4. New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) EPA proposed NSPS for the General Metals subcategory based on Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2 ( including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a microfilter ( instead of a clarifier). Commentors stated that EPA had undercosted the Option 4 technology and that the compliance costs would be a barrier to entry for new facilities. In addition, commentors questioned the completeness of EPA's database on microfiltration, noting that EPA transferred standards for several pollutants from the Option 2 technology, based on lack of data. EPA reviewed its database for the Option 4 technology and agrees that its microfiltration database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4 limitations are technically achievable. EPA also evaluated setting General Metals NSPS based on the Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new General Metals direct dischargers. Specifically, EPA's `` barrier to entry'' analysis identified whether General Metals NSPS based on the Option 2 technology would pose sufficient financial burden as to constitute a material barrier to entry of new General Metals establishments into the MP& M point source category. Additionally, EPA reviewed its database for establishing General Metals NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as commentors indicated the proposed standards were not technically achievable. In response to these comments, EPA reviewed all the information currently available on General Metals facilities employing the Option 2 technology basis. This review demonstrated that process wastewaters at General Metals facilities contain a wide variety of metals in significant concentrations. Commentors stated that single stage precipitation and solids separation step may not achieve sufficient removals for wastewaters that contain significant concentrations of a wide variety of metals   especially if the metals preferentially precipitate at disparate VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25703 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations pH ranges. Consequently, to address concerns raised by commentors, EPA also costed new sources to operate two separate chemical precipitation and solids separation steps in series. Twostage chemical precipitation and solids separation allows General Metals facilities with multiple metals to control metal discharges to concentrations lower than single stage chemical precipitation and solids separation over a wider pH range. Applying this revised costing approach, EPA projects a barrier to entry for General Metals NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as 14% of General Metals direct dischargers have after tax compliance costs between 1 to 3% of revenue, 22% have after tax compliance costs between 3 to 5% of revenue, and 2% have after tax compliance costs greater than 5% of revenue. Consequently, based on the compliance costs of the modified Option 2 technology EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis for NSPS in the General Metals subcategory. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results. EPA also considered transferring NSPS from existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines ( 40 CFR 433.16) to the General Metals subcategory. EPA reviewed existing General Metals direct dischargers and found that all are currently either covered by or have permits based on the Metal Finishing limitations at 40 CFR part 433. EPA has no basis to conclude that new General Metals facilities would have less stringent requirements than existing facilities, particularly since, in the absence of promulgated NSPS, it is likely that permit writers would consult the part 433 requirements to establish BPJ limits. In addition, those new facilities which meet the applicability criteria for part 433 will be subject to the NSPS for that category. Therefore, transferring standards from these existing Metal Finishing effluent limitations guidelines would likely result in no additional pollutant load reductions. Therefore, based on the lack of additional pollutant removals that are estimated, EPA is not promulgating NSPS for the General Metals subcategory. EPA is not revising or establishing NSPS for any facilities in this subcategory. Direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory will remain regulated by permit limits and part 433, as applicable. 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources ( PSES)

EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory based on the Option 2 technology ( i. e., the same technology basis that EPA considered for BPT/ BCT/ BAT for this subcategory) with a `` low flow'' exclusion of 1 million gallons per year ( MGY) to reduce economic impacts on small businesses and administrative burden for control authorities. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA rejected promulgating PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory based on the Option 2 technology for the following reasons: ( 1) Many General Metals indirect dischargers are currently regulated by existing effluent guidelines ( parts 413 or 433 or both, as applicable); ( 2) EPA estimates that compliance with PSES based on the Option 2 technology will result in the closure of approximately 4% of the existing indirect dischargers in this subcategory; and ( 3) EPA determined that the incremental toxic pollutant reductions are very expensive per pound removed ( the cost effectiveness value ( in 1981$) for Option 2 for indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory is $ 432/ PE). This suggests to EPA that the identified technology is not truly `` available'' to this industry because it would remove a relatively small number of additional toxic pounds at a cost significantly greater than that EPA has typically determined is appropriate for other industries. EPA has determined that Option 2 technology is not the best available technology economically achievable for existing indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not establishing PSES for this subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. As discussed in the June 2002 NODA ( see 67 FR 38798), EPA also considered a number of alternative options whose economic impacts would be less costly than Option 2 technology. These options potentially have compliance costs more closely aligned with toxic pollutant reductions. EPA considered the following alternative options for today's final rule: Option A: No change in current regulation; Option B: Option 2 with a higher lowflow exclusion; Option C: Upgrading facilities currently covered by part 413 to the PSES of part 433; and Option D: Upgrading all facilities covered by part 413, and those facilities covered by `` local limits only'' that discharge greater than a specified wastewater flow ( e. g., 1, 3, or 6.25 MGY) of process wastewater to the part 433 pretreatment standards for existing sources. Note that facilities regulated by `` local limits only'' are also regulated by the General Pretreatment Regulations ( 40 CFR part 403). As discussed in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, based on comments, EPA has revised its methodology for estimating compliance costs and pollutant loadings for Option 2, higher low flow exclusions ( Option B); and the `` upgrade'' options ( Options C and D) previously described. Using information from this revised analysis, EPA concludes that all of these alternative options ( Options B, C, and D) are either not available or not economically achievable. EPA rejected Options B, C, and D as: ( 1) Greater than 10% of existing indirect dischargers not covered by part 433 close at the upgrade option; or ( 2) toxic removals of the upgrade options are quite expensive ( costeffectiveness values ( in 1981$) in excess of $ 420/ PE), suggesting that these options are not truly available technologies for this industry segment. EPA consequently determined that none of the treatment options represented best available technology economically achievable. Therefore, EPA is not revising or establishing PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory ( Option A). Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by local limits, general pretreatment standards ( part 403), and parts 413 and/ or 433, as applicable. EPA also notes that facilities regulated by parts 413 and/ or 433 PSES must comply with part 433 PSNS if the changes to their facilities are determined to make them new sources.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources ( PSNS)

In 2001, EPA proposed pretreatment standards for new sources based on the Option 4 technology basis. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2 ( including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a microfilter ( instead of a clarifier). As explained in section VI. A. 4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. As a result, for the final rule EPA considered VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25704 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations establishing PSNS in the General Metals subcategory based on the Option 2 technology ( i. e., the same technology basis that was considered for BPT/ BCT/ BAT for this subcategory) along with the same `` low flow'' exemption of 1 MGY considered for existing sources. For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting General Metals PSNS based on the Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new General Metals indirect dischargers. Specifically, EPA's `` barrier to entry'' analysis identified whether General Metals PSNS based on the Option 2 technology would pose sufficient financial burden on new General Metals facilities to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP& M point source category. EPA projects a barrier to entry for General Metals PSNS based on the Option 2 technology as 14% of General Metals indirect dischargers have aftertax compliance costs between 1 to 3% of revenue and 20% have after tax compliance costs between 3 to 5% of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis for PSNS in the General Metals subcategory. EPA has selected `` no further regulation'' for new General Metals indirect dischargers and is not revising PSNS for new General Metals indirect dischargers. Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by local limits, general pretreatment standards ( part 403), and part 433, as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.

B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory EPA is not revising any limitations or standards for facilities that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards ( part 403), local limits, permit limits, and parts 413 and/ or 433, as applicable.

1. BPT/ BCT/ BAT EPA proposed to establish BPT/ BCT/ BAT for existing direct dischargers in the MFJS subcategory based on the Option 2 technology ( see section VI. A for a description of Option 2). EPA evaluated the cost of effluent reductions, pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of compliance with BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA determined that the compliance costs of the Option 2 technology are not economically achievable. EPA estimates that compliance with BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology will result in the closure of 50% of the existing direct dischargers in this subcategory ( 12 of 24 existing MFJS direct dischargers). Consequently, EPA concludes that for existing direct dischargers in the MFJS subcategory, Option 2 is not the best practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, or best available technology economically achievable. EPA has decided not to establish new BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing MFJS direct dischargers based on the Option 2 technology, which will remain subject to part 433.

2. New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) EPA proposed to establish NSPS for new direct dischargers in the MFJS subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2 ( including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a microfilter ( instead of a clarifier). As explained in section VI. A. 4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. Consequently, EPA rejected Option 4 technology as the basis for NSPS in the MFJS subcategory. For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting MFJS NSPS based on the Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new MFJS direct dischargers. Specifically, EPA's `` barrier to entry'' analysis identified whether MFJS NSPS based on the Option 2 technology would pose sufficient financial burden so as to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP& M point source category. Additionally, EPA reviewed its database for establishing MFJS NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as commentors indicated the proposed standards were not technically achievable. In response to these comments, EPA reviewed all the information currently available on MFJS facilities employing the Option 2 technology basis. This review demonstrated that process wastewaters at MFJS facilities contain a wide variety of metals in significant concentrations. Commentors stated that single stage precipitation and solids separation may not achieve sufficient removals for wastewaters that contain significant concentrations of a wide variety of metals   especially if the metals preferentially precipitate at disparate pH ranges. Consequently, to address concerns raised by commentors, EPA also costed new sources to operate two separate chemical precipitation and solids separation steps in series. Twostage chemical precipitation and solids separation allows MFJS facilities with multiple metals to control metal discharges to concentrations lower than single stage chemical precipitation and solids separation over a wider pH range. Applying this revised costing approach, EPA projects a barrier to entry for MFJS NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as all MFJS direct dischargers have new source compliance costs that are greater than 5% of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis for NSPS in the MFJS subcategory, and is not revising NSPS for new MFJS direct dischargers. Wastewater discharges from these facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by local limits and part 433 NSPS as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.

3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources ( PSES) EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the MFJS subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA determined that the costs of Option 2 are not economically achievable for existing indirect dischargers in the MFJS subcategory. EPA estimates that compliance with PSES based on the Option 2 technology will result in the closure of 46% of the existing indirect dischargers in this subcategory ( 589 of 1,270 existing MFJS indirect dischargers), which EPA considers to be too high. EPA has determined that Option 2 technology is not the best available technology economically achievable for existing indirect dischargers in the MFJS subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not establishing PSES for this subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. As discussed in the January 2001 proposal ( see 66 FR 551) and June 2002 NODA ( see 67 FR 38801), EPA also considered a number of alternative options whose economic impacts would be less costly than Option 2 technology.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25705 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations These options potentially have compliance costs more closely aligned with toxic pollutant reductions. EPA considered the following alternative options for today's final rule: Option A: No change in current regulation; Option B: Option 2 with a low flow exclusion; and Option C: Upgrading facilities currently covered by part 413 to the PSES of part 433. Option D: Pollution Prevention Option. All facilities in the MFJS subcategory are currently subject to part 413, part 433 or both. As discussed in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, based on comments, EPA has revised its methodology for estimating compliance costs and pollutant loadings for Option 2, lowflow exclusions ( Option B), and the `` upgrade'' option ( Option C) previously described. Using information from this revised analysis, EPA concludes that neither of these alternative options ( Options B or C) are economically achievable. EPA rejected Options B and C as greater than 10% of existing indirect dischargers not covered by part 433 close at the upgrade option. EPA also solicited comment in the January 2001 proposal on a pollution prevention alternative for indirect dischargers in this subcategory ( Option D). Commentors supported option D and stated that the pollution prevention practices identified by EPA in the January 2001 proposal represent environmentally sound practices for the metal finishing industry. The commentors also stated that Option D should, however, be implemented on a voluntary basis similar to the National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program ( see 66 FR 511). Control authorities also commented that Option D may increase their administrative burden because of additional review of facility operations and compliance with the approved pollution prevention plan, and enforcement of Option D may be more difficult than other options considered. EPA is not promulgating Option D for facilities in the MFJS subcategory for the final rule due to the increased administrative burden on pretreatment control authorities and potential problems enforcing Option D. Section 15 of the TDD describes many of the pollution prevention practices that were considered for Option D. These pollution prevention practices may be useful in helping facilities lower operating costs, improve environmental performance, and foster other important benefits. EPA is not establishing PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the MFJS subcategory. Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by general pretreatment standards ( part 403), and parts 413 and/ or 433, as applicable. EPA also notes that facilities regulated by parts 413 and/ or 433 PSES must comply with part 433 PSNS if the changes to their facilities are determined to make them new sources.

4. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources ( PSNS) EPA proposed to establish PSNS for indirect dischargers in the MFJS subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2 ( including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a microfilter ( instead of a clarifier). As explained in section VI. A. 4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis for PSNS in the MFJS subcategory. For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting MFJS PSNS based on the Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new MFJS indirect dischargers. Specifically, EPA's ` barrier to entry' analysis identified whether MFJS PSNS based on the Option 2 technology would pose sufficient financial burden on new MFJS facilities to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP& M point source category. EPA projects a barrier to entry for MFJS PSNS based on the Option 2 technology as 8% of MFJS indirect dischargers have after tax compliance costs between 1   3% of revenue, 5% have after tax compliance costs between 3   5% of revenue, and 6% have after tax compliance costs greater than 5% of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis for PSNS in the MFJS subcategory, and is not revising PSNS for new MFJS indirect dischargers. Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by local limits, general pretreatment standards ( part 403), and part 433, as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.

C. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory EPA is not revising any limitations or standards for facilities that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards ( part 403), local limits, permit limits, and parts 413 and/ or 433, as applicable.

1. BPT/ BCT/ BAT EPA proposed to establish BPT/ BCT/ BAT for direct dischargers in the PWB subcategory based on the Option 2 technology ( see section VI. A for a description of Option 2). EPA evaluated the cost of effluent reductions, pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of compliance with BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology. Based on revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA has concluded that revision of the national regulation is not warranted for this subcategory. Based on MP& M survey information, EPA estimates that compliance with BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology results in no closures of the existing eight direct dischargers in the PWB subcategory. However, EPA decided not to establish BPT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology for the PWB subcategory for the following reasons: ( 1) EPA identified only eight existing PWB direct dischargers and all of these PWB direct dischargers are currently regulated by existing effluent guidelines ( part 433); and ( 2) the costs of Option 2 are disproportionate to the estimated toxic pollutant reductions. EPA estimates compliance cost of $ 0.3 million ( 2001$) with only 186 toxic pound equivalents ( PE) being removed. This equates to a cost effectiveness value ( in 1981$) of approximately $ 900/ PE. EPA concludes that for existing direct dischargers in the PWB subcategory, Option 2 is not the best practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, or best available technology economically achievable. EPA has decided not to establish new BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing PWB direct dischargers based on the Option 2 technology, which will remain subject to part 433.

2. New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) EPA proposed to establish NSPS for new direct dischargers in the PWB subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2 ( including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a microfilter ( instead of a clarifier). As explained in section VI. A. 4, EPA VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25706 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis for NSPS in the PWB subcategory. For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting PWB NSPS based on the Option 2 technology. EPA reviewed its database for establishing PWB NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as commentors indicated the proposed standards were not technically achievable. In response to these comments, EPA reviewed all the information currently available on PWB facilities employing the Option 2 technology basis. EPA now concludes that the PWBs Option 2 database can only be used to establish limitations for copper, nickel, and tin. In order to assess the difference between current NSPS requirements ( from part 433) for PWB facilities and those under consideration here, EPA estimated the incremental quantities of copper, nickel, and tin that would be reduced if a new PWB facility were required to meet NSPS based on the Option 2 technology rather than NSPS based on 433. EPA analysis shows minimal amounts of pollutant reductions based on more stringent requirements on copper, nickel, and tin. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis for NSPS in the PWB subcategory based on the small incremental quantity of toxic pollutants that would be reduced in relation to existing requirements. EPA is not establishing NSPS for new PWB direct dischargers and is not revising existing NSPS for new PWB direct dischargers. Wastewater discharges from these facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by permit limits and part 433 as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.

3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources ( PSES) EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the PWB subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA rejected promulgating PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the PWB subcategory based on the Option 2 technology for the following reasons: ( 1) All PWB indirect dischargers are currently regulated by existing effluent guidelines ( parts 413 or 433 or both, as applicable); ( 2) EPA estimates that compliance with PSES based on the Option 2 technology will result in the closure of 6.5% of the existing indirect dischargers in this subcategory ( 55 of 840 existing PWB indirect dischargers); and ( 3) EPA determined that the toxic pollutant reductions are very expensive per pound removed ( the costeffectiveness value ( in 1981$) is $ 455/ PE). EPA has determined that Option 2 technology is not the best available technology economically achievable for existing indirect dischargers in the PWB subcategory, therefore is not establishing PWB PSES based on the Option 2 technology. As discussed in the June 2002 NODA ( see 67 FR 38802), EPA also considered a number of alternative options whose economic impacts would be less costly than Option 2 technology. These options potentially have compliance costs more closely aligned with toxic pollutant reductions. EPA considered the following alternative options for today's final rule:

Option A: No change in current regulation; Option B: Option 2 with a higher lowflow exclusion; and Option C: Upgrading facilities currently covered by part 413 to the PSES of part 433 EPA notes that all facilities in the PWB subcategory are currently subject to part 413, part 433 or both. As discussed in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, based on comments, EPA has revised its methodology for estimating compliance costs and pollutant loadings for Option 2, higher low flow exclusions ( Option B); and the `` upgrade'' option ( Options C) previously described. Using information from this revised analysis, EPA rejected Options B and C as: ( 1) Greater than 10% of existing indirect dischargers not covered by part 433 close at the upgrade option; or ( 2) the incremental compliance costs of the upgrade options were too great in terms of toxic removals ( cost effectiveness values ( in 1981$) in excess of $ 833/ PE). Therefore EPA is not revising PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the PWB subcategory. Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by general pretreatment standards ( part 403) and parts 413 and/ or 433, as applicable. EPA also notes that facilities regulated by parts 413 and/ or 433 PSES must comply with part 433 PSNS if the changes to their facilities are determined to make them new sources. 4. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources ( PSNS) EPA proposed to establish PSNS for indirect dischargers in the PWB subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2 ( including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a microfilter ( instead of a clarifier). As explained in section VI. A. 4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis for PSNS in the PWB subcategory. For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting PWB PSNS based on the Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new PWB indirect dischargers. Specifically, EPA's ` barrier to entry' analysis identified whether PWB PSNS based on the Option 2 technology would pose sufficient financial burden on new PWB facilities to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP& M point source category. EPA projects a barrier to entry for PWB PSNS based on the Option 2 technology as 3% of PWB indirect dischargers have after tax compliance costs between 1 to 3% of revenue and 4% have after tax compliance costs greater than 5% of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis for PSNS in the PWB subcategory. EPA has selected `` no further regulation'' for new PWB indirect dischargers and is not revising PSNS for new PWB indirect dischargers. Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by local limits, general pretreatment standards ( part 403), and part 433, as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.

D. Non Chromium Anodizing Subcategory EPA is not revising limitations or standards for any facilities that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards ( part 403), local limits, permit limits, and parts 413 and/ or 433, as applicable.

1. BPT/ BCT/ BAT As previously discussed, after publication of the June 2002 NODA EPA VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25707 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations conducted another review of all NCA facilities in the MP& M questionnaire database to determine the destination of discharged wastewater ( i. e., either directly to surface waters or indirectly to POTWs or both) and the applicability of the final rule to discharged wastewaters. As a result of this review, EPA did not identify any NCA direct discharging facilities or NCA facilities that do not discharge wastewater ( i. e., zero discharge or contract haulers) or do not use process water ( dry facilities) in its rulemaking record. All of the NCA facilities in EPA's database are indirect dischargers. Therefore, EPA cannot evaluate treatment systems at direct dischargers. As a result, EPA transferred cost and pollutant loading data from the best performing indirect facilities in order to evaluate direct discharging limitations in this subcategory. In 2001, EPA proposed to establish BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations for direct dischargers in the NCA subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. EPA evaluated the cost of effluent reductions, quantity of pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of compliance with BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, the costs of the Option 2 technology were disproportionate to the projected toxic pollutants reductions ( cost effectiveness values ( in 1981$) in excess of $ 1,925/ PE). EPA decided not to establish BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology for the NCA subcategory for following reasons: ( 1) EPA identified no NCA direct dischargers; and ( 2) the costs of Option 2 are disproportionate to the estimated toxic pollutant reductions ( i. e., $ 1,925/ PE). EPA concludes that for existing direct dischargers in the NCA subcategory, Option 2 is not the best practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, or best available technology economically achievable. EPA has decided not to establish new BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing NCA direct dischargers based on the Option 2 technology. EPA identified no NCA direct dischargers through its survey efforts. However, if such facilities do exist, they would be subject to part 433.

2. New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) EPA proposed to establish NSPS for direct dischargers in the NCA subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting NCA NSPS based on the Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new NCA direct dischargers. Specifically, EPA's ` barrier to entry' analysis identified whether NCA NSPS based on the Option 2 technology would pose sufficient financial burden on new NCA facilities to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP& M point source category. EPA projects a barrier to entry for NCA NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as approximately 26% of NCA direct dischargers have new source compliance costs that are between 3% and 5% of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis for NSPS in the NCA subcategory. EPA has selected `` no further regulation'' for new NCA direct dischargers and is not revising NSPS for new NCA direct dischargers, which will remain subject to part 433. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.

3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources ( PSES/ PSNS)

EPA proposed `` no further regulation'' for existing and new indirect dischargers in the NCA subcategory. EPA based this decision on the economic impacts to indirect dischargers associated with Option 2 and the small quantity of toxic pollutants discharged by facilities in this subcategory, even after a economically achievable flow cutoff is applied ( see 66 FR 467). For the reasons set out in the 2001 proposal, EPA has decided not to establish new regulations and is not establishing PSES or PSNS in the NCA subcategory. These facilities remain subject to parts 413 or 433, or both, as applicable. EPA also notes that facilities regulated by parts 413 and/ or 433 PSES must comply with part 433 PSNS if the changes to their facilities are determined to make them new sources.

E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory EPA is not revising limitations or standards for any facilities that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards ( part 403), local limits, permit limits, and Iron & Steel effluent limitations guidelines ( part 420) as applicable. 1. BPT/ BCT/ BAT EPA proposed to establish BPT/ BCT/ BAT for existing direct dischargers in the SFF subcategory in this part ( 40 CFR part 438) based on the Option 2 technology ( see section VI. A for a description of Option 2). For the final rule, EPA evaluated the cost of effluent reductions, pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of compliance with BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA determined that the compliance costs of Option 2 are not economically achievable. EPA estimates that compliance with BPT/ BCT/ BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology will result in the closure of 17% of the existing direct dischargers in this subcategory ( 7 of 41 existing SFF direct dischargers). EPA concludes that for existing direct dischargers in the SFF subcategory, Option 2 is not the best practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, or best available technology economically achievable, and therefore, EPA is not establishing new BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing SFF direct dischargers based on the Option 2 technology. These facilities will remain subject to part 420.

2. New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS)

EPA proposed to establish NSPS for new direct dischargers in the SFF subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2 ( including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a microfilter ( instead of a clarifier). As explained in section VI. A. 4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis for NSPS in the SFF subcategory. EPA has selected `` no further regulation'' for new SFF direct dischargers and is not revising NSPS for new SFF direct dischargers, which will remain subject to part 420.

3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources ( PSES)

EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the SFF subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25708 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA estimates that compliance with PSES based on the Option 2 technology will result in the closure of 9% of the existing indirect dischargers in this subcategory ( 10 of 112 existing SFF indirect dischargers). Option 2 technology is not economically achievable. EPA has determined that Option 2 technology is not the best available technology economically achievable for existing indirect dischargers in the SFF subcategory, and therefore EPA is not revising PSES for this subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. Wastewater discharges to POTWs from these facilities will remain regulated by general pretreatment standards ( part 403) and part 420.

4. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources ( PSNS) EPA proposed to establish PSNS for indirect dischargers in the SFF subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2 ( including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a microfilter ( instead of a clarifier). As explained in section VI. A. 4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis for PSNS in the SFF subcategory. EPA has selected `` no further regulation'' for new SFF indirect dischargers and is not revising PSNS for new SFF indirect dischargers. These facilities will remain subject to part 420.

F. Oily Wastes Subcategory EPA is promulgating limitations and standards for existing and new direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on the proposed Option 6 technology ( see section VI. F. 1). EPA is not promulgating pretreatment standards for existing or new indirect dischargers in this subcategory.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology ( BPT) EPA is establishing BPT pH limitations and daily maximum limitations for two pollutants, oil and grease as hexane extractable material ( O& G ( as HEM)) and total suspended solids ( TSS), for direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on the proposed technology option ( Option 6). Option 6 technology includes the following treatment measures: ( 1) inprocess flow control and pollution prevention; and ( 2) chemical emulsion breaking followed by oil water separation ( see section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule for additional details on the Option 6 technology). The Agency concluded that the Option 6 treatment technology represents the best practicable control technology currently available and should be the basis for the BPT Oily Wastes limitations for the following reasons. First, this technology is available technology readily applicable to all facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory. Approximately 42% of the direct discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory currently employ the Option 6 technology. Second, the cost of compliance with these limitations in relation to the effluent reduction benefits is not wholly disproportionate. None of these wastewater discharges are currently subject to national effluent limitations guidelines and the final rule will control wastewater discharges from a significant number of facilities ( 2,382 facilities). EPA estimates that compliance with BPT limitations based on Option 6 technology will result in no closures of the existing direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory. Moreover, the adoption of this level of control will represent a significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by facilities in this subcategory. For facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory at Option 6, EPA estimates an annual compliance cost of $ 13.8 million ( pre tax, 2001$) and 480,325 pounds of conventional pollutants removed from current discharges into the Nation's waters at a cost of $ 28.73/ pound pollutant removed ( 2001$) ( see Table VII   1). EPA has, therefore, determined the total cost of effluent reductions employing the Option 6 technology are reasonable in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. ( In estimating the pounds of pollutant removed by implementing Option 6 technology for direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA used the sum of O& G ( measured as HEM) and TSS pounds removed to avoid any significant double counting of pollutants). The 2001 proposal also contains detailed discussions explaining why EPA rejected BPT limitations based on other BPT technology options ( see 66 FR 457). The information in the record for today's final rule provides no basis for EPA to change this conclusion. In the 2001proposal, in addition to pH, O& G ( as HEM), and TSS, EPA also proposed to regulate sulfide. In today's final rule, EPA has not established a sulfide limitation because it may serve as a treatment chemical ( see TDD). EPA also proposed three alternatives to control discharges of toxic organics in MP& M process wastewaters: ( 1) Meet a numerical limit for the total sum of a list of specified organic pollutants ( similar to the Total Toxic Organic ( TTO) parameter used in the Metal Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines); ( 2) meet a numerical limit for Total Organic Carbon ( TOC) as an indicator parameter; or ( 3) develop and certify the implementation of an organic chemicals management plan. EPA evaluated the analytical wastewater and treatment technology data from OWS facilities and concluded it should not establish a separate indicator parameter or control mechanism for toxic organics. Optimizing the separation of oil and grease from wastewater using the Option 6 technology will similarly optimize the removal of toxic organic pollutants amenable to this treatment technology. Consequently, EPA is effectively controlling toxic organics and other priority and non conventional pollutant discharges in OWS process wastewaters by regulating O& G ( as HEM). In its analyses, EPA estimated that facilities will monitor once per month for O& G ( as HEM) and TSS. EPA expects that 12 data points for each pollutant per year will yield a meaningful basis for establishing compliance with the promulgated limitations through longterm trends and short term variability in O& G ( as HEM) and TSS pollutant discharge loading patterns. Although EPA is not changing the technology basis from that proposed, EPA is revising all of the proposed Oily Wastes subcategory BPT limitations. This is a result of a recalculation of the limitations after EPA revised the data sets used to calculate the promulgated limitations to reflect changes including corrections and additional data ( see 67 FR 38754).

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology ( BCT) In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA considered whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost reasonable under the standards established by the CWA. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the `` BCT cost test.'' EPA is promulgating effluent limitations for conventional parameters ( e. g., pH, TSS, O& G) equivalent to BPT for this subcategory because it identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25709 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations than the selected BPT technology basis that also pass the BCT cost test. EPA evaluated the addition of ultrafiltration technology to the BPT technology basis as a means to obtain further O& G reductions. However, this technology option failed the BCT cost test. For a more detailed description of the BCT cost test and details on EPA's analysis, see Chapter 4 of the EEBA.

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable ( BAT) EPA proposed to control toxic and non conventional pollutants by establishing BAT limitations based on Option 6 technology. EPA has now decided not to establish BAT toxic and non conventional limitations based on the Option 6 technology. As described in section VI. F. 1, the BPT technology basis is readily available, and the limitations are cost reasonable. However the additional costs associated with compliance with Option 6 generated BAT limitations are not warranted. EPA has determined that these costs   primarily monitoring costs   are not warranted in view of the small quantity of additional effluent reduction ( if any) the BAT limitations would produce. As explained above, EPA has determined that, the BPT limitation on O& G ( measured as HEM) will effectively control toxic and non conventional discharges in OWS process wastewaters. EPA has not identified any more stringent economically achievable treatment technology option beyond BPT technology ( Option 6) which it considered to represent BAT level of control applicable to Oily Wastes subcategory facilities. For the reasons explained above, EPA has concluded that it should not establish BAT limitations for specific pollutant parameters for Oily Waste operations. EPA notes that permit writers retain the authority to establish, on a case by case basis under section 301( b)( 1)( C) of the CWA, toxic effluent limitations that are necessary to meet State water quality standards.

4. New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) EPA is promulgating NSPS that would control pH and the same conventional pollutants controlled at the BPT and BCT levels. The selected technology basis for NSPS for this subcategory for today's final rule is Option 6. This is unchanged from the proposal. EPA projects no barrier to entry for new source direct dischargers associated with Option 6 as: ( 1) Option 6 technology is currently used at existing direct dischargers ( i. e., Option 6 technology is technically available); and ( 2) there is no barrier to entry for new sources. EPA evaluated the economic impacts for existing direct dischargers associated with compliance with limitations based on Option 6 and found Option 6 to be economically achievable ( no closures projected). EPA expects compliance costs to be lower for new sources as new sources can use Option 6 technology without incurring retrofitting costs ( as is required for some existing sources). Additionally, EPA projects no barrier to entry for OWS NSPS based on the Option 6 technology as approximately 97% of OWS direct dischargers have after tax compliance costs less than 1% of revenue and 3% have after tax compliance costs between 1 to 3% of revenue. Consequently, EPA selected Option 6 technology as the basis for NSPS in the OWS. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results. In addition, EPA also evaluated and rejected more stringent technology options for OWS NSPS ( i. e., Options 8 and 10). EPA reviewed its database for the Option 8 and 10 technologies and found that the database for Option 8 and 10 technologies is insufficient ( i. e., no available data) or the costs are not commensurate with the pollutant removals ( see 66 FR 457). Since EPA's database did not contain Option 10 treatability data from oily subcategory facilities, EPA considered transferring limitations for Option 10 from the Shipbuilding Dry Docks or Railroad Line Maintenance subcategories. EPA ultimately rejected this approach, however, because influent wastewaters in the Shipbuilding Dry Docks or Railroad Line Maintenance subcategories are generally less concentrated and contain less pollutants than wastewaters discharged by OWS facilities.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources ( PSES) EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on the Option 6 technology ( i. e., the same technology basis that is being promulgated for BPT/ BCT/ NSPS for this subcategory) with a `` low flow'' exclusion of 2 MGY to reduce economic impacts on small businesses and administrative burden for control authorities. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, and previously discussed, EPA determined that the toxic pollutant reductions are very expensive in dollars per toxic pounds removed. The costeffectiveness value ( in 1981$) for Option 6 for indirect dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory is in excess of $ 3,500/ PE removed. This suggests that the technology is not truly `` available.'' EPA has determined that Option 6 technology with a 2 MGY low flow cutoff is not the best available technology economically achievable for existing indirect dischargers in the OWS. Therefore, EPA is not establishing PSES for this subcategory based on Option 6 technology with a 2 MGY lowflow cutoff. As discussed in the June 2002 NODA ( see 67 FR 38804), EPA also considered alternative options for which economic impacts could be less costly than Option 6 technology with a 2 MGY low flow cutoff. These options potentially have compliance costs more closely align with toxic pollutant reductions. EPA considered the following alternative options for today's final rule: Option A: No regulation; Option B: Option 6 with a higher lowflow exclusion; As discussed in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, based on comments, EPA has revised its methodology for estimating compliance costs and pollutant loadings for Option 6, and higher low flow exclusions ( Option B) previously described. Using information from this revised analysis, EPA concludes that none of the alternative low flow exclusions ( even as high as 6.25 MGY) represented `` available technology'' because the costs associated with these alternatives were not commensurate with the projected toxic pollutants reductions. Therefore, EPA is not establishing PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory ( Option A). Since EPA did not identify another technology basis that was more cost effective, EPA is not promulgating PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory. These facilities remain subject to the General Pretreatment regulations ( 40 CFR part 403) and local limits, as applicable.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources ( PSNS)

EPA proposed to establish PSNS for indirect dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on the Option 6 technology ( i. e., the same technology basis that is being promulgated for NSPS for this subcategory) with a `` lowflow exclusion of 2MGY to reduce economic impacts on small businesses VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25710 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations and reduce administrative burden to POTWs. For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting OWS PSNS based on Option 6 technology and assessed the financial burden of OWS PSNS based on Option 6 technology on new OWS indirect dischargers. Specifically, EPA's ` barrier to entry' analysis identified whether OWS PSNS based on Option 6 technology would pose sufficient financial burden on new OWS facilities to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP& M point source category. EPA projects a barrier to entry for OWS PSNS based on Option 6 technology as approximately as 1% of OWS indirect dischargers have after tax compliance costs between 1 to 3% of revenue and 5% have after tax compliance costs between 3 to 5% of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 6 technology as the basis for PSNS in the OWS. EPA has selected `` no further regulation'' for new OWS indirect dischargers and is not revising PSNS for new OWS indirect dischargers. Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by local limits and general pretreatment standards ( part 403), as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.

G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory EPA is not establishing limitations or standards for any facilities that would have been subject to this subcategory. Permit writers and control authorities will establish controls using BPJ to regulate wastewater discharges from these facilities.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology ( BPT) For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting BPT limitations for two pollutants, TSS and O& G ( as HEM), for direct dischargers in the RRLM subcategory based on a different technology basis from that proposed in 2001. EPA proposed Option 10 technology ( see section VI. H. 1 for a description) as the technology basis for BPT. However, as discussed in the NODA, EPA considered promulgating limitations for the final rule based on the Option 6 technology for the RRLM subcategory ( see 67 FR 38804). Option 6 technology includes the following: ( 1) in process flow control and pollution prevention; and ( 2) chemical emulsion breaking followed by oil water separation ( see section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule for additional details on the Option 6 technology). For the RRLM subcategory, EPA changed the technology basis considered for the final rule and eliminated consideration of regulating BOD5 based on comments and data submitted by the American Association of Railroads ( AAR). This organization is a trade association which currently represents all facilities in this subcategory. As discussed in the NODA ( see 67 FR 38755), for each RRLM direct discharging facility known to them, AAR provided current permit limits, treatment in place, and summarized information on each facility's measured monthly average and daily maximum values. AAR also provided a year's worth of long term monitoring data for each facility ( see section 15.1 of the public record for the AAR surveys). This data shows that, contrary to EPA's initial findings in the 2001 proposal, most RRLM direct dischargers treat their wastewater by chemical emulsion breaking/ oil water separation ( Option 6). Based on this updated information, EPA is today rejecting Option 10 as the technology basis for BPT. The 2001 proposal also contains detailed discussions on why EPA rejected BPT limitations based on other BPT technology options ( see 66 FR 451). The information in the record for today's final rule provides no basis for EPA to change this conclusion. As previously discussed, after publication of the June 2002 NODA EPA also conducted another review of all RRLM facilities in the MP& M questionnaire database to determine the destination of discharged wastewater ( i. e., either directly to surface waters or indirectly to POTWs or both) and the applicability of the final rule to discharged wastewaters. As a result of this review, EPA determined its questionnaire database did not accurately represent direct dischargers in this subcategory. Consequently, for today's final rule EPA used the information supplied by AAR as a basis for its analyses and conclusions on direct dischargers in this subcategory. AAR provided information on 27 facilities. EPA reviewed the information on each of these facilities to ensure they were direct dischargers, discharged wastewaters resulting from operations subject to this final rule, and discharged `` process'' wastewaters as defined by the final rule. As a result of this review, EPA concluded 18 of the facilities for which AAR provided information do not directly discharge wastewaters exclusively from oily operations ( see section V. A). Therefore, EPA's final database consists of 9 direct discharging RRLM facilities. EPA considered promulgating BPT limitations for these 9 direct discharging RRLM facilities based on the Option 6 technology. The Agency made the following conclusions during its evaluation of Option 6 for this subcategory. First, this technology is readily applicable to all facilities in the RRLM subcategory. All direct discharging facilities in the RRLM subcategory currently employ wastewater treatment equivalent or better than chemical emulsion breaking/ oil water separation ( Option 6). Second, EPA estimates that compliance with BPT limitations based on Option 6 technology will result in no closures of the existing direct dischargers in the RRLM subcategory. Moreover, none of the facilities identified by AAR are small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA). Third, most of the RRLM facilities identified by AAR have NPDES daily maximum permit limitations for O& G ( as HEM) and TSS as 15 and 45 mg/ L, respectively. Based on AAR survey information, EPA concludes that these O& G ( as HEM) and TSS daily maximum limits represent the average of the best performances of facilities utilizing Option 6 technology. EPA evaluated the compliance costs and load reductions associated with establishing BPT daily maximum limitations equivalent to 15 and 45 mg/ L for O& G ( as HEM) and TSS, respectively. EPA concluded that all of the facilities identified by AAR currently meet a daily maximum oil and grease limit of 15 mg/ L and most currently monitor once per month. Therefore, EPA estimates no pollutant load reductions and minimal incremental annualized compliance costs for the monitoring associated with a BPT daily maximum limitation equivalent to 15 mg/ L for O& G ( as HEM). For TSS, with the exception of one facility, all RRLM facilities identified by AAR currently meet a daily maximum limit of 45 mg/ L. For this one facility, EPA estimates the TSS pollutant loadings reductions associated with a BPT daily maximum limitation equivalent to 45 mg/ L to be less than 1 pound of TSS per day. Given the fact that the few facilities in this subcategory are already essentially achieving the limitations under consideration, EPA has determined that additional national regulation is not warranted. As a result of this analysis, EPA concludes that it is more appropriate to address permits limitations for this industry on a caseby case basis and that additional national regulation of direct discharges VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25711 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations in the RRLM subcategory at this time is unwarranted.

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology ( BCT) In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA considers whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost reasonable under the standards established by the CWA. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the `` BCT cost test.'' For a more detailed description of the BCT cost test and details of EPA's analysis, see Chapter 4 of the EEBA. For the reasons discussed above, EPA is not establishing BCT limitations for the RRLM subcategory.

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable ( BAT) As proposed, EPA is not establishing BAT regulations for the RRLM subcategory. EPA did not propose BAT regulations because the Agency concluded that facilities in this subcategory discharge very few pounds of toxic pollutants. EPA estimates that six facilities discharge 34 PE per year to surface waters, or about 6 PE per year per facility. The Agency based the loadings calculations on EPA sampling data, which found very few priority toxic pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater. EPA has received no data or information during the rulemaking that contradicts these conclusions. Therefore, nationallyapplicable regulations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants are unnecessary at this time and direct dischargers will remain subject to permit limitations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants established on a case by case basis using BPJ.

4. New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) EPA proposed setting NSPS based on Option 10 technology for this subcategory. For today's final rule EPA considered setting RRLM NSPS based on Option 10 technology and assessed the financial burden of RRLM NSPS based on Option 10 technology on new RRLM direct dischargers. Specifically, EPA's `` barrier to entry'' analysis identified whether RRLM NSPS based on Option 10 technology would pose sufficient financial burden as to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP& M point source category. EPA projects no barrier to entry for RRLM NSPS based on Option 10 technology as: ( 1) Option 10 technology is currently used at existing RRLM direct dischargers ( i. e., Option 10 technology is technically available); and ( 2) all RRLM direct dischargers have new source compliance costs that are less than 1% of revenue. However, EPA is not promulgating RRLM NSPS based on the Option 10 technology as EPA concludes that it is more appropriate to address limitations for this industry on a case by case basis and that national regulation of direct discharges in the RRLM subcategory at this time is unwarranted. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources ( PSES/ PSNS) EPA proposed not to establish pretreatment standards for existing and new indirect dischargers in the RRLM subcategory based on the small quantity of toxic pollutants discharged to the environment ( after POTW treatment) by facilities in this subcategory ( i. e., approximately 2 PE removed annually per facility ( see 66 FR 470   471)). For the same reasons set out in the 2001 proposal, EPA is not promulgating pretreatment standards for existing or new indirect dischargers in this subcategory. These facilities remain subject to the General Pretreatment regulations ( 40 CFR part 403) and local limits.

H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory EPA is not establishing limitations or standards for any facilities that would have been subject to this subcategory. Permit writers and control authorities will establish controls using BPJ to regulate wastewater discharges from these facilities.

1. BPT/ BCT/ BAT/ NSPS At the time of the 2001 proposal, EPA identified 6 direct discharging shipbuilding dry dock facilities with multiple discharges. Based on the information in the database at that time, discharges from these facilities contained minimal concentrations of toxic organic and metals pollutants (< 9 PE/ facility), but substantial quantities of conventional pollutants, particularly oil and grease. Consequently, EPA proposed to establish BPT limitations and NSPS for only two pollutants, TSS and O& G ( as HEM), for direct dischargers in the SDD subcategory based on Option 10 technology. This technology includes the following: ( 1) in process flow control and pollution prevention; and ( 2) oil water separation by chemical emulsion breaking and oilwater separation by dissolved air flotation ( see section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule for additional details on the Option 10 technology). EPA proposed this technology basis because some existing SDD facilities use this technology and it projected significant reductions in conventional pollutants and determined these reductions were cost reasonable. Following proposal, EPA received comments and supporting data indicating that its estimates of current pollutant discharges from this subcategory were overestimated. In particular, commentors claimed that current discharges of oil and grease were minimal and that national regulation was not warranted for this subcategory. For today's final rule, EPA incorporated the additional information provided by commentors into its analysis. EPA continues to conclude that there are six direct discharging shipbuilding dry dock facilities. However, EPA now concludes that direct discharges from these facilities generally contain minimal levels of all pollutants. In particular, EPA's database indicates that regulation of oil and grease in direct discharges from shipbuilding dry docks is unwarranted because current oil and grease discharges from these facilities are not detectable (< 5 mg/ L) or nearly not detectable. EPA has similarly determined that it should not establish nationally applicable limitations and standards for TSS because TSS discharges are, on average, minimal. The data show that TSS discharges may increase episodically, particularly when the dry dock is performing abrasive blasting operations cleaning. However, EPA has concluded that these episodic discharges from six facilities do not warrant national regulation. Therefore, nationally applicable regulations for new and existing SDD direct dischargers are unnecessary at this time and these facilities will remain subject to permit limitations established on a case by case basis using BPJ.

2. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources ( PSES/ PSNS) EPA proposed not to establish pretreatment standards for existing and new indirect dischargers in the SDD subcategory based on the small number of facilities in this subcategory and on the small quantity of toxic pollutants removed by the technology options evaluated by EPA at proposal ( i. e., less than 26 PE removed annually per facility ( see 66 FR 471)). For the same reasons set out in the 2001 proposal,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25712 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations EPA is not promulgating pretreatment standards for existing or new indirect dischargers in this subcategory. These facilities remain subject to the General Pretreatment regulations ( 40 CFR part 403) and local limits.

VII. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost Estimates A. Pollutant Reductions Presented in this section are the pollutant reductions obtainable through the application of Option 6 technology that form the basis of the effluent limitations guidelines for the Oily Wastes subcategory promulgated today. This section summarizes these estimated reductions. Section 12 of the TDD includes the estimated pollutant reductions for options considered but not promulgated, and discusses the loadings determination methodology in detail. Today's final rule does not establish PSES for any dischargers to POTWs in the MP& M point source category. Therefore, EPA does not project any pollutant reductions from POTWs as a result of today's rule. The following pollutant reductions are related to direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory.

1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions The Agency estimates that this regulation will reduce discharges of TSS and O& G ( as HEM) by approximately 500,000 pounds per year ( see Table VII   1).

TABLE VII   1.   REDUCTION IN DIRECT DISCHARGE OF CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF BPT/ BCT REGULATIONS PROMULGATED TODAY Subcategory Oil and grease pounds/ year Total suspended solids pounds/ year Oil and grease and total suspended solids pounds/ year Oily Wastes .......................................................................................................................... 396,079 84,246 480,325 2. Priority and Non conventional Pollutant Reductions The Agency did not estimate the reductions in priority and nonconventional metals and organic pollutants because the Agency did not have sufficient COD or other nonconventional data to estimate baseline pollutant discharges. The Agency does expect some non conventional pollutant removals at OWS facilities complying with limitations and standards based on Option 6 technology. B. Regulatory Costs Presented in this section are the regulatory costs EPA projects through the application of Option 6 technology that form the basis of the effluent limitations guidelines for the Oily Wastes subcategory promulgated today. This section summarizes these estimated costs. Section 11 of the TDD includes the estimated regulatory costs for options considered but not promulgated, and discusses the costing methodology in detail. This preamble, TDD, and EEBA express all cost estimates in this section in terms of 2001 dollars. The cost components reported in this section represent estimates of the investment cost of purchasing and installing equipment, the annual operating and maintenance costs associated with that equipment, additional land requirement costs associated with new equipment, and additional costs for discharge monitoring.

1. Direct Discharge Facilities Table VII   2 shows the costs EPA estimated for existing direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory to comply with the BPT/ BCT limitations promulgated today.

TABLE VII   2.   ESTIMATED COSTS FOR BPT/ BCT Subcategory Number of facilities Total capital and land costs ( 2001$, millions) Annual O& M costs ( 2001$, millions) Annualized compliance costs ( 2001$, millions)

Oily Wastes ........................................................................................ 2,382 6.5 13.1 13.8 2. Indirect Discharge Facilities Because today's final rule does not establish PSES for any dischargers in the MP& M industry, EPA has not projected compliance costs for facilities that discharge indirectly to POTWs.

VIII. Economic Analyses A. Introduction and Overview This section of the preamble presents EPA's estimates of the private and social costs of the regulation, and the expected economic impacts of compliance with the regulation. Measures of economic impact include facility closures and associated losses in employment, firmlevel impacts, impacts on governmentowned facilities, local community impacts, and international trade. An analysis of impacts on small businesses supports EPA's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA). Section XII. C of this preamble discusses RFA/ SBREFA issues. EPA's complete assessment of costs and economic impacts including results for the alternative regulatory options can be found in `` Economic, Environmental, & Benefit Analysis of the Final Metal Products & Machinery Rule'' ( hereafter referred to as the `` EEBA''). EPA based its regulatory decisions for the final MP& M rule in part on the findings from the facility impact analyses reported in the EEBA and discussed in this section. The economic impact analyses assess how facilities will be affected financially by the final MP& M rule. Key outputs of the facility impact analysis include expected facility closures in the MP& M industries, associated losses in employment, and the number of facilities experiencing financial stress short of closure (`` moderate impacts''). The findings from the facility impact analysis also provide the basis for the following analyses:

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25713 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations   A firm level analysis, which assesses the impact on the financial performance and condition of firms owning MP& M facilities;   An analysis of impacts on government owned facilities, which assesses the impact on the financial performance and condition of government entities that own and operate at least one MP& M site;   An employment effects analysis, which assesses the increase in employment associated with compliance activities, the loss of employment due to facility closures, and the net effect on overall employment;   A community impact analysis, which assesses the potential impact of employment changes in communities where MP& M facilities are located; and   A foreign trade analysis, which assesses the effect of the regulation on the U. S. balance of trade. EPA performed economic impact analyses for three groups of facilities, using different methodologies to evaluate impacts on each group. The three groups are:   Privately owned MP& M Facilities, including privately owned facilities that do not perform railroad line maintenance and are not owned by governments. This major category includes privately owned businesses in a wide range of sectors or industries, including the segment of facilities that manufacture and rebuild railroad equipment.   Railroad line maintenance facilities that maintain and repair railroad track, equipment and vehicles.   Government owned MP& M facilities operated by municipalities, State agencies and other public sector entities such as State universities and Federal facilities. Many of these facilities repair, rebuild, and maintain buses, trucks, cars, utility vehicles ( e. g., snow plows and street cleaners), and light machinery. The facility impact analysis starts with compliance cost estimates from the EPA engineering analysis and then calculates how these compliance costs would affect the financial condition of MP& M facilities. EPA made several changes to the facility impact methodology between proposal ( see 66 FR 424) and final regulation. The NODA ( see 67 FR 38752) and section IV. B. 3 of this preamble document these changes, which to a large degree address comments on the proposal impact methodology. The major changes to the economic impact analyses include: ( 1) Using sector specific thresholds for the moderate impact analysis tests; ( 2) using a single financial test, based on net present value, to assess the potential for closures ( this test excludes consideration of liquidation values for all MP& M facilities, including the 219 facilities that reported them in their response to the MP& M survey); and ( 3) using estimated baseline capital outlays in the calculation of cash flow for the net present value test. Other changes to the economic impact methodology include: ( 1) Using revised cost passthrough coefficients; ( 2) using sectorspecific price indices in updating survey data; and ( 3) limiting postcompliance tax shields to no greater than reported baseline taxes. In conducting the facility impact analysis, EPA first eliminated from the analysis those facilities showing materially inadequate financial performance in the baseline, that is, in the absence of the rule. EPA judged these facilities, which are referred to as baseline closures, to be at substantial risk of financial failure regardless of any financial burdens that may result from the MP& M rule. Second, for the remaining facilities, EPA evaluated how compliance costs would likely affect facility financial health. In this analysis of compliance cost impact, EPA accounted for potential price increases that may help facilities cover the cost of compliance. EPA based its estimate of potential price increases on a cost passthrough analysis that estimates how prices might change in response to regulation induced production cost increases. EPA identified a facility as a regulatory closure if it would have operated under baseline conditions but would fall below an acceptable financial performance level under the new regulatory requirements. EPA also identified facilities that would likely incur moderate impacts from the rule but that are not expected to close as a result of the rule. EPA used a different methodology to assess moderate impacts for each of three types of MP& M facilities: privately owned MP& M facilities, railroad line maintenance facilities, and governmentowned facilities. EPA established thresholds for two measures of financial performance   interest coverage ratio and pre tax return on assets   and compared the facilities' performance before and after compliance under each regulatory option with these thresholds. EPA attributes incremental moderate impacts to the rule if both financial ratios exceeded threshold values in the baseline ( i. e., there were no moderate impacts in the baseline), but at least one financial ratio fell below the threshold value in the post compliance case. EPA refers the reader to the full EEBA report for a detailed discussion of the economic impact methodology used for each of these types of MP& M facilities.

B. Economic Costs of Technology Options by Subcategory The TDD for the final rule presents EPA's engineering estimates of costs that will be incurred by facilities to comply with the final regulation, and the costs for other regulatory options. EPA adjusted the engineering costs from 1996 to 2001 dollars using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index ( CCI), and adjusted the costs to reflect the effect of taxes using a combined Federal/ State corporate income tax rate of 39 percent. EPA calculated the annual equivalent of capital and other one time costs by annualizing costs at a seven percent discount rate over an estimated 15 year equipment life. The compliance costs of the rule are the costs incurred by those facilities that EPA estimates will continue to operate in compliance with the rule. Aggregate compliance costs presented in this section differ from the costs presented in sections VI and VII because they exclude costs for facilities that are baseline closures or that close due to regulatory requirements ( see section VIII. D for estimates of baseline and postcompliance closures). Therefore, they represent only the compliance outlays of facilities that are estimated to continue operations. Section VIII. I presents EPA's estimates of social costs, which include costs for regulatory closures. Table VIII   1 shows the total annualized compliance costs by subcategory for the 2,382 OWS direct dischargers that are: ( 1) Subject to requirements; ( 2) make the necessary investments to meet the requirements; and ( 3) continue operating under the regulation. Facilities in all other subcategories are excluded from the final rule and have no incremental compliance costs. Total annualized costs are the sum of the annual operating and maintenance costs and the annualized equivalent of capital and other one time costs. Annualized pre tax compliance costs in 2001 dollars are estimated at $ 13.8 million per year for the final rule.

TABLE VIII   1.   TOTAL ANNUALIZED FACILITY* COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR THE OILY WASTES SUBCATEGORY [ pre tax, million $ 2001]

Subcategory Final rule Oily Wastes ...................................... $ 13.8 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25714 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations TABLE VIII   1.   TOTAL ANNUALIZED FACILITY* COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR THE OILY WASTES SUBCATEGORY   Continued [ pre tax, million $ 2001]

Subcategory Final rule All Categories: Number of Facilities Operating in the Baseline** .......... 2,382 * This table includes facility compliance costs only. Section VIII. I discusses the social costs of the rule. The estimates in this table exclude baseline and regulatory closures. ** This estimate can be found in section VIII. B. C. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the Final Rule by Subcategory 1. Baseline Closure Analysis Table VIII   2 summarizes the estimated baseline closures for direct dischargers. Based on its evaluation, EPA determined that 3,593 facilities ( or 8.2 percent) of the estimated 43,858 discharging facilities are baseline closures. The 3,593 baseline closures include 3,511 indirect dischargers ( 97.7 percent) and 98 direct dischargers ( 2.7 percent). The total number of facilities classified as indirect and direct dischargers does not equal the total number of dischargers. Some facilities operate in more than one subcategory and have an indirect and direct discharging operation within the same facility. The facilities estimated to close in the baseline analysis are at substantial risk of financial failure independent of the regulation. These facilities were excluded from the postcompliance analysis of regulatory impacts. Data on facility start ups and closures from the Census Statistics of U. S. Businesses indicate that between 6 and 12 percent of facilities in the major metal products manufacturing industries close in any given year. Therefore, EPA's analysis of baseline closures is consistent with this data.

TABLE VIII   2.   SUMMARY OF BASELINE CLOSURES Subcategory Total number of dischargers Number of baseline closures Percent of baseline closures % Operating in baseline General Metals ...................................................................................................... 11,364 880 7.7 10,484 Metal Finishing Job Shops .................................................................................... 1,542 50 3.2 1,491 Non Chromium Anodizer ....................................................................................... 122 29 23.8 93 Oily Wastes ............................................................................................................ 29,185 2,409 8.3 26,776 Printed Wiring Boards ............................................................................................ 848 239 28.2 609 Railroad Line Maintenance .................................................................................... 826 0 0.0 831 Shipbuilding Dry Dock ........................................................................................... 14 0 0.0 14 All Subcategories* ................................................................................................. 43,858 3,593 8.2 40,265 * Note: The reported total of facilities over all subcategories does not equal the sum of facilities by subcategory because some facilities operate in more than one subcategory and have an indirect and direct discharging operation within the same facility.

2. Facilities Subject to Regulatory Requirements Of the estimated 40,265 discharging facilities open in the baseline, EPA estimates that 37,880 facilities ( or 94 percent) will not be subject to the rule's requirements due to subcategory exclusions. The subcategory exclusions exempt 37,652 indirect dischargers in all subcategories and 259 direct dischargers in seven subcategories from the final rule.

TABLE VIII   3.   SUMMARY FACILITIES SUBJECT TO FINAL RULE Subcategory Operating in baseline Number of facilities excluded Percent of facilities excluded Number of facilities subject to final rule General Metals ............................................................................................ 10,484 10,484 100.0 0 Metal Finishing Job Shops .......................................................................... 1,491 1,491 100.0 0 Non Chromium Anodizer ............................................................................. 93 93 100.0 0 Oily Wastes .................................................................................................. 26,776 24,394 91.1 2,382 Printed Wiring Boards .................................................................................. 609 609 100.0 0 Railroad Line Maintenance .......................................................................... 829 829 100.0 0 Shipbuilding Dry Dock ................................................................................. 14 14 100.0 0 All Subcategories* ....................................................................................... 40,265 37,883 94.0 2,382 * Note: The reported total of facilities over all subcategories does not equal the sum of facilities by subcategory because some facilities operate in more than one subcategory and have an indirect and direct discharging operation within the same facility.

3. Post Compliance Impact Analysis EPA estimates that none of the direct discharging facilities operating in the baseline regulation will close as a result of the MP& M rule. With no predicted facility closures, EPA expects no employment losses from the rule. EPA also expects that none of the 2,382 direct discharging facilities operating in the baseline and subject to regulatory requirements will experience moderate financial impacts due to the rule. Chapter 5 of the EEBA includes impact analysis results for alternative regulatory options that EPA considered in developing the final rule.

4. Summary of Facility Impacts Table VIII   4 summarizes the results of the economic impact analysis for the final rule. EPA estimates that no facilities will close or experience moderate financial impacts. The table presents the annualized compliance cost on both a pre tax and after tax basis. The after tax value represents the cost that privately owned firms would incur in complying with the regulation because some of the costs are borne by the general tax paying public through VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25715 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations the tax deduction permitted on privately owned firms' compliance outlays. EPA's after tax analyses ( 1) use a combined Federal/ State tax rate of 39 percent, and ( 2) limit tax offsets to compliance costs to not exceed facilitylevel tax payments as reported in facility questionnaire responses.

TABLE VIII   4.   FACILITY IMPACTS FOR ALL FACILITIES Number of Facilities Operating in Baseline ........................................ 40,265 Number of facilities excluded from regulatory requirements ................ 37,883 Number of facilities operating subject to regulatory requirements ..... 2,382 Number of Closures ( Severe Impacts ............................................ 0 Percent Closing (%) ......................... 0.0 Number of Additional Facilities with Moderate Impacts ......................... 0 Percent with Moderate Impacts (%) 0.0 Annualized Compliance Costs ( pretax million $ 2001) ......................... $ 13.8 Annualized Compliance Costs ( after tax, million $ 2001) ......................... $ 11.9 D. Firm Level Impacts EPA examined the impacts of the final rule on firms that own MP& M facilities, as well as on the financial condition of the facilities themselves. A firm that owns multiple MP& M facilities could experience adverse financial impacts at the firm level if its facilities are among those that incur significant impacts at the facility level. EPA also uses the firmlevel analysis to compare impacts on small versus large firms, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Section XII. C of this preamble discusses RFA/ SBREFA issues. EPA compared compliance costs with revenue at the firm level as a measure of the relative burden of compliance costs. EPA applied this analysis only to MP& M facilities owned by privatelyowned entities. ( Section VIII. E discusses impacts on governments that own MP& M facilities.) EPA estimated firmlevel compliance costs by summing costs for all facilities owned by the same firm that responded to the survey plus estimated compliance costs for additional facilities for which respondents submitted information. The Agency was not able to estimate precisely at the national level the number of firms that own MP& M facilities, because the sample weights based on the survey design represent numbers of facilities rather than firms. Most privately owned MP& M facilities that remain open in the baseline are single facility firms, however. These firms can be analyzed using the survey weights. In addition, 278 survey respondents report being owned by a firm that owns more than one MP& M facility. For the firm level analysis, EPA assigned these facilities, and their owning firms, a sample weight of one, since it is not known how many firms these 278 sample facilities represent. Chapter 9 of the EEBA presents EPA's analysis of firm level impacts. Table VIII   5 shows the results of the firm level analysis. The results represent a total of 26,750 MP& M firms ( 26,472 + 278), owning 37,424 facilities ( 26,472 owned by single facility firms plus 10,953 owned by multi facility firms).

TABLE VIII   5.   FIRM LEVEL AFTER TAX ANNUAL COMPLIANCE COSTS AS A PERCENT OF ANNUAL REVENUES FOR PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES: SELECTED REGULATORY OPTION Number of firms in the analysis* Number and percent with after tax annual compliance costs/ annual revenues equal to:

Less than 1% 1 to 3% Over 3%

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 26,750 ...................................................................................................... 26,750 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 * Single site firms whose only MP& M facilities close in the baseline are excluded from the firm count. To be conservative, EPA included compliance costs for facilities that are owned by multi site firms but predicted to be baseline closures in the facility impact analysis.

EPA's analysis shows that none of the firms in the analysis incur after tax compliance costs equal to one percent or more of annual revenues. All firms incur compliance costs less than one percent of annual revenues. This analysis is likely to overstate costs at the firm level because it does not account for actions a multi facility firm might take to reduce its compliance costs under the regulation. These include consolidating and/ or transferring functions among facilities to consolidate wet processes and take advantage of scale economies in wastewater treatment. In some instances, such compliance responses may result in loss of employment in some facilities and possible increases in employment in others. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the EEBA report, EPA is unable to account for and analyze the full range of possible compliance actions that a firm may consider and implement in response to regulation.

E. Impacts on Government Owned Facilities EPA surveyed government owned MP& M facilities to assess the cost of the regulation on these facilities and the government entities that own them ( see 66 FR 437). A government is judged to experience major budgetary impacts if it has: ( 1) One or more facilities with compliance costs exceeding one percent of the baseline cost of service; ( 2) total debt service costs ( including costs to finance MP& M capital costs entirely with debt) exceeding 25 percent of baseline revenue; and ( 3) postcompliance total annualized pollution control costs per household exceeding one percent of median household income. EPA discusses the methodology for assessing impacts on governmentowned facilities in more detail in Chapter 7 of the EEBA report ( this methodology and the impact thresholds were also used to support EPA's analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, discussed at section XII. D of this preamble). Table VIII   6 provides national estimates of the number of MP& M facilities operated by governments that are potentially subject to the regulation, by type and size of government. Table VIII   7 summarizes the status of government owned facilities, their compliance costs and measures of impacts on government that own MP& M facilities.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25716 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations TABLE VIII   6.   NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT OWNED FACILITIES BY TYPE AND SIZE OF GOVERNMENT ENTITY Size of government Municipal government State government County government Regional governmental authority Total Large Governments ( population > 50,000) ........................... 618 377 781 46 1,823 Small Governments ( population <= 50,000) ........................ 1,750 .................... 212 ........................................ 1,962 All Governments .................................................................. 2,368 377 993 46 3,785 TABLE VIII   7.   NUMBER OF REGULATED GOVERNMENT OWNED FACILITIES, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND BUDGETARY IMPACTS BY REGULATORY OPTION Total Number of Government Owned Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 3,785 Number of Facilities exempted by subcategory exclusions .......................................................................................................... 3,327 Number of Facilities subject to regulation ..................................................................................................................................... 458 Compliance costs ($ 2001 million) ................................................................................................................................................. $ 8.99 Number of Facilities with compliance costs > one percent of baseline cost of service* .............................................................. 162 Number of Governments failing the `` impact on taxpayers'' criterion** ......................................................................................... 0 Number of Governments failing the `` impacts on government debt'' criterion *** ......................................................................... 0 Number of Governments failing all three impacts criteria* ........................................................................................................... 0 * Annualized compliance costs as a percent of total facility costs and expenditures, including operating, overhead and debt service costs and expenses. ** Based on comparison of compliance costs for all facilities owned by the government to the income of households that are served by the relevant government. A government is judged to experience impacts if the regulation results in a ratio of total annualized pollution control costs per household to median household income that exceeds one percent, post compliance. Includes existing pollution control costs plus the compliance costs due to the MP& M rule. *** Based on comparison of total debt service costs ( including costs to finance MP& M capital costs entirely with debt) with baseline government revenue. A government is judged to experience impacts if the rule causes its total debt service payments to exceed 25% of baseline revenue. * A government is judged to experience major budgetary impacts if it has one or more facilities with costs of compliance above 1% of baseline cost of service and fails both the taxpayers impact and government debt impact tests.

Under the final rule, an estimated 162 government owned facilities ( 4.3 percent of the total) would incur costs exceeding one percent of their baseline cost of service. The residual 95.7 percent of government owned facilities incur no costs or incur costs so low as to be readily absorbed within existing budgets. None of the governments incur costs that cause them to exceed the thresholds for impacts on taxpayers or for government debt burden. EPA therefore concludes that the regulation will not impose major budgetary burdens on any of the governments that own MP& M facilities.

F. Community Level Impacts EPA considered the potential impacts of changes in employment due to the regulation on the communities where MP& M facilities are located. EPA does not expect any adverse community employment effects because it anticipates no rule driven facility closures and accordingly no job losses from the rule.

G. Foreign Trade Impacts The foreign trade impacts analysis allocates the value of changes in output, for each facility that is projected to close, to exports, imports or domestic sales, based on the dominant source of competition in each market as reported in the surveys. EPA does not expect any material foreign trade impacts as a result of the final rule because no facility closures are expected. See Chapter 8 in the EEBA for a more detailed discussion of the foreign trade impact analysis and the resulting impacts of the alternative regulatory options on foreign trade.

H. Administrative Costs EPA also assessed the costs incurred by governments to administer the rule. The final rule only regulates direct dischargers; therefore, EPA does not expect increases in administrative costs because the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit program requires that these facilities already hold permits. However, EPA did estimate costs to POTWs for alternative options that would have regulated indirect dischargers. See Chapter 7 in the EEBA for a discussion of these estimates.

I. Social Costs 1. Components of Social Costs The social costs of regulatory actions are the opportunity costs to society of employing scarce resources in pollution control activity. The largest component of economic costs to society is the cost incurred by MP& M facilities for the labor, equipment, material, and other economic resources needed to comply with the regulation. EPA accounts for these costs on a pre tax basis. Social costs may also include lost producers' and consumers' surplus that result when the quantity of goods and services produced decreases as a result of the rule. Lost producers' surplus is measured as the difference between revenues earned and the cost of production for the lost production. Lost consumers' surplus is the difference between the price paid by consumers for the lost production and the maximum amount they would have been willing to pay for those goods and services. To accurately calculate lost producers' and consumers' surplus requires knowledge of the characteristics of market supply and demand for each affected industry. EPA instead calculated an upper bound estimate of social compliance costs using the simplifying assumption that all facilities continue operating in compliance with the rule, and pay the associated compliance costs ( i. e., assuming that there are no regulationrelated closures.) This framework provides an upper bound estimate of social costs, because, for facilities predicted to close, continuing to operate and to incur compliance costs is more costly than closing the facility with associated lost producers' and consumers' surplus. For the final regulation, EPA estimated that no facilities would close because of the rule. As a result, the potential effect of consumers' and producers' surplus should not be of consequence in assessing social costs. In addition to the resource costs to society associated with compliance, the estimated social cost also includes two other elements: the cost to local governments of implementing the rule VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25717 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations and the cost of any unemployment that may result from the regulation. The government administration costs include the costs to POTWs of permitting and compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. The unemployment related costs include the cost of administering unemployment programs for workers who would lose employment, and an estimate of the amount that workers would be willing to pay to avoid involuntary unemployment.

2. Resource Cost of Compliance The resource costs of compliance are the value of society's productive resources   including labor, equipment, and materials   consumed to achieve the reductions in effluent discharges required by the final rule. On the basis of a 7 percent discount rate, EPA estimates the annualized cost of compliance at $ 13.8 million ( 2001$). This value exceeds the cost that privately owned firms would incur in complying with the regulation because: ( 1) Some of the costs are borne by the general tax paying public through the tax deduction permitted on privatelyowned firms' compliance outlays and ( 2) some costs are passed onto consumers in the form of price increases. Although these two categories of cost are not part of the financial burden on regulated industries, they are part of the regulation's overall cost to society. EPA also estimated the annualized cost of compliance using a 3 percent discount rate and, in conjunction, an assumed 3 percent opportunity cost of capital to society. At the 3 percent discount rate, EPA estimates the annualized cost of compliance at $ 13.7 million ( 2001$). 3. Cost of Administering the Regulation As discussed in section VIII. I of this preamble, since the final rule only regulates direct dischargers, EPA does not expect increases in administrative costs because all direct dischargers already hold permits.

4. Social Cost of Unemployment The loss of jobs associated with any facility closures would represent a social cost of the regulation. However, from its facility impact analysis, EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of the regulation. Accordingly, EPA estimates a zero cost of unemployment for the final regulation. The results of this analysis for alternative regulatory options where closures are predicted can be found in Chapter 6 of the EEBA.

5. Total Social Costs Summing across all social costs results in a total annualized social cost estimate of $ 13.8 million ($ 2001), at a 7 percent discount rate, and $ 13.7 million, at a 3 percent discount rate, as shown in Table VIII   8.

TABLE VIII   8.   ANNUAL SOCIAL COSTS OF THE REGULATION [ Pre tax, million $ 2001]

Social cost category Annualized @ 3% Annualized @ 7%

Resource Value of Compliance Costs ( beforetax ..................... $ 13.7 $ 13.8 Government Administrative Costs ................. $ 0 $ 0 Social Costs of Unemployment ....... $ 0 $ 0 TABLE VIII   8.   ANNUAL SOCIAL COSTS OF THE REGULATION   Continued [ Pre tax, million $ 2001]

Social cost category Annualized @ 3% Annualized @ 7%

Total Social Costs .......... $ 13.7 $ 13.8 J. Cost and Removal Comparison Analysis The Agency is promulgating BPT limitations for the Oily Wastes subcategory. Among the factors EPA must consider when promulgating BPT limitations, section 304( b)( 1)( B) of the CWA directs EPA to consider the total incremental compliance costs of the BPT technology in relation to the effluent reductions achieved by the technology. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations based on available technology unless the required additional reductions are wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving the additional effluent reduction. One cost and removal comparison ratio used by EPA is the average cost per pound of pollutant removed by a BPT regulatory option. EPA measures the cost component as pre tax total annualized costs ($ 2001). For the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA measures the effluent reduction benefits as the summation of O& G ( as HEM) and TSS to avoid significant double counting of pollutants. EPA analyses show that OWS facilities largely discharge conventional pollutants. Table VIII   9 shows the incremental compliance costs, the incremental pollutant reductions, and the resulting cost and removal comparison ratio.

TABLE VIII   9.   COST AND REMOVAL COMPARISON FOR THE OILY WASTES SUBCATEGORY [$ 2001/ lb pollutant removed]

Subcategory Annualized cost ($ 2001) ( millions) Annual pounds of pollutant removed Cost and removal comparison ($ 2001/ lb pollutant removed)

Oily Wastes .............................................................................................................................................. 13.8 480,325 28.73 K. Cost Effectiveness Analysis In the development of best available technology effluent limitations guidelines for removals of toxic pollutants, EPA evaluates the relative efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants from the effluent discharges to the nation's waters. Because EPA is today not promulgating Oily Wastes subcategory BAT limitations based on a more stringent technology than BPT technology, EPA is not providing a costeffectiveness analysis for the final rule, which contains only BPT limitations ( see section VIII. J for the cost and removal comparison analysis). EPA did perform a cost effectiveness analysis for the alternative regulatory options that would have regulated indirect dischargers; the results of this analysis are reported in the EEBA and DCN 37900, section 26.0.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25718 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations IX. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits A. Introduction and Overview This section presents EPA's estimates of the national environmental benefits of the final MP& M effluent guidelines. The benefits occur due to the reduction in facility discharges described in section VII. The methodologies used in the estimation of benefits of the final rule are largely similar to those used for estimating benefits of the proposed rule ( see 66 FR 424). The Notice of Data Availability ( see 67 FR 38752) and section IV. B of today's final rule discuss revisions made to these methodologies after the publication of the proposed rule. The EEBA provides EPA's complete benefit assessment for the final rule. EPA estimated national benefits from the regulation on the basis of sample facility data. The Agency extrapolated findings from the sample facility analyses to the national level using two alternative extrapolation methods: ( 1) traditional extrapolation and ( 2) poststratification extrapolation. Section A. 2 of today's final rule and Appendix G of the EEBA discuss the extrapolation methods used in the benefits analysis in detail. To supplement the national level analysis performed for the final MP& M regulation, EPA also conducted a detailed case study of the expected State level costs and benefits of the MP& M rule in Ohio. For several important reasons, EPA judges that the Ohio case study is more robust than the national benefit analyses that EPA undertakes in support of effluent guideline development. These reasons include: ( 1) Use of more detailed data on MP& M facilities than is possible at the national level; ( 2) use of more detailed and accurate water quality data than are usually available; ( 3) more accurate accounting for the presence and effect of multiple discharges to the same reach; ( 4) inclusion of data on non MP& M discharges in the baseline and post compliance; ( 5) use of a firstorder decay model to estimate in stream concentrations in downstream water bodies; and ( 6) inclusion of an additional recreational benefit category ( swimming) in the analysis. Sections B through G of today's final rule discuss the national level benefits analyses; section H presents the Ohio case study. These sections include results only for the final rule; however, the EEBA presents results for additional options evaluated.

1. Benefit Overview Table IX   1 summarizes the benefits categories associated with the regulation and notes which categories EPA was able to quantify and monetize. The benefits include three broad classes: human health, ecological, and economic productivity benefits. Within these three broad classes, EPA was able to assess benefits with varying degrees of completeness and rigor. Where possible, EPA quantified the expected effects and estimated monetary values. Data limitations and limited understanding of how society values certain water quality changes prevented monetizing some benefit categories.

TABLE IX   1.   BENEFIT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING FROM THE METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY EFFLUENT GUIDELINE Benefit Category Quantified and monetized Quantified and nonmonetized Nonquantified and nonmonetized Human Health Benefits: Reduced cancer risk due to ingestion of chemically contaminated fish and unregulated pollutants in drinking water ............................................................................................... X Reduced non cancer adverse health effects ( e. g., reproductive, immunological, neurological circulatory, or respiratory toxicity) due to ingestion of chemically contaminated fish and unregulated pollutants in drinking water ............................................................. X Reduced non cancer adverse health effects from exposure to lead from consumption of chemically contaminated fish ............................................................................................ X Reduced health hazards from exposure to contaminants in waters used recreationally ( e. g., swimming) ................................................................................................................ X Ecological Benefits: Reduced risk to aquatic life .................................................................................................. X Enhanced water based recreation, including fishing, boating, and near water ( wildlife viewing) activities .............................................................................................................. X Other enhanced water based recreation, such as swimming, waterskiing, and white water rafting ...................................................................................................................... X Increased aesthetic benefits, such as enhancement of adjoining site amenities ( e. g., residing working, traveling, and owning property near the water) ..................................... X Non user value ( i. e., existence, option, and bequest value) ............................................... X Reduced contamination of sediments .................................................................................. X Economic Productivity Benefits: a Benefits to tourism industries from increased participation in water based recreation ....... X Improved commercial fisheries yields .................................................................................. X Reduced water treatment costs for municipal drinking water, irrigation water, and industrial process and cooling water ......................................................................................... X a The final rule regulates direct dischargers only. Therefore the selected option does not affect POTW operation. EPA, however, includes this benefit category when analyzing alternative options which considered the regulation of indirect dischargers ( See Chapter 19 of the EEBA for the benefits analysis of alternative options).

2. Extrapolation Methods EPA traditionally estimates national level costs and benefits by extrapolating analytic results from sample facilities to the national level using sample facility weights. EPA's traditional sampling approach relies on information about the economic and technical characteristics of the regulated community. Although important for understanding the technical requirements and costs of a regulation, this sampling approach does not incorporate information that could significantly affect the occurrence and VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25719 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations distribution of regulatory benefits, such as characteristics of the receiving water body and the size of population that may benefit from reduced pollutant discharges. As a result, the traditional sampling approach likely yields benefit estimates that are less accurate than those that could be obtained by using a sampling framework that accounts for such benefit receptor characteristics. EPA recognizes that using a traditional extrapolation method to estimate national level benefits may lead to a large degree of uncertainty in benefits estimates. Therefore, in addition to the traditional extrapolation method used in the proposed rule ( see 66 FR 424), EPA has estimated national level benefits for the final rule using an alternative extrapolation method as discussed in the NODA ( see 67 FR 38752). In this alternative extrapolation method, post stratification sample weighting, EPA adjusted the original sample weights using two variables that are likely to affect the occurrence and size of benefits associated with reduced discharges from sample MP& M facilities: ( 1) receiving water body type and size; and ( 2) the size of the population residing in the vicinity of the sample facility. The Agency utilized a commonly used post stratification method calling `` raking'' to adjust original sample weights to reflect these benefit pathway characteristics. EPA used data from three data sources   EPA's Permit Compliance System database ( PCS), EPA's Reach File 1, and Census Data   to develop the adjusted weights. Because of data limitations, EPA restricted the re weighting effort only to direct dischargers and excluded indirect dischargers. Therefore, EPA performed this alternative analysis for only the selected option. EPA used the alternative benefit estimate to validate general conclusions that EPA drew from its main analysis based on the traditional extrapolation method. Appendix G of the EEBA provides detailed discussion of this alternative extrapolation method. In the NODA, EPA also sought public comment on a proposed second alternative extrapolation method. In this extrapolation method, EPA proposed the extrapolation of the Ohio case study results to the national level based on three key factors that affect the occurrence and magnitude of benefits: ( 1) The estimated change in MP& M pollutant loadings; ( 2) the level of recreational activities on the reaches affected by MP& M discharges; and ( 3) income of the affected population. The Agency recognizes that this method is not rigorous for extrapolation to the national level. Therefore, EPA used this method only as a sensitivity analysis. Sections IX. B through IX. E of this preamble present national level benefits that are estimated based on both sample facility weights used in the engineering and economic impact analysis ( traditional extrapolation method) and sample facility weights adjusted by water body and population ( poststratification extrapolation). National level benefits estimated from the Ohio case study analysis are not presented in today's final rule. These estimates can be found in Appendix G of the EEBA report.

B. Reduced Human Health Risk EPA estimates that the final rule will prevent discharge of 18 pounds per year of carcinogens and 119 pounds per year of lead. Also, the final rule will prevent discharge of an additional 6,900 pounds of 76 pollutants of concern that are known to cause adverse non cancer human health effects. These reduced pollutant discharges from MP& M facilities generate human health benefits in a number of ways. The most important human health benefits stem from reduced risk of illness from consumption of contaminated fish, shellfish, and water. EPA analyzed the following measures of human health related benefits: reduced cancer risk from fish and water consumption; reduced risk of noncancer adverse health effects from fish and water consumption; reduced leadrelated adverse health effects in children and adults; and reduced occurrence of in waterway pollutant concentrations in excess of levels of concern. The levels of concern include human health based ambient water quality criteria ( AWQC) or documented toxic effect levels for those chemicals not covered by AWQC. The Agency monetized only two of these health benefits: ( 1) Changes in the incidence of cancer resulting from reduced exposure to carcinogens in fish and drinking water and ( 2) changes in adverse noncancer health effects in children and adults resulting from reduced exposure to lead in fish. EPA monetized human health benefits by estimating the change in the expected number of individuals experiencing adverse human health effects in the populations exposed to MP& M discharges. For carcinogens that have linear dose response relationships, it is feasible to estimate the incremental cancer incidence in a population from the estimate of mean individual risk for the population and the number of individuals in the population. However, for health effects with non linear doseresponse relationships and thresholds ( e. g., non cancer health effects), estimating population risk is computationally more complex and was not proposed ( see Table IX   1). The national level analysis of human health benefits finds negligible monetized benefits from the final rule. However, because of significant simplifications in the national level analysis, this finding should be recognized as potentially having substantial error and should therefore be interpreted with caution. In particular, the national level analysis: ( 1) Is based only on limited information on MP& M facilities at the national level; ( 2) accounts in only a very limited way for the presence and effect of joint discharges on the same reach; ( 3) omits data on non MP& M discharges in the baseline and post compliance; and ( 4) omits consideration of the downstream effects of pollutant discharges. In contrast to the national level analysis, and as discussed in section IX. A. of today's final rule and Chapter 21 of the EEBA report, the methods and data used for the Ohio case study address a number of these analytic weaknesses. This more site specific and detailed analysis finds that the final regulation would achieve $ 0.5 million ( 2001$) in health related benefits in the State of Ohio alone. EPA estimates that this analysis provides a more accurate, albeit lower bound, estimate of healthrelated benefits than indicated by the simpler national level analysis. Moreover, given ( 1) that Ohio represents only about 6 percent of the total MP& M facility population and ( 2) that a substantial share of the total MP& M facility population is located in other States with similar water body and population characteristics ( e. g., the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania), it is reasonable to expect that additional human health benefits would be estimated for the remainder of the country if EPA were able to apply this more rigorous approach at the national level. Accordingly, EPA judges that the final rule's human health benefits are higher than its social costs.

1. Benefits From Reduced Incidence of Cancer EPA assessed changes in the incidence of cancer cases from consumption of MP& M pollutants in fish tissue and drinking water. The Agency valued changes in incidence of cancer cases using a willingness to pay ( WTP) of $ 6.5 million ( 2001$) for avoiding premature mortality. This estimate of the value of a statistical life saved is recommended in EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis. This estimate does not include VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25720 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 1 U. S. EPA, 1993, `` Reference Dose ( RfD): Description and Use in Health Risk Assessments, Background Document 1A,'' http:// www/ epa. gov/ iris/ rfd. htm. 2 `` Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical Panel,'' EPA/ 630/ R   00/ 002. U. S. EPA, August 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ nceawww1/ pdfs/ chem mix/ chem mix 08 2001. pdf. estimates of WTP to avoid morbidity prior to death. EPA estimated aggregate cancer risk from contaminated drinking water for populations served by drinking water intakes on water bodies to which MP& M facilities discharge. EPA based this analysis on six carcinogenic pollutants for which drinking water criteria have not been published. This analysis excludes seven carcinogens for which drinking water criteria have been published. EPA assumed that public drinking water treatment systems will remove these seven pollutants from the public water supply. To the extent that treatment for these seven pollutants may cause incidental removals of the six pollutants without criteria, the analysis may overstate cancer related benefits. Calculated in stream concentrations serve as a basis for estimating changes in cancer risk for populations served by affected drinking water intakes. EPA estimates that baseline MP& M discharges from in scope facilities are associated with virtually zero annual cancer cases. The national level analysis finds that the final regulation would lead to a marginal reduction in these cancer cases resulting from consumption of contaminated drinking water; correspondingly, monetary benefits estimated from reduced consumption of contaminated drinking water are essentially zero. EPA also estimated cancer risk from the consumption of contaminated fish for recreational and subsistence anglers and their families. EPA based this analysis on thirteen carcinogenic pollutants found in MP& M effluent discharges. Estimated contaminant concentrations in fish tissue are a function of predicted in stream pollutant concentrations and pollutant bioconcentration factors. EPA used data on numbers of licensed fishermen by state and county, presence of fish consumption advisories, number of fishing trips per person per year, and average household size to estimate the affected population of recreational and subsistence anglers and their families. The analysis uses different fish consumption rates for recreational and subsistence anglers to estimate the change in cancer risk among these populations. EPA estimated that baseline MP& M discharges from in scope facilities are associated with 0.03 annual cancer cases. The national level analysis shows that final option would lead to a marginal reduction in cancer cases among recreational and subsistence angler populations. The monetary benefits estimated from consumption of less contaminated fish by these populations are essentially negligible. The previous findings from the national analysis of changes in cancer risk associated with the final rule differ from the Ohio case study results. Based on the Ohio case study, the final option is expected to eliminate less than 0.01 cancer cases annually in the State of Ohio ( see section IX. H of today's final rule for a detail). This reduction translates into approximately $ 14,500 ( 2001$) in annual benefits due to reduced cancer risk from consumption of contaminated fish tissue and drinking water. The difference in the findings of the national and Ohio analyses results primarily from more comprehensive information on MP& M and non MP& M facility discharges used in the Ohio case study analysis ( see section IX. A. of today's final rule for additional details). The national level analysis accounts only for the pollutant exposures from MP& M sample facilities. In contrast, the Ohio case study approach accounts for a broader baseline of pollutant exposure, including more thorough and detailed coverage of discharges from MP& M facilities and also estimated exposures from non MP& M sources. As a result, this analysis more accurately reflects baseline health risk conditions.