65FR26550 Community XL (XLC) Site-Specific Rulemaking for Steele County, Minnesota; Proposed Rule, Part 2/2
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 89, Page 26550, Part 1
[[Page 26559]]
wastewater treatment plants) that children are unlikely to come in
contact with on a routine basis. The proposed rule has no identifiable
direct impact upon the health and/or safety risks to children and
adoption of the proposed regulatory changes would not
disproportionately affect children. The proposed rulemaking is thus in
compliance with the intent and requirements of the Executive Order.
F. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132 on Federalism?
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The requirements outlined in
today's proposed rule will not take effect unless Minnesota chooses to
adopt equivalent requirements through revisions to Owatonna's NPDES
permit and Owatonna chooses to take the steps to implement the proposed
rule and make revisions to any local law and industrial user permits.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule, EPA did fully coordinate and consult with State and
local officials in developing this rule.
G. How Does This Rule Comply with Executive Order 13084: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities''. Today's proposed rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. There are no communities of Indian tribal governments
located in the vicinity of Steele County. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
H. Does This Rule Comply With National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 ``NTTAA'')?
Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary standards. This proposed
rulemaking sets equivalent means of expressing the same technical
standards, and of determining compliance with those standards. It also
uses voluntary goals to achieve pollutant reductions beyond those
required by the technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 403
Environmental protection, Confidential business information,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.
Dated: May 3, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 403, title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 403--GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
1. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
2. Section 403.19 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 403.19 Provisions of specific applicability to the Owatonna Waste
Water Treatment Facility.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the term ``Participating
Industrial Users'' includes the following Industrial Users in the City
of Owatonna, Minnesota: Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc.; Cybex
International Inc.; Gandy Company, Inc.; Josten's Inc.--Southtown
Facility; Mustang Manufacturing Company; SPx Corporation, Power Team
Division; SPx Corporation, Service Solutions Division; Truth Hardware
Corporation; and Uber Tanning Company.
(b) For a Participating Industrial User discharging to the Owatonna
Waste Water Treatment Facility in Owatonna, Minnesota, when a
categorical Pretreatment Standard is expressed in terms of pollutant
concentration the City of Owatonna may convert the limit to a mass
limit by multiplying the five-year, long-term average process flows of
the Participating Industrial User (or a shorter period if production
has significantly increased or decreased during the five year period)
by the concentration-based categorical standard. Participating
Industrial Users must notify the City in the event production rates are
expected to vary by
[[Page 26560]]
more than 20 percent from a baseline production rate determined by
Owatonna when it establishes a Participating Industrial User's initial
mass limit. To remain eligible to receive equivalent mass limits the
Participating Industrial User must maintain at least the same level of
treatment as at the time the equivalent mass limit is established. Upon
notification of a revised production rate from a Participating
Industrial User, the City will reassess the appropriateness of the mass
limit. Owatonna shall reestablish the concentration-based limit if a
Participating Industrial User does not maintain at least the same level
of treatment as when the equivalent mass limit was established.
(c) If a categorical Participating Industrial User of the Owatonna
Waste Water Treatment Facility has demonstrated through sampling and
other technical factors, including a comparison of three years of
effluent data with background data, that pollutants regulated through
categorical Pretreatment Standards, other than 40 CFR part 414, are not
expected to be present in quantities greater than the background
influent concentration to the industrial process, the City of Owatonna
may reduce the sampling frequency specified in Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(v) to
once during the term of the categorical Participating Industrial User's
permit.
(d) If a Participating Industrial User is discharging to the
Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility in Owatonna, Minnesota and is
subject to a categorical Pretreatment Standard other than one codified
at 40 CFR part 414, the City of Owatonna may authorize the
Participating Industrial User to forego sampling of a pollutant if the
Participating Industrial User has demonstrated through sampling and
other technical factors, including a comparison of three years of
effluent data with background data, that the pollutant is not expected
to be present in quantities greater than the background influent
concentration to the industrial process, and the Participating
Industrial User certifies on each report, with the following statement,
that there has been no increase in the pollutant in its wastestream due
to activities of the Participating Industrial User. The following
statement is to be included as a comment to the periodic reports
required by Sec. 403.12(e):
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly
responsible for managing compliance with the pretreatment standard
for 40 CFR ____, I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the raw materials, industrial processes, and potential by-
products have not contributed this pollutant to the wastewaters
since filing of the last periodic report under 40 CFR 403.12(e).
(e) If the average daily loading from the Participating Industrial
Users to the Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility is equal to or
less than .69 pounds per day of chromium, .28 pounds per day of copper,
1.18 pounds per day of nickel, and 1.11 pounds per day of zinc,
Owatonna may authorize a categorical Participating Industrial User to
satisfy the reporting requirements of Sec. 403.12(e) with an annual
report provided on a date specified by Owatonna, provided that the
Participating Industrial User has no reasonable potential to violate a
Pretreatment Standard for any pollutant for which reduced monitoring is
being allowed, and has not been in Significant Noncompliance within the
previous three years.
(f) The Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility in Owatonna,
Minnesota shall post public notice of all Significant Noncompliance
subject to the publication requirement in Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(vii) at the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency website for a period of one year, as
soon as practicable upon identifying the violations. In addition, the
Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility shall post an explanation of
how Significant Noncompliance is determined, and a contact name and
phone number for information regarding other, non-Significant
Noncompliance violations. If a violation is not corrected within thirty
(30) calendar days or results in pass through or interference at the
Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility, publication must also be made
in the format specified in Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(vii).
(g) The provisions of this section shall expire on [DATE FIVE YEARS
FROM PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE].
[FR Doc. 00-11433 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P