![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Leather Tanning and Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines; Pretreatment Standards; New and Existing Sources
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
Leather Tanning and Finishing Effluent Limitations Guideline[Federal Register: July 8, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 131)] [Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35680-35685]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 425RIN 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. [[Page 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 Sec. 425.15, Sec. 425.25, Sec. 425.65, or Sec. 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 RequirementsI. 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'').
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 GloversvilleJohnstown
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.
[[Page 35682]]
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,
Retan-Wet Finish subcategory (Sec. 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 (H<INF>2S), 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 H<INF>2S generation within the sewer
system.
[[Page 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 Secs. 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,
[[Page 35684]]
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 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-of-information 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-and-comment 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]
- 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:
[[Page 35685]]
Sec. 425.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) * * *
\1\ Not less than 7.0.
- * * * *
3. Section 425.25 is amended by revising the footnote to the table to read as follows: Sec. 425.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
- * * * *
\1\ Not less than 7.0.
4. Section 425.65 is amended by revising the footnote to the table to read as follows: Sec. 425.65 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
- * * * *
\1\ Not less than 7.0.
5. Section 425.85 is amended by revising the footnote to the table to read as follows: Sec. 425.85 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
- * * * *
\1\ Not less than 7.0.