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This change to the Federal

Information Resources Management

Regulation (FIRMR) removes provisions

for using Federal information processing

(FIP) multiple award schedule (MAS)

contracts. The Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) will now govern all

MAS contacting actions. This change is

an example of GSA’s ongoing efforts to

ensure uniform regulatory procedures

within the MAS program.

DATES: This amendment is effective July

8, 1996. Comments will be considered

in the final rule, but must be received

on or before September 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

GSA, Policy and Regulations Division

(MKR), 18th & F Streets, NW., Room

3224, Washington, DC 20405, Attn: Judy

Steele, or delivered to that address

between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judy Steele, GSA/MKR, FTS/

Commercial (202) 501–3194(v) or (202)

501–0657 (tdd), Internet

(judya.steele@gsa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As a result

of a recent reorganization, GSA’s FIP

MAS Program is now a part of the

Federal Supply Service schedule

program. The FIRMR is being revised to

reflect that change. Section 201–39.801–

1 is revised to clarify that the FIP MAS

contracts now fall under the FSS

program umbrella. Part 8 of the Federal

Acquisition Regulation governs the FSS

MAS Program, and will therefore, also

apply to FIP MAS schedule contracts.

Sections 201–39.803 and 201–39.803–1

through 201–39.803–3 are removed and

reserved since a separate section on

ordering from the FIP MAS contracts is

no longer necessary.

This rule was submitted to, and

reviewed by, the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) in accordance with

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review.

The recordkeeping provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act do not apply

because the FIRMR changes do not

impose information collection

requirements or collection of

information from offerors, contractors,

or members of the public which require

the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 201–39

Archives and records, Computer

technology, Federal information

processing resources activities,

Government procurement, Property

management, Records management, and

Telecommunications.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, GSA is amending 41 CFR Part

201–39 as follows:

PART 201–39—ACQUISITION OF

FEDERAL INFORMATION

PROCESSING (FIP) RESOURCES BY

CONTRACTING

1. The authority citation for part 201–

39 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).

2. Section 201–39.801–1 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 201–39.801–1 General.

GSA directs and manages the Federal

Supply Schedules programs. Except as

provided in § 201.39.804, use of the

Federal Supply Schedules program is

covered by FAR 8.4.

§§ 201–39.803, 201–39.803–1 through 201–

39.803–3 [Removed and Reserved]

3. Sections 201–39.803 and 201–

39.803–1 through 201–39.803–3 are

removed and reserved.

Dated: June 4, 1996.

David J. Barram,

Acting Administrator of General Services.

[FR Doc. 96–17125 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–25–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Part 514

[Docket No. 90-23]

Tariffs and Service Contracts; First

Interim ATFI Amendments

CFR Correction

In title 46 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 500 to end, revised as

of October 1, 1995, the table following

§ 514.17(d)(1) is incorrect. It should read

as follows: