Proposed Revised Compliance Dates Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26582-26587]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10my07-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 412
[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036; FRL-8311-4]
RIN 2040-AE92
Proposed Revised Compliance Dates Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to extend certain compliance dates in the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs)
for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) while EPA works to
complete rulemaking to respond to the decision of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486
(2nd Cir. 2005). The sole purpose of this proposed rule is to address
timing issues associated with the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper
decision.
This proposal would revise the dates established in the 2003 CAFO
rule and later modified by a rule published in the Federal Register on
February 10, 2006, by which facilities newly defined as CAFOs are
required to seek permit coverage and by which all permitted CAFOs are
required to develop and implement their nutrient management plans
(NMPs). EPA is proposing to extend the date by which operations defined
as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to
that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to
February 27, 2009. EPA is also proposing to amend the date by which
operations that become defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, due to
operational changes that would not have made them a CAFO prior to April
14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must seek NPDES permit
coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. Finally, EPA is
proposing to extend the deadline by which permitted CAFOs are required
to develop and implement NMPs, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received on or before
June 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0036 by one of the following methods
(1) http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
(2) E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0036.
(3) Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to:
Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
OW-2005-0036.
(4) Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0036. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-
0036. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
[[Page 26583]]
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Roose, Water Permits Division,
Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564-0758, e-mail address: roose.rebecca@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Background
A. The Clean Water Act
B. History of Actions to Address CAFOs Under the NPDES
Permitting Program
C. Status of EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Decision
D. History of CAFO Compliance Dates
III. This Proposed Rule
A. Application Deadline for Newly Defined CAFOs
B. Deadline for Nutrient Management Plans
IV. Rationale for This Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action applies to concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) as defined in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act and in the
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.23. The following table provides a list
of standard industrial codes for operations covered under this revised rule.
Table 1.--Entities Potentially Regulated by This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
North American industrial
Category Examples of regulated entities industry code classification
(NAIC) code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal, State, and Local Government:
Industry................................ Operators of animal production
operations that meet the
definition of a CAFO:
Beef cattle feedlots 112112 0211
(including veal).
Beef cattle ranching and 112111 0212
farming.
Hogs.......................... 11221 0213
Sheep......................... 11241, 0214
11242
General livestock except dairy 11299 0219
and poultry.
Dairy farms................... 11212 0241
Broilers, fryers, and roaster 11232 0251
chickens.
Chicken eggs.................. 11231 0252
Turkey and turkey eggs........ 11233 0253
Poultry hatcheries............ 11234 0254
Poultry and eggs.............. 11239 0259
Ducks......................... 112390 0259
Horses and other equines...... 11292 0272
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 may be regulated under this rulemaking, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 122.23. 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.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information. Do not submit this
information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a
[[Page 26584]]
copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as
CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information
so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures
set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. It will be helpful if you
follow these guidelines as you prepare your written comments:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. The Clean Water Act
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972),
also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to ``restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.''
33 U.S.C. 1251(a). Among its core provisions, the CWA established the
NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharge of
pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S. 33 U.S.C. 1342. EPA
has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES program
at 40 CFR Part 122. The Act also provided for the development of
technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations that are
imposed through NPDES permits to control the discharge of pollutants
from point sources. CWA Section 301(a) and (b).
B. History of Actions To Address CAFOs Under the NPDES Permitting Program
EPA's regulation of wastewater and manure from CAFOs dates from the
1970s. EPA initially issued national effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for feedlots on February 14, 1974, (39 FR 5704) and NPDES
CAFO regulations on March 18, 1976 (41 FR 11458).
In February 2003, EPA revised these regulations. 68 FR 7176 (the
``2003 CAFO rule''). The 2003 CAFO rule required owners or operators of
all CAFOs\1\ to seek coverage under an NPDES permit, unless they
demonstrated no potential to discharge. CAFO industry organizations
(American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers Council,
National Chicken Council, and National Turkey Federation (NTF),
although NTF later withdrew its petition) and environmental groups
(Waterkeeper Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club,
and American Littoral Society) filed petitions for judicial review of
certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule. This case was brought before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 28, 2005, the
court ruled on these petitions and upheld most provisions of the 2003
rule but vacated and/or remanded others. Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v.
EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005) (hereafter referred to as
Waterkeeper). Notably, the court vacated the requirement that all CAFOs
apply for NPDES permit coverage unless a CAFO demonstrates no potential
to discharge. The court also remanded the rule for failing to require
incorporation of the terms of CAFOs' NMPs into their permits and for
failing to prescribe public review and comment and permitting authority
approval of the terms of the NMPs. Other provisions were remanded for
further clarification and analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To improve readability in this preamble, reference is made
to ``CAFOs'' as well as ``owners and operators of CAFOs.'' No change
in meaning is intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Status of EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Decision
On June 30, 2006, EPA published a proposed rule in response to the
Waterkeeper decision. 71 FR 37744. EPA proposed to revise several
aspects of the Agency's regulations governing discharges from CAFOs. In
summary, EPA proposed to require only owners or operators of those
CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge to seek coverage under a
permit. Second, EPA proposed to require CAFOs seeking coverage under a
permit to submit their NMP with their application for an individual
permit or, for general permit coverage, with their notice of intent to
be authorized to discharge under a general permit. Permitting
authorities would be required to review the NMP and provide the public
with an opportunity for meaningful public review and comment.
Permitting authorities would also be required to incorporate terms of
the NMP as NPDES permit conditions. The proposed rule also addressed
the remand of issues for further clarification and analysis. These
issues concern the applicability of water-quality based effluent
limitations (WQBELs); the record supporting new source performance
standards for swine, poultry, and veal CAFOs; and the record support
for ``best conventional technology'' effluent limitations guidelines
for pathogens. The proposed rule reflected the dates for compliance as
revised in February 2006; i.e., July 31, 2007, for permit application
by newly defined CAFOs and NMP development and implementation by all
permitted CAFOs. The public comment period for the June 2006 CAFO
proposal closed on Aug. 29, 2006. EPA will respond to these comments
when it takes final action on the June 30, 2006, proposed rule.
In this action, EPA is proposing, and accepting comment only on, a
change to the date by which certain operations must seek coverage under
an NPDES permit and the date by which all permitted CAFOs must develop
and implement their NMPs.\2\ In part because of extensive and widely
divergent public comment on the array of issues raised by the court,
EPA will not complete a final rule revising the 2003 CAFO rule before
the current compliance dates of July 31, 2007, and is, therefore,
proposing to revise this compliance date. Though EPA describes them
here for context, the proposed provisions in the June 2006 proposed
rule in response to Waterkeeper are beyond the scope of this current
proposal, and EPA is not taking comment on these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Note that in response to the Waterkeeper decision, EPA
proposed a variation to the ``develop and implement'' language of
the June 2006 proposal which stated that a CAFO operator must submit
an NMP with its permit application or NOI and that it must be
implemented upon permit coverage. 71 FR 37744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. History of CAFO Compliance Dates
The 2003 CAFO rule amended the definition of ``CAFO'' to add
facilities that had not previously been defined as CAFOs (in the 1976
regulations). 40 CFR 122.23(b). Operations newly defined as CAFOs in
the 2003 CAFO rule included veal operations, swine weighing less than
55 pounds, chicken and layer operations using other than liquid manure
handling systems, and animal feeding operations (AFOs) that were
[[Page 26585]]
previously not defined as CAFOs because they discharged only in the
event of a 25-year/24-hour storm. CAFOs in these categories that were
in existence when the 2003 CAFO rule took effect (April 14, 2003)
represent the group of CAFOs that were initially subject to a February
13, 2006, deadline for permit application. 68 FR 7267. In addition,
other existing facilities that became defined as CAFOs under the
revised CAFO definitions in the 2003 CAFO rule include so-called ``new
dischargers'' that subsequent to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO
rule became CAFOs due to changes in their operations, where such
changes would not have made the operation a CAFO prior to April 14,
2003. This second group of facilities was initially required to seek
permit coverage by April 13, 2006, or 90 days after becoming defined as
a CAFO, whichever date is later. 68 FR 7268. Thus, each of these groups
of CAFOs were allowed three years from the 2003 rule to seek permit
coverage when EPA issued the 2003 CAFO rule.
EPA reasoned in the 2003 CAFO rule, and reiterated in the 2006 date
change rule, that allowing newly regulated entities three years to come
into compliance was consistent with Congressional intent, as expressed
in the 1972 Clean Water Act with respect to newly established point
sources. Moreover, the Agency stated that the three year timeframe was
necessary for States authorized to administer the NPDES permit program
to provide permit coverage for CAFOs that were not previously required
to be permitted and to revise State regulatory programs. 68 FR 7204.
In addition to the requirements to seek permit coverage, the 2003
CAFO rule also required all permitted CAFOs to develop and implement
NMPs by December 31, 2006. EPA believed that this date was reasonable
given that operations would have had a little over three and a half
years from the issuance of the 2003 rule to develop and implement an
NMP. This timeframe allowed States to update their NPDES programs and
issue permits to reflect the NMP requirements of the 2003 CAFO rule. It
also provided flexibility for permitting authorities to establish
permit schedules based on specific circumstances, including
prioritization of nutrient management plan development and
implementation based on site-specific water quality risks and the
available infrastructure for development of NMPs.
These timing considerations were affected by the Waterkeeper
decision. On February 10, 2006, prior to the Agency's proposed rule
responding to the Waterkeeper decision, EPA promulgated a limited rule
to revise each of the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule that were
affected by the decision (referred to as the ``2006 date rule''). 71 FR
6978. Specifically, EPA extended the dates for those newly defined
CAFOs described above to seek NPDES permit coverage and the date by
which all CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs. EPA revised these
dates in order to: (1) Provide the Agency sufficient time to take final
action on the regulatory revisions with respect to the Waterkeeper
decision; and (2) require NMPs to be submitted at the time of the
permit application, consistent with the court's decision. It was
necessary for EPA to revise the dates separately from addressing the
rest of the issues raised by the Waterkeeper decision because EPA had
not completed the proposed rule responding to the Waterkeeper decision
prior to the dates by which newly defined CAFOs were required to seek
permit coverage.
III. This Proposed Rule
This notice proposes to amend the section detailing when operations
defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs
prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, as well as the
section detailing when, due to operational changes, operations that
would not have become CAFOs under the prior rule become CAFOs under the
2003 rule. Second, EPA is proposing to extend the deadline by which
permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs. This
proposed rule would not modify or otherwise affect any other existing
regulatory provisions, nor does it reopen the comment period on the
proposed rule to respond to the Waterkeeper decision published on June,
30, 2006. 71 FR 37744.
A. Application Deadline for Newly Defined CAFOs
EPA is proposing to extend the date by which operations defined as
CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to
that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to
February 27, 2009. EPA is also proposing to amend the date by which
operations that became defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, or that
will become CAFOs due to operational changes that would not have made
them a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must
seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009.
This proposed rule would not affect the applicable time for seeking
permit coverage for newly constructed CAFOs not subject to new source
performance standards (NSPS) or for new source CAFOs subject to NSPS
that discharge or propose to discharge, even those in categories that
were added to the definition of a CAFO in the 2003 CAFO rule. These
CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge are required by 40 CFR
122.21(a) and 123.23(g)(3)(i) and (4) to seek NPDES permit coverage at
least 180 days prior to the time that they commence operating, and
these provisions were unaffected by the 2006 date rule.
This proposed rule would not supersede State requirements. States
may choose to require CAFOs to obtain NPDES permits in advance of the
dates set in the federal NPDES regulations, pursuant to the authority
reserved to States under section 510 of the Clean Water Act to adopt
requirements more stringent than those that apply under federal law.
Further, CAFOs that are already permitted, e.g., CAFOs that existed
prior to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO rule and as such have been
required to seek NPDES permit coverage even before EPA issued the 2003
CAFO rule, continue to be required to maintain permit coverage pursuant
to section 122.23(h).
EPA is also proposing to correct a typographical error that was
created in the 2006 date rule. In that rule, 40 CFR 122.23(g)(1) as
promulgated in the 2003 CAFO rule (which provides that existing
operations defined as CAFOs prior to April 14, 2003, must seek permit
coverage by the effective date of the 2003 rule) was inadvertently
replaced with 40 CFR 122.23(g)(2) (which provides extended compliance
dates for operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, but were
not defined as CAFOs prior to that date). Because the ``(2)'' was
erroneously printed as ``(1)'', section 122.23(g)(1) was overwritten
and section 122.23(g)(2) was incorrectly left unchanged. As a result,
the current rule contains two provisions applicable to ``Operations
defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, who were not defined as CAFOs
prior to that date'' with conflicting dates. EPA is proposing to
restore the original section 122.23(g)(1) as promulgated in 2003, and
to revise the date in section 122.23(g)(2) to reflect this proposal.
B. Deadline for Nutrient Management Plans
EPA is proposing to extend the deadline by which permitted CAFOs
are required to develop and implement NMPs, from July 31, 2007, to
February 27, 2009. This proposal would revise all references to the
date by which CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs
[[Page 26586]]
currently in Parts 122 and 412. Thus, this proposal would revise the
deadlines established in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x), 122.42(e)(1),
412.31(b)(3), and 412.43(b)(2).
This proposal would not supersede State requirements, nor would it
affect CAFOs operating under existing permits so long as those permits
remain in effect. If their existing permits require development and
implementation of an NMP, currently permitted CAFOs must develop and
implement their NMPs in accordance with the terms of their current
permit, or their applicable state requirements. This proposed rule also
would not affect the applicable land application limitations and
requirements for all CAFOs subject to the new source performance
standards under 40 CFR 412.35 and 40 CFR 412.46. Upon permit coverage,
new sources must meet all relevant land application requirements.
IV. Rationale for This Action
At the time of the 2006 date rule, EPA believed that July 31, 2007,
would allow sufficient time for the Agency to complete the rulemaking
to address the Waterkeeper decision. EPA also reasoned that the basis
for these revised dates was generally consistent with the approach
taken by Congress in the 1972 Clean Water Act, as explained when
setting the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule. 68 FR 7204. EPA
anticipated that the dates established in the 2006 date rule provided
sufficient time to ensure compliance with the NPDES regulations within
a reasonable timeframe consistent with the dates established in the
2003 CAFO rule. 71 FR 6980-81.
The amount of time needed to revise the rule in response to the
Waterkeeper decision has been greater than EPA anticipated at the time
it promulgated the 2006 date rule. At that time, EPA had not yet
proposed revisions to the CAFO rule and could only surmise what the
public response to the proposal would be. In light of comments received
and after further consideration of the proposed rule, EPA is continuing
to explore the best method of implementing the Waterkeeper decision. To
avoid any potential conflict with existing deadlines that precede the
publication of the final rule, it is appropriate to propose this
rulemaking to change the dates at issue.
In comments on the proposed 2006 date rule, commenters asserted
that the proposed deadlines would not offer CAFOs sufficient time to
submit permit applications, including NMPs, that will comply with the
regulatory revisions the Agency is planning to address in its response
to the Waterkeeper decision. Other commenters expressed the view that
EPA needed to take into consideration the time necessary for States to
make conforming revisions to State programs following EPA's regulatory
revisions. See docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036. Commenters reiterated
these concerns in comments on the 2006 proposed CAFO rule in response
to Waterkeeper. See docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037. This proposed rule
balances the need to address the concerns raised by commenters with the
interest of having the regulatory requirements implemented in a timely
fashion. In EPA's view, this proposal would also provide sufficient
time for newly defined facilities to review the revised duty to apply
requirements to determine whether they need to seek permit coverage.
Finally, it would provide time for permitting authorities to identify
the necessary procedures for reviewing NMPs and incorporating them into
general permits. Taking into account the time EPA needs to complete the
rule in response to Waterkeeper, as well as the period of time after
the final rule is promulgated to allow States, the regulated community,
and other stakeholders the opportunity to adjust to the new regulatory
requirements, EPA believes that extending the dates to February 27,
2009, is reasonable.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. As discussed
above, the purpose of this proposed rule is solely to address timing
issues associated with the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper court
ruling on petitions for review challenging portions of the 2003 CAFO
rule. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
since the effect of the proposal, if implemented, is solely to extend
certain deadlines related to NPDES CAFO permitting. Additionally, this
proposed rule would not affect small governments, as the permitting
authorities are state or federal agencies. We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. EPA has determined
that this proposed 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. In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to
sections 202, 203, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999
(Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this proposed rule does not have Tribal
implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) because it will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This
proposed rule will not have federalism implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it will
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local
governments, nor will it preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of
sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health and safety risks addressed by this action present
a disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) which establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. EPA has determined
that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided
to human health or the environment. This proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not involve
technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose any new
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR
Parts 9, 122, 123, and 412 under
[[Page 26587]]
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0250. The EPA ICR number for
the original set of regulations is 1989.02.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 122
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 412
Environmental protection, Feedlots, Livestock, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: May 3, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 122 and 412 as follows:
PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:
Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Sec. 122.21 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 122.21 paragraph (i)(1)(x), the date ``July 31, 2007''
is revised read ``February 27, 2009''.
3. Section 122.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2),
and (g)(3)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 122.23 Concentrated animal feeding operations (applicable to
State NPDES programs, see Sec. 123.25).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Operations defined as CAFOs prior to April 14, 2003. For
operations that are defined as CAFOs under regulations that are in
effect prior to April 14, 2003, the owner or operator must have or seek
to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit as of April 14, 2003, and
comply with all applicable NPDES requirements, including the duty to
maintain permit coverage in accordance with paragraph (h) of this
section.
(2) Operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not
defined as CAFOs prior to that date. For all operations defined as
CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to
that date, the owner or operator of the CAFO must seek to obtain
coverage under an NPDES permit by a date specified by the Director, but
no later than February 27, 2009.
(3) * * *
(iii) If an operational change that makes the operation a CAFO
would not have made it a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, the operation
has until February 27, 2009, or 90 days after becoming defined as a
CAFO, whichever is later.
* * * * *
Sec. 122.42 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 122.42 paragraph (e)(1), the two dates ``July 31,
2007'' are revised read ``February 27, 2009''.
PART 412--CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFO) POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
5. The authority citation for part 412 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, 1361.
Sec. 412.31 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 412.31 paragraph (b)(3), the date ``July 31, 2007'' is
revised to read ``February 27, 2009''.
Sec. 412.43 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 412.43 paragraph (b)(2), the date ``July 31, 2007'' is
revised to read ``February 27, 2009''.
[FR Doc. E7-9027 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}