29230 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 138 / Wednesday. July 18, 1990 / Proposed Rules
most law enforcement vessels it would
be simpler to allow these vessels to use
the blue light when performing public
safety activities than to expect
installation of another color light
Therefore, this rule also proposes to
amend the Pilot Rules to permit law
enforcement vessels to use the flashing
blue light when engaged in public safety
activities.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed regulation is non-major
under Executive Order 12291 and non-
significant under the DOT policies and
procedures (44 FR11034, February 28,
1979). The economic impact of this
proposal has been found to be so
minimal that further evaluation is
unnecessary. This proposal does not
impose any new economic burdens upon
the public. The proposed rulemaking
contains no information collection or
record keeping requirements. The Coast
Guard certifies that this proposal will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
Environmental Assessment
Under section 2.B.2 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is
categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. A
Categorical Exclusion Determination
has been placed in the docket, and is
available for inspection or copying
where indicated under "ADDRESSES".
Federalism
This proposed rule has been analyzed
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
12612, and it has been determined that
this proposed rulemaking does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 88
Navigation (water), waterways.
For the reasons stated above, the
Coast Guard proposes to amend part 88
of tide 33, Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:
PART 88—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 88 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2071; 49 CFR 1.48.
2. In § 88.11, paragraph (a) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 88.11 Law Enforcement Vessels.
(a) Law enforcement vessels may
display a flashing blue light when
engaged in direct law enforcement or
public safety activities. This light shall
be located so that it does not interfere
with the visibility of the vessel's
navigation lights.
* * * • * *
3. A new § 88.12 is added to read as
follows:
§88.12 Public Safety Vessels.
(a) Public safety vessels may display
an alternately flashing red and yellow
light when engaged in public safety
activities. This fight shall be located so
that it does not interfere with the
visibility of the vessel's navigation
lights. It is intended to be used only as
an identification signal and in itaelf
conveys no special privilege.
(b) A public safety vessel is a vessel
owned by, operated by, or acting with
the authority of the United States or a
state or a political subdivision of a state.
(c) Public safety activities include but
are not limited to patrolling marine
parades, regattas, or special water
celebrations; firefighting; traffic control;
and assisting in search and rescue.
Dated: July 11.1990.
J.W.Lockwood,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief,
Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway
Services.
[FR Doc. 90-16710 Filed 7-17-90; 8:45 am]
BILUNQ CODE 4910-14-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260 and 270
[FRL 3432-1]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; General and EPA-
Admlnistered Permit Programs: The
Hazardous Waste Permit Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On November 17,1980, the
Environmental Protection Agency
suspended the applicability of the
hazardous waste management facility
standards (40 GFR parts 264 and 285)
and RCRA permitting requirements (40
CFR part 270) to owners and operators
of wastewater treatment units and
elementary neutralization units at
wastewater treatment facilities subject
to regulation under the Clean Water
Act The Agency is today proposing to
amend the definition of "wastewater
treatment unit" in 40 CFR 260.10 and
270.2 to clarify that except for sludge
dryers, thermal treatment units (such as
incinerators), are not wastewater
treatment units. Thus, they must meet
the requirements of 40 CFR parts 264,
265, and 27O. .
EPA never intended that thermal
treatment units (except for sludge dryers
at wastewater treatment facilities) be
exempt from the requirements of 40 CFR
parts 264,265, and 270. Rather, specific
standards have been developed for
these non-exempt devices.
The Agency is also proposing a
definition for "sludge dryers" in 40 CFR
280.10 that will dearly distinguish them
from incinerators and other types of
thermal treatment units.
DATES: EPA will accept public comment
on this proposed rule until September
17,1990.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed
rule should be mailed to US.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
RCRA Docket, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-305), 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The Agency
requests that comments be submitted in
triplicate and be marked "Docket
Number F-90-WWTP-FFFF."
Comments received by EPA may be
inspected at the RCRA Docket in Room
2427 at the address above. Docket is
open from 9 ajn. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except for Federal
holidays.
Members of the public may make an
appointment to review docket materials
by calling (202) 475^-9327. Members of
the public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any one regulatory docket at
no cost, additional copies are $0.15 per
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-
9346, or at (202) 382-3000. Single copies
of this proposed rule can be obtained by
calling the Hotline. For technical
information, contact William J. Kline
(telephone (202) 382-4654), Office of
Solid Waste (OS-321), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 17,1989 (45 FR 76074),
EPA suspended the applicability of
RCRA permitting requirements (40 CFR
part 122, which is now codified as part
270) and hazardous waste management
facility standards (40 CFR parts 264 and
265) to owners and operators of devices
meeting the definition of "elementary
neutralization unit" or "wastewater
treatment unit" hi 40 CFR 260.10 and
270.2.
-------
Fedecal -Register / 'VOL 55. 'No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 1990 '/ 'Proposed-Rules
28231
EL Ssnoaaiid-.Baais.ior Amendment
Since-promulgaticrrr of the wastewater
treatment unit exclusion, the Agency
has-received numerous-reqtiests to
determine If certain types of units
satisfy the definition of "wastewater
treatment unit" and. therefore, currently
do not require a RCRA permit Many of
these requests have been with regard to
the regulatory status of thermal
treatment units, and sludge dryers in
particular.
In response, the Agency is today
proposing to amend the definition of
"wastewater treatment unit" to more
clearly explain which devices are so
classified (and therefore exempt from
the requirements of parts 2G4, 265. and
270). The revised definition will
specifically exclude thermal treatment
units, with the exceptionxif sludge
dryers, from the meaning of wastewater
treatment unit. EPA never intended that
thermal treatment units (with the
exception of sludge dryers) be eligible
for exemption from permit requirements
under the wastewater treatment unit
exclusion. Today's proposed rule would
simply clarify this longstanding policy.
The Agency also is proposing-to
correct any ambiguity in the
classification of thermal treatment units
by.proposing'a new definition for
"sludge dryer" that clearly distinguishes
it from an incinerator.
The current definition of
"wasterwater treatment unit" contains
three components. Wastewater
treatment unit, as defined in 5§ 260.10
and 270.2, means a device that:
(1) Is part of a wastewater treatment
facility that is subject to regulation
under either section 402 or section
307(b) of the Clean Water Act: and
(2) Receives-and treats or stores an
influent wastewater that is a hazardous
waste as defined in § 261.3 of this
chapter, or generates and accumulates a
wastewater treatment sludge that is, a
hazardous waste as defined in § 261.3 of
this chapter, or treats or stores, a
wastewater treatment sludge that is a
hazardous waste as defined in §261:3 of
this chapter: and
(3) Meets the definition of "tank" or
"tank system" is § 260.10 of this chapter.
Mote: The Agency published Baal
amendments to (be hazardous waste tank
system regulations on September 2,1988 (53
FR 34079). Among other changes, the
Amendments added the term "tank system."
along with the tenn "tank." in the definition
of "wastewater. treatment unit"-found in
H 280.10 and 270.2.
EPA is today proposing to amend the
definition of "wastewater treatment
uninfound in.§ 5-260:10 and 270.2- by
adding a fourth componentto' the
existing definition: (4}. Does not use. a
thermal treatment process, with.'the
exception of a sludge dryer.
The Agency believes this revised
definition.would more •dearly reflect its
policy that-shidge dryers, but not other
types of thermal treatment.units^may be
exempt torn-regulation under the
wastewater treatment unit exclusion.
The original definition was "intended
to include all industrial and municipal
wastewater and wastewater sludge
treatment and storage tanks that are
subject to regulation under the NPDES
or pretreatment programs of the Clean
Water Act" (45 FR 76077-76078). The
preamble to the November 17,1S80. final
rule also cited examples of specific
device intended to be covered by the
definition, including wastewater
clarifiers, aeration, tanks, grit chambers,
and "sludge digesters, thickeners, dryers
and other sludge-processing tanks'* (45
FR 76078). EPA intended that the
suspension only apply to-wastewater
treatment units that can be adequately
defined in a national regulation and for
which individually issued RCRA permits
are unnecessary.
EPA has-received frequent requests as
to the. regulatory status of sludge dryers.
Most of these requests have been from
owners -and manufacturers of sludge
dryers. The Agency believes that
approximately 400 sludge dryers are
currently being used in the metal
finishing industry to. dehydrate metal
hydroxide shidgea (waste code F006)
produced in1 the treatment of
wastewater:1 In response to these
inquiries, EPA distributed policy
memoranda to the Regional offices
explaining that a sludge dryer is
included within the scope of the
wastewater treatment tank exclusion,
provided that it meet* the definition of
"wastewater treatment unit." (See
OSWER Policy Directives 9503.52-1A
and 9503.-31-1A. available upon request
from the RCRA Hotline.)
Despite the original preamble
language and. the policy clarification, the
regulatory status of sludge dryers has
been a-subject of continuing confusion.
One reason for this confusion is because
it is debatable whether a sludge dryer
satisfies the third component of the
definition of wastewater treatment unit
(I.e., whether it meets the definition of a
"tank" or "tank system"). The Agency
has determined that-sludge dryers that
are integrally equipped with feed or
discharge hoppers'that contain an
accumulation of waste satisfy the
definition of "tankisystem.'*-Most sludge
dryers are so equipped. The Agency has
also determined that other unit
operations that'are not obviously
"tanks," such a» presses, filters, sumps,
and other types of processing
equipment, are covered within- the
meaning of the term when used in the
context of this exclusion (see OSWER
Policy Directive 9503.52-1A).
Another reason that the regulatory
status of-sludge dryers has been the
subject of many questions may be
because some sludge dryers technically
meet the current definition of an
"incinerator." although EPA never
intended to regulate indirect-flame or
direct-flame sludge dryers as
incinerators. When EPA amended the
definition of "incinerator" to use
physical design criteria rather than a
primary purpose test (i.e.. purpose of
burning), it clearly did not intend to
bring dryers under regulatory control as
incinerators. [See 50 FR 625 January 4.
1985, indicating that the revised
definition-would not bring large
numbers of devices under the
incinerator standards for the first time.)
Under the old primary purpose
definition, dryers were not incinerators.
Although under the revised definition
dryers could be classified as
incinerators,, this clearly was not EPA'a
intention. The Agency has attempted to
clarify this ambiguity by proposing to
regulate all nonexempt sludge dryers
(i.e., those not meeting the definition of
"wastewater tr.eatent unit" under
today's proposal, as discussed below)
under the interim status standards of
Parties,. Subpart P ('Thermal
Treatment"), and the permit standards
of Part 264. Subpart X ("Miscell. Units").
See 55 FR 17862 (April 27.1990 for
details. Comments on that proposal
should be directed to the docket for that
proposal. Today's proposal requests
comment only on the change to the
wastewater treatment unit definition
and the proposed definition of sludge
dryer.
.Even though sludge dryers are subject
to regulation as other thermal treatment
units, dryers that meet the § 260.10
definitions of "wastewater treatment
unit" and "tank" are exempt wastewater
treatment units under 5 § 284.1(g)(6) and
265.1(c)(10). The Agency believes that
virtually all sludge dryers meet the tank
definition and, therefore, would be
exempt when used as part of a
wastewater treatment system.1
* Midwest Research institute. "Summary Report
of Sludge Dryer Characterization*." USEPA. Office
of Solid Watte. EPA Contract No. 83-01-7287. April
5.1983.
* Because the Agency is concerned that sludge
dryers-exempted by the "wastewater treatment unit
exclusion" pose the same risk as fully regulated
Continued
-------
29232
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 138 /Wednesday. July 18, 1990 / Proposed Rules
The term "sludge dryer," as proposed,
would mean any enclosed thermal
treatment device that is used to
dehydrate sludge and that has a
maximum thermal input (i.e., from
wastes and auxiliary fuel) of 1,500 Bra/
Ib of waste treated on an as-fired (i.e.,
wet weight) waste basis. This definition
is intended to cover both direct- and
indirect-flame units. EPA believes that
this definition would clearly distinguish
dryers from incinerators because
incinerators require much higher
thermal input—from 3,300 to more than
19,000 Btu/lb of waste treated—to
achieve the temperatures necessary to
destroy organic compounds to levels
required by the incineration destruction
and removal efficiency standard. The
Agency understands that the thermal
input for sludge dryer is invariably less
than 1,500 Btu/lb.s
The wastewater treatment unit
exclusion is not applicable to other
thermal treatment units, such as
conventional sludge incinerators, that
may share some common physical
design characteristics with sludge
dryers. These uits have different
purposes. Sludge dryers are used to
evaporate water, rather than to destroy
or treat the hazardous constituents in •
the waste. To ensure that incinerators
are not intentionally operated under
poor combustion conditions to meet the
1,500 Btu/lb of waste maximum heat
input criteria and become eligible for the
sludge dryer/wastewater treatment unit
exemption, the definition would also
require the device -to be used for the
primary purpose of dehydrating sludge.
It was never EPA's intention that
thermal treatment units be exempt from
subtitle C regulation. Rather, standards
have been developed (or, in the case of
boilers and furnaces, have been
proposed for specific types of thermal
treatment devices, such as incinerators
(subpart O of parts 284 and 265), boilers,
and furnaces (subpart D of part 266),
and for other thermal treatment devices
(subpart X of part 264, and subpart P of
part 265). Even though these devices
may meet the "tank" definition, they are
not properly considered to be tanks;
there would be no reason to have the
special standards noted if these devices
were already covered by the tank
standards of subpart J. Thus, thermal
treatment units (other than sludge
dryers) that meet the "wastewater
treatment unit" definition are not
dryers, it intends to evaluate regulatory alternatives
for these units, but not a» part of the present
proceeding. These alternatives include applying
subpart X standards and developing specific RCRA
standards for sludge dryera.
3 Midwest Research Institute, op.cit
exempt because they are explicitly
regulated under a specific subpart
The Agency believes this distinction is
appropriate because when specific
standards aref promulgated for a type of
facility or device, the Agency makes
conscious decisions about which uses of
that device should be exempt As
intended, EPA did not provide an
explicit exemption for incinerators or
other thermal treatment units (other
than sludge dryers) that are part of a
wastewater treatment system.
Sludge dryers that do not meet the
definition of "wastewater treatment
unit" must comply with the permit
standards for other thermal treatment
devices (subpart X of part 264 or subpart
P of part 285; 52 FR 46946, December 10,
1987).
The Agency believes that this
proposed action will not increase the
size of the permitted universe. We are,
however, requesting comments
regarding additional thermal treatment
units that would need to be permitted as
a result of this clarification.
The Agency specifically invites
comments regarding the proposed
addition of sludge dryers to the existing
definition of a "wastewater treatment
unit" Public comments are not being
requested or accepted on other portions
of the existing definition.
Comments are also requested on '
whether it is necessary to specify, in the
definition of "sludge dryers," a minimum
percent volume reduction of the waste
caused by dehydration and, if so. what
percent would be appropriate. EPA's
concern is that without an objective test,
the requirement that dehydration be the
primary purpose of drying may be
difficult to interpret. This could
conceivably allow a waste with
minimum moisture content containing
toxic volatile compounds (and meeting
the definition of "sludge") to be
thermally treated in a sludge dryer, thus
volatilizing the toxic compounds.
Although very little of the waste's ,
volume is likely to be reduced, the
concentration of toxic organic
compounds could be lowered to levels
that would allow the waste to be
delisted. A minimum volume reduction
requirement due to dehydration could
ensure against such possible "sham
drying." EPA does not today propose a
specific volume reduction standard, but
it does solicit comment on this issue.
HI. Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291 (45 FR
13193. February 9,1981), a regulatery
agency must determine whether a new
regulation is "major" and, if so, must
conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis.
A major rule is defined as one that is
likely to result in: (l) An annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more:
(2) a major Increase in costs or prices for
consumers, Individual industries.
Federal, State, or local governm.. .it
agencies, or geographic regions; or (3)
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets. •
Today's proposed rule is not major
because it will have none of the above
effects. This rulemaking will simply
clarify the definition of "wastewater
treatment unit" to more clearly reflect
an existing policy, and will not result in
any change in the number of regulated
units. Therefore, the Agency has not
conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis
for today's proposed amendment. This
proposed rule was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review, as required by
Executive Order 12291.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever an
agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). The Administrator may
certify, however, that the rule will not -
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not have an adverse
economic impact on small entities, since
it will not pose any burden on the
regulated community. In fact, the
universe of regulated units \vill not
change. The rule is intended to clarify
regulatory language to more clearly
reflect existing EPA policy. Accordingly,
1 hereby certify that this proposed
regulation would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This
regulation, therefore, does not require a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
C. Paperwork Reduction Aci
This proposed rule does not contain
any information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 138 / Wednesday. July 18, 1990 / Proposed Rules
29233
list of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260 and
270
Administrative-practices and
procedures, Confidential business
information. Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control,
and Water supply.
Dated: June 20,1990. '
WfflUm ICBailly.
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
Preamble, it is proposed to amend title
40 of the Coda of Pederal Regulations,
parts 260 and 270 as follows:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL .
40 CER part 280 is amended as
follows:
"L The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. B912(a), 6921
through 6927,6930.6934,6935, 6937,6938 and
6839.
2, In § 280.10, it is proposed to add the
definition of "sludge dryer" and amend
the definition of "wastewater treatment
unit" by removing the period after
paragraph (3) and adding the phrase";
and" after paragrah (3) and a new
paragraph (4) to.read as follows:
§260.10 Definition*.
• *,***
Sludge dryer means any enclosed
thermal treatment device that is used to
dehydrate gluHgp and that has a
maximum total thermal input of 1,500
Btu/lb of sludge treated on a wet-weight
basis.
• * * -- * *
Wastewater treatment unit means a
device that:
* * *. * *
(4) Does not use a thermal treatment
process, with the exception of a sludge
dryer.
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
40 CFR part 270 is amended as
follows:
3. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912.6925,6927,
8939, and 6974.
4. The definition of "wastcwater
treatment unit" in 5 270.2 is amended by
removing the period after paragraph (c)
and adding the phrase";, and" after
paragraph (c) and a new paragraph (d)
to read as follows:
§27O2 Definitions.
*****
Wastewater treatment unit means a
device that:
*****
(d) Does not use a thermal treatment
process, with the exception of sludge
drying.
[ER Doc. 90-16753 FUed 7-17-90; 8:45 am]
BtcuMO cone MOO-W-*
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No FEMA-6994]
Proposed Rood Elevation
Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ACTION; Proposed role.
SUMMARY: Technical information or
comments are solicited on .the proposed
base (100-year) flood elevations and
proposed base flood elevation
modifications listed belowfor selected
locations in the nation. These base (100-
year) flood elevations are the basis for
the floodplain management measures
that the community is required to either
adopt or 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 period for comment will be
ninety (90) days following the second
publication of this proposed rule in a
' newspaper of local circulation hi each
community. •
ADDRESSES: See table below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John L. Matticks, Chief, Risk Studies
Division, Federal Insurance
Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Washington, DC
20472, (202) 646-2767.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Federal Emergency Management
Agency gives notice of the proposed
determinations of base (100-year) flood
elevations and modified base flood
elevations for selected locations in the
nation, in accordance with Section 110
of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 (Pub. 93-234), 87 Stat 980, which
added section 1363 to the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (title Xffl of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 tLS.C. 4001-
4128, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These elevations, together with the
floodplain management measures
required by § 60J of the program
regulations, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed
to mean 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 on
its own, or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or
regional entities. These proposed
elevations will also be used to calculate
the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings and
their contents and for the second layer
of insurance on existing buildings and
then-contents., .
• Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
805(b). the Administrator, to whom
authority has been delegated by the
Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, hereby certifies
that the proposed flood elevation
determinations, if promulgated, will not,
have'a «"gnifir.aTit economic.impact on a
substantial number of small entities. A
flood elevation determination under
section 1363 forms the basis for new
local'ordinances, which, if adopted by a
local community, will govern future
construction within the floodplain area.
The elevation determinations, however,
impose no restriction unless and until
the local community voluntarily adopts
floodplain ordinances in accord with
these elevations. Even if ordinances are
adopted in compliance with Federal
standards, the elevations prescribe how
high to build in the floodplain and do
not prohibit development Thus, this
action only forms the basis for future
local actions. It imposes no new
requirement; of itself it has no economic
impact.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
Flood insurance. Flood plains.
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, E.0.12127.
2. The proposed base (100-year) flood
elevations for selected locations are:
------- |