A. Nationwide Estimate of Annual Mercury Discharges From Dental Offices

    First, EPA estimated the amount of mercury potentially discharged
nationwide through amalgam restorations. EPA's main source of the data
underlying all of the estimates related to restorations is Vandeven and
McGinnis, 2005 (DCN 00163). EPA estimates 71 million restorations occur
at dental offices annually and that these restorations are performed
with one amalgam capsule per restoration. Each amalgam capsule contains
450 mg of mercury and, on average, 75% of the capsule is used for the
filling, with the remaining 25% remaining in the capsule. Therefore,
340 mg of mercury (75% of the capsule) are used per filling. Further,
9% of the 340 mg of mercury, or 31 mg, is discharged to the POTW as
carvings and filings or other waste. Thus, EPA estimates a total of 2.4
tons of mercury nationwide \25\ is discharged annually to POTWs from
restorations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 71 million restorations times 31 mg per restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, EPA modeled mercury discharges from amalgam removals.
Similar to restorations, EPA's main source of the data underlying all
of the estimates related to amalgam removals is Vandeven and McGinnis,
2005. Based on this information, EPA estimates approximately 97 million
amalgam removals occur each year. An average of 300 mg mercury is
removed from the filling. Ninety percent of the removed filling is
assumed to be discharged to wastewater, and the other 10% is handled as
dry waste and/or gray bagged. Thus, EPA estimates 29 tons of mercury
are discharged to POTWs from removals each year.
    Summing the total mercury discharged from restorations plus that
associated with filling removals, 31.4 tons of mercury are potentially
discharged annually to POTWs from dental offices. However, these
calculations do not account for the amount of mercury removed at the
dental office and prior to POTW discharge through existing chair side
traps, vacuum pump filters, and/or amalgam separators as described
below.

B. National Estimate of Annual Baseline Discharges of Mercury From
Dental Offices to POTWs

    As described in Section VIII, EPA estimates that 40% of dental
offices currently operate dental amalgam separators. Thus, on a
nationwide basis, approximately 65,000 dental offices currently do not
have separators and 44,000 offices already have separators in place. Of
the offices that do not currently have separators in place, EPA assumed
that 20% do not install or remove amalgam, but EPA requests comment on
this assumption. For the remainder, based on information in its record,
EPA assumes all offices have chair side traps or a combination of chair
side traps and vacuum filters that result in 68% and 78% collection of
dental amalgam, respectively (Vandeven and McGinnis). After accounting
for mercury reductions achieved through existing chair side traps,
vacuum filters, and separators, as appropriate, EPA estimates the
offices without separators that place or remove amalgam collectively
discharge a total of 4.4 tons of mercury to POTWs per year. The offices
with separators collectively discharge approximately 63 pounds of
mercury to POTWs per year. Thus, EPA calculates the current nationwide
annual baseline pounds of mercury discharged to POTWs from dental
offices to be 4.4 tons mercury (out of a total of the 31.4 tons mercury
originally generated). See Chapter 10 of the TEDD for more information.

C. National Estimate of Annual Baseline Discharges of Other Metals
Contained in Amalgam From Dental Offices to POTWs

    Amalgam is comprised of roughly 49% mercury, 35% is silver, 9% tin,
6% copper and 1% zinc \26\ (DCN DA00131). As explained earlier in
Section XI, EPA concludes the technology basis for this proposal would
be equally effective in reducing discharges of silver, tin, copper, and
zinc as it is in reducing mercury. EPA similarly assumes chair side
traps and the combination of chair side traps and vacuum filters will
result in 68% and 78% collection of these metals, respectively.
Accordingly, after accounting for existing technologies at dental
offices, EPA estimates that in

addition to 4.4 tons of mercury, approximately 4.6 tons of these
additional metals are discharged to POTWs annually for a total metal
discharge to POTWs of 9 tons annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ It also contains small amounts of indium and palladium. EPA
did not estimate discharges of these two pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. National Estimate of Annual Pollutant Reductions to POTWs Associated
With This Proposal

1. Mercury
    EPA estimates the 52,000 offices that install separators would
obtain an additional 99.0% removal by amalgam separator (median removal
efficiency of amalgam separators; see 7.1 of TEDD). This would result
in reduction of total mercury discharges to POTWs by 4.3 tons. Because
dissolved mercury accounts for much less than 1% of total mercury (DCN
DA00018), and because amalgam separators are not effective in removing
dissolved mercury, the dissolved mercury contribution and associated
reduction in loads is assumed to be negligible. EPA solicits comment
and data on this assumption.
2. Other Metals
    As explained earlier in Section XI, EPA concludes the technology
basis for this proposal would be equally effective in reducing
discharges of silver, tin, copper, and zinc as it is in reducing
mercury. Accordingly, EPA estimates a reduction of these metal
discharges to POTWs of approximately 4.5 tons.
3. Total Reductions
    EPA estimates this proposal would annually reduce mercury
discharges by 4.3 tons and other metal discharges by 4.5 tons for a
total annual reduction to POTWs of 8.8 tons.

E. National Estimate of Annual Pollutant Reductions to Surface Waters
Associated With This Proposal

    In order to evaluate final discharges of mercury (and other metals)
to waters of the U.S. by the POTW, EPA used its 50 POTW Study to
calculate POTW removals of each metal. As explained above, at baseline
and prior to implementation of this proposal, EPA estimates 4.4 tons of
dental mercury is collectively discharged annually to POTWs. Based on
the 50 POTW Study, EPA estimates POTWs remove 90% of the 4.4 tons
mercury from the wastewater. Thus, POTWs collectively discharge 880 lbs
of mercury from dental amalgam to surface waters annually. Under this
proposed rule, 99.0% of the solid mercury currently discharged annually
to POTWs will be removed prior to the POTW. The POTWs then further
remove 90% of total mercury from the wastewater. This reduces the total
amount of dental mercury discharged from POTWs nationwide to surface
water to 14 lbs of mercury annually. In other words, discharges of
mercury to waters of the U.S. are expected to be reduced by 860 pounds
per year.\27\ Similarly, EPA's 50 POTW Study data shows 79% to 88% of
other metals in the wastewater are removed by POTWs. As explained
above, EPA estimates 4.6 tons of other metals are also collectively
discharged annually to POTWs. Thus POTWs collectively discharge
approximately 1,280 lbs of other metals to surface waters annually.
Following compliance with this proposed rule, the total amount of other
metal discharges from POTWs nationwide to surface waters will be
approximately 20 lbs or a reduction of 1,257 lbs. See TEDD for more
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Dissolved mercury accounts for a portion of surface water
discharges, because amalgam separators do not remove dissolved
mercury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XVIII. Cost Effectiveness

    EPA also conducted an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the
proposed option. For more information about the methodology, data, and
results see the cost effectiveness section of the TEDD. The results of
this cost-effectiveness analysis are expressed in terms of the costs
(in 1981 dollars) per pound-equivalent removed, where pounds-equivalent
removed for a particular pollutant is determined by multiplying the
number of pounds of a pollutant removed by an option by a toxic
weighting factor (TWF). The toxic weighting factors account for the
differences in toxicity among pollutants and are derived using chronic
aquatic life criteria (or toxic effect levels) and human health
criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption of
fish. For this proposal, EPA used the annual pounds removed for
mercury, silver, tin, copper and zinc. The TWF for these pollutants is
shown in Table XVIII-1.

 Table XVIII-1--Toxic Weighting Factors for Pollutants in Dental Amalgam
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Mercury................................................     117.12
Silver.......................................................      16.47
Tin..........................................................       0.30
Copper.......................................................       0.63
Zinc.........................................................       0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA presents cost effectiveness in 1981 dollars as a reporting
convention. This allows EPA to compare the cost-effectiveness of
various ELGs. EPA calculates cost-effectiveness as the ratio of pre-tax
annualized costs of an option to the annual pounds-equivalent removed
by that option, and for this proposal is expressed as the average cost-
effectiveness for the option. Average cost-effectiveness can be thought
of as the ``increment'' between no regulation and the selected option
for any given rule. The technology basis for PSES in this proposal has
a cost-effectiveness ratio of $181-$201/lb-equivalent. This cost-
effectiveness ratio falls within industry comparisons of PSES cost-
effectiveness. A review of approximately 25 of the most recently
promulgated or revised categorical pretreatment standards demonstrates
that PSES cost effectiveness ranges from approximately $1/lb-equivalent
(Inorganic Chemicals) to $380/lb-equivalent (Transportation Equipment
Cleaning) in 1981 dollars.

                                 Table XVIII-2--PSES Cost Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Pre-tax total
                       Proposed option                            annualized     Removals (lbs-    Average cost
                                                               costs ($1981 M)        eq)         effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADA National Survey..........................................              $23          113,152             $201
Colorado Survey..............................................               21          113,152              181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIX. Environmental Assessment

A. Environmental Impacts

    EPA conducted a literature review concerning potential
environmental impacts associated with mercury in dental amalgam
discharged to surface water by POTWs. See DCN DA00148. Studies indicate
that dental offices are the largest source of mercury entering POTWs.
The total annual baseline discharge of dental mercury to POTWs is
approximately 8,800 pounds (4.4 tons): 8,448 pounds are in the form of
solid particles and 352 pounds (4%) are dissolved in the wastewater.
Through POTW treatment, approximately 90% of dental mercury is removed
from the wastewater and transferred to sewage sludge. The 10% of dental
mercury not removed by POTW treatment is discharged to surface water.
EPA estimates that POTWs annually discharge approximately 880 pounds of
dental mercury nationwide.
    The CWA regulations known as Standards for Use and Disposal of
Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR part 503, control the land application, surface
disposal, and incineration of sewage sludge generated by POTWs. Of the
11.2 billion dry pounds of sewage sludge generated annually, about 60%,
or 6.7 billion pounds, are treated to produce biosolids for beneficial
use as a soil amendment and applied to about 0.1% of agricultural lands
in the United States (National Research Council, 2002). Approximately
4,800 pounds per year of dental mercury are contained in land applied
biosolids.
    Approximately 18%, or 2 billion pounds, of the sewage sludge
generated annually by POTWs are surface disposed in facilities such as
sewage sludge mono-fills or municipal landfills. Approximately 1,400
pounds per year of dental mercury are contained in surface disposed
sewage sludge. Pollutant limits and monitoring requirements for surface
disposed sewage sludge mono-fills are set by 40 CFR part 503 and by 40
CFR part 258 for municipal landfills. There may be additional state or
local regulations that are more stringent than the federal biosolids
regulations.
    The remaining 22%, or 2.5 billion pounds, of sewage sludge
generated annually by POTWs is disposed of through incineration. An
estimated 35 pounds of dental mercury are emitted to the atmosphere
annually from incineration of sewage sludge (U.S. EPA, 2005); about
11.5 pounds of which are deposited within the conterminous United
States (U.S. EPA, 1997). 40 CFR part 503, subpart E sets requirements
for the incineration of mercury and other toxic metals in sludge. For
mercury, subpart E provides that incineration of sludge must meet the
requirements of the National Emissions Standards for Mercury in subpart
E of 40 CFR part 61.
    Environmental assessment of impacts associated with POTW discharges
of dental mercury is complicated by uncertainties about the fate and
transport of mercury in aquatic environments. The elemental form of
mercury used in dentistry has low water solubility and is not readily
absorbed when ingested by humans, fish, or wildlife. However, elemental
mercury may be converted into highly toxic methylmercury in aquatic
environments by certain forms of anaerobic sulfur reducing bacteria.
Methylmercury is easily absorbed into muscle and fat tissues, but it is
not readily excreted due to its low water solubility. Methylmercury
thus has high potential to become increasingly concentrated up through
aquatic food chains as larger fish eat smaller fish. Fish commonly
eaten by humans may have methylmercury levels 100,000 times that of
ambient water. The neurological effects of consumption of methylmercury
contaminated fish are well documented. Developmental effects to
fetuses, infants, children, and women of childbearing age are of
special concern. Neurological effects from predation of methylmercury
contaminated fish have been documented to occur in wild populations of
fish, birds, and mammals in many areas of the United States. A
plausible link has been identified between anthropogenic sources of
mercury in the United States and methylmercury in fish. However, fish
methylmercury concentrations also result from existing background
concentrations of mercury which may consist of mercury from natural
sources, mercury re-emitted from the oceans or soils, and mercury
deposited in the United States from sources in other countries. Given
the current scientific understanding of the environmental fate and
transport of mercury, it is not possible to quantify how much of the
methylmercury in fish consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by
U.S. emissions relative to international mercury sources or natural
mercury sources.
    EPA was unable to assess the specific environmental impacts of
dental mercury discharged by POTWs due to insufficient data needed to
evaluate several fundamental factors about the discharge, fate, and
transport of dental mercury in aquatic environments, including: the
degree and geographic extent of dental mercury methylation in aquatic
environments, the amount of methylated dental mercury that is taken up
by fish and wildlife, the human consumption rates of fish contaminated
with methylated dental mercury, and the extent and magnitude of
naturally-occurring mercury in aquatic environments.

B. Environmental Benefits

    While EPA did not perform an environmental benefits analysis of
this proposed rule, due to insufficient data about the aquatic fate and
transport of dental mercury discharged by POTWs, EPA was able to assess
the qualitative environmental benefits based on existing information.
For example, EPA identified studies that show that decreased point-
source discharges of mercury to surface water result in lower
methylmercury concentrations in fish. Moreover, several studies
quantified economic benefits from improved human health and ecological
conditions resulting from lower fish concentrations of methylmercury.
See DCN DA00148. The proposed pretreatment standards will produce human
health and ecological benefits by reducing the estimated annual
nationwide POTW discharge of dental mercury to surface water from 880
pounds to 14 pounds.

XX. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts Associated With the
Proposed Technology Basis

    Eliminating or reducing one form of pollution may cause other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act
require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) associated with effluent limitations
guidelines and standards. To comply with these requirements, EPA
considered the potential impact of the collection and treatment
technologies on energy consumption, air pollution, and solid waste
generation. EPA anticipates that the proposed rule would produce
minimal non-water quality impacts. The Administrator has determined
that these very minimal impacts are acceptable. For additional
information on the analysis of these non-water quality impacts, see the
Technical and Economic Development Document.

A. Energy Requirements

    Net energy consumption considers the incremental electrical
requirements associated with operating and maintaining dental amalgam
separators used in combination with BMPs that form the technology basis
for the proposed rule standards. As described in Section VI, an amalgam
separator in

a dental office is installed between chairs used for treatment and the
vacuum pump. Amalgam separators use sedimentation, either alone or in
conjunction with filtration to remove solids in the waste stream. Most
separators rely on gravity or the suction of the existing vacuum system
to operate, and do not require an additional electrical power source.
As a result, EPA expects operation of an amalgam separator would pose
negligible additional energy requirements on the existing vacuum pump.
    While the vendor data used to support this proposed rule have not
identified incremental energy requirements for an amalgam separator,
EPA is aware that some units described in the literature may require
small pumps to remove settled effluent from the separator (DCN 00162).
EPA found that these pumps are designed to operate only at the end of
the day or overnight, when the vacuum system is turned off. Any
incremental energy requirements in those cases where a small
supplemental pump is installed would be negligible compared to the
energy demands of the vacuum pump. Based on this evaluation of energy
requirements associated with this proposed rule, EPA concludes there
will be no significant non-water quality impacts associated with the
energy requirements of this proposed rule.

B. Air Emissions

    Unbound mercury is highly volatile and can easily evaporate into
the atmosphere. An estimated 99.6% of dental mercury discharges are in
solid bound form; i.e. elemental mercury bound to amalgam particles
(DCN DA00018). Because the majority of dental mercury is bound to solid
particles, it likely will not volatize to the atmosphere. Therefore,
EPA expects the proposed PSES and PSNS will not pose any increases in
air pollution. EPA concludes there will be no significant non-water
quality impacts associated with air emissions as a result of this
proposed rule.

C. Solid Waste Generation

    As explained above in Section XI, in the absence of amalgam
separators, a portion of the amalgam rinsed into chair side drains is
collected by chair side traps. The remainder is discharged to the POTW
where the vast majority is removed from the wastewater and becomes part
of the POTW sludge that may be land applied, disposed of in landfills
or mono-fills, or incinerated. This proposed rule is expected to
increase the use of amalgam separators nationwide by one and a half
times, since EPA estimates 40% of dental offices have separators
installed, with a corresponding increase in collection of used amalgam
prior to POTW discharge and recycling of amalgam via the spent
separator canisters. EPA expects the operation and maintenance
requirements associated with the amalgam separator compliance option
included as part of the proposed rule will further promote recycling as
the primary means of amalgam waste management. EPA expects this
proposed rule will not create additional solid waste, but will instead
result in a shift in how dental amalgam is handled. Nationally, EPA
expects less dental amalgam will partition to the POTW wastewater
sludge leading to reductions in the amount of mercury currently land
applied, landfilled, or released to the air during incineration.
Instead, it will be collected in separator canisters and recycled.
Based on this evaluation of solid waste generation, EPA concludes there
will be a reduction in non-water quality impacts associated with solid
waste generation as a result of this proposed rule.

XXI. Implementation and Proposed Changes to General Pretreatment
Regulations in 40 CFR Part 403

A. Implementation Deadline

1. Existing Sources
    For existing sources, EPA proposes a compliance date of three years
after the effective date of the final rule. Section 307(b)(1) of the
CWA provides categorical pretreatment standards ``shall specify a time
for compliance not to exceed three years from the date of
promulgation.'' See also 40 CFR 403.6(b). In proposing a compliance
date for existing sources subject to this proposed rule, EPA considered
several factors. First, EPA considered the burden on Control
Authorities (POTWs with approved Pretreatment Programs) of implementing
this rule on an industry consisting of approximately 110,000 dental
offices, many of whom are small businesses. EPA expects that these
POTWs will need to develop and implement new strategies and programs
for managing the enforcement and compliance of these pretreatment
standards given that the number of possibly affected facilities is
approximately 10 times the total number of dischargers currently
regulated under any categorical pretreatment standard. EPA expects that
POTWs will need time to conduct outreach to dental offices subject to
this proposed rule. Moreover, EPA envisions that dental offices may use
the entire three year period to come into compliance with the numeric
standard (presumably using amalgam separators) and implement the
required BMPs.
2. New Sources
    For new sources, the compliance deadline is governed by EPA's
regulation at 40 CFR 403.6(b), which provides that

    New Sources shall install and have in operating condition, and
shall `start-up' all pollution control equipment required to meet
applicable Pretreatment Standards before beginning to Discharge.
Within the shortest feasible time (not to exceed 90 days), new
Sources must meet all applicable Pretreatment Standards.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of the streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations for
indirect dischargers concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40
CFR 403.16 and 403.17.

C. Variances and Modifications

    The CWA requires application of pretreatment standards established
pursuant to sections 304 and 307 for all indirect dischargers. However,
the statute provides for the modification of these national
requirements in a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency
has established administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for
relief from the application of the national pretreatment standards for
categories of existing sources.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variance
    EPA may develop pretreatment standards different from the otherwise
applicable requirements if an individual discharger is fundamentally
different with respect to factors considered in establishing the
standards applicable to the individual discharger. Such a modification
is known as a ``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance. See
40 CFR 403.13. EPA, in its initial implementation of the effluent
guidelines and standards program, provided for the FDF modifications in
regulations. These were variances from the BCT effluent limitations,
BAT limitations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and BPT
limitations for conventional pollutants for direct dischargers. FDF
variances for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and
ultimately sustained by

the Supreme Court. (Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, 479 U.S.C. 116 (1985)).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
CWA section 301(n). This provision explicitly authorizes modifications
of the otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a discharger is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in CWA
section 304 or 403 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standards. CWA
section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may
establish alternative requirements. Under section 301(n) of the CWA, an
application for approval of a FDF variance must be based solely on (1)
information submitted during rulemaking raising the factors that are
fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have
an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be
no less stringent than justified by the difference and must not result
in markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than
the national limitation or standard.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 403, authorizing the Regional
Administrators to establish alternative standards, further detail the
substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF variance requests for
existing dischargers to POTWs. Thus, 40 CFR 403.13(d) identifies six
factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and size of a
discharger's facility) that may be considered in determining if a
discharger is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine
whether, based on one or more of these factors, the discharger in
question is fundamentally different from the dischargers and factors
considered by EPA in developing the nationally applicable pretreatment
standards. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g.,
inability to install equipment within the time allowed or a
discharger's ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF
variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 403.13(c)(2), a request for
standards less stringent than the national standard may be approved
only if compliance with the pretreatment standards would result in
either (a) a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost
considered during development of the pretreatment standards, or (b) a
non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the pretreatment standards. The legislative history of
section 301(n) of the CWA underscores the necessity for the FDF
variance applicant to establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 403.13 are explicit in imposing this burden upon
the applicant. The applicant must show that the factors relating to the
discharge controlled by the applicant's permit which are claimed to be
fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from
those factors considered by EPA in establishing the applicable
pretreatment standards. In practice, very few FDF variances have been
granted for past ELGs. An FDF variance is not available to a new source
subject to PSNS.
2. Economic Variances
    Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise
applicable PSES and PSNS for nonconventional pollutants due to economic
factors. As this rule controls toxic pollutants and only controls
nonconventional pollutants that are also found in the same waste
stream, this variance would not be applicable to this particular rule.

D. What are the roles of key entities involved in implementing the rule
and how are pretreatment standards implemented?

    EPA recognizes the role of many interested parties in the
development of, and, ultimately, the successful implementation of
pretreatment standards for dental dischargers. To the greatest extent
possible, EPA has attempted to strike a reasonable balance among the
many interests. A short summary of the various roles involved in
implementing categorical pretreatment standards is provided below.
1. Control Authorities
    The ``Control Authority'' refers to the POTW if the POTW has an
approved Pretreatment Program, or the Approval Authority if it has not
been approved, which may be the state or EPA. A POTW is a treatment
works as defined by section 212(2) of the CWA, which is owned by a
state or municipality (as defined in CWA sections 502 (3) and (4),
respectively). (see 40 CFR 403.3(q).) POTWs collect wastewater from
homes, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities and typically
transport it via a series of pipes, known as a collection system, to
the treatment plant. Most POTWs are not designed to treat the toxics in
commercial and industrial wastes, which can cause pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of
POTWs, including sludge disposal methods at POTWs. The General
Pretreatment Regulations require POTWs that meet certain criteria (e.g.
minimum design flow) to develop Pretreatment Programs to control
industrial Discharges into their sewage collection systems, unless the
state exercises its option to assume local responsibilities as provided
in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 403.10(e) and (f). Today there are an
estimated 1500 approved POTW Pretreatment Programs. As required under
40 CFR part 403, Control Authorities implement and enforce control
mechanisms (e.g., permits) to the Industrial Users (IUs) that discharge
to their systems, inspect and sample, and enforce control requirements
in order to protect the POTW against discharges which ``pass through''
or cause interference'' with the POTW (see 40 CFR 403.3(p) and (k)).
2. Approval Authority
    The Director in an NPDES state with an approved state Pretreatment
Program may be authorized to serve as the Approval Authority for the
implementation of a general pretreatment program. (40 CFR 403.3(c)).
Thirty-six states have such approved Pretreatment Programs and are
authorized to serve as Approval Authorities for implementation of the
Pretreatment Program. In a non-NPDES state or an NPDES state without an
approved state Pretreatment Program, the EPA Regional Administrator is
the Approval Authority.
3. EPA
    EPA establishes and implements national regulations for
Pretreatment Programs and categorical pretreatment standards for
certain industries such as the pretreatment standards for dental
amalgam proposed today. EPA also develops policy and guidance and
provides training and oversight for Pretreatment Program
implementation. As noted above, EPA's Regional Administrator serves as
the Approval Authority for a non-NPDES state or an NPDES state without
an approved state Pretreatment Program, and as the Control Authority
for POTWs without an approved Pretreatment Program in these states.
4. Industrial Dischargers (i.e. Dentists)
    IUs of POTWs must comply with Pretreatment Standards prior to
introducing pollutants into a POTW. The General Pretreatment
Regulations include general prohibitions that forbid IUs from causing
pass through and interference (i.e., cause the POTW to

violate its permits limits, or interfere with the operation of the POTW
or the beneficial use of its sewage sludge), and specific prohibitions
against the discharge of pollutants that cause problems at the POTW
such as corrosion, fire or explosion, and danger to worker health and
safety. As discussed in this document, EPA may also develop national
categorical pretreatment standards, including numeric pollutant limits
and BMPs, for IUs in specific industrial categories. The General
Pretreatment Regulations include reporting and other requirements
necessary to implement these categorical standards (e.g., 40 CFR
403.12).

E. What are the Control Authority requirements under existing General
Pretreatment Regulations?

    The current regulations require certain minimum oversight of IUs by
Control Authorities, which are typically POTWs with Approved
Pretreatment Programs but could be states or EPA acting as Pretreatment
Control Authorities. The required minimum oversight includes receipt
and analysis of reports and other notices submitted by IUs, randomly
sampling and analyzing effluent from IUs, and conducting surveillance
activities to identify occasional and continuing non-compliance with
pretreatment standards. In addition, for IUs designated as significant
industrial users (SIUs), per 40 CFR 403.3(v), Control Authorities must
inspect and sample the SIU effluent annually, review the need for a
slug control plan, and issue a Permit or equivalent control mechanism
with a duration not to exceed five years (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii) and
403.8(f)(2)(v), 403.10(e) and 403.10(f)(2)(i)). Control authorities may
determine that an industrial user is a non-significant categorical
industrial user or that an industrial user is not an SIU (see 40 CFR
403.3(v)(2) and (v)(3)).
    Facilities that are subject to categorical pretreatment standards
contained in regulations in 40 CFR Chapter I, subchapter N are referred
to as Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). The regulations related to
SIU at 40 CFR 403.3(v) define SIU to include CIUs, but also provide
that a Control Authority may determine that a CIU may be a Non-
Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) if certain conditions
are met. (see 403.3(v)(1) and (v)(2)). State Approval Authorities and
POTW Control Authorities who have the legal authority to implement the
NSCIU classification may find some of their CIUs satisfy the qualifying
conditions of NSCIU at 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2). Upon such finding, the
Control Authority may exclude facilities meeting the NSCIU criteria
from the SIU definition and its minimum oversight requirements. A
Control Authority may not exclude CIUs from the requirements of the
categorical pretreatment standards.

F. Why is EPA revising the existing General Pretreatment Regulations?

    EPA proposes to amend selected parts of the General Pretreatment
Regulations in order to simplify oversight requirements for the
approximately 110,000 dental offices subject to this proposed rule. As
mentioned in paragraph E. of this section, when EPA promulgates
categorical industrial pretreatment standards, as defined in 40 CFR
part 403, affected dischargers are referred to as Categorical
Industrial Users (CIUs). The number of dental offices that would be
subject to this proposed rule is approximately ten times the current
number of Categorical Industrial Users. EPA recognizes regulatory
oversight of this increased number of CIUs would need to be very
different from regulating the current number of CIUs. Using the
existing regulatory framework, enforcement of categorical pretreatment
regulation on this industry would require an increase in local, state
and federal resources whereas EPA does not expect such efforts to
result in greater environmental benefit. EPA is focused on providing
technical means to reduce administrative burden to dentists and Control
Authorities, while still providing a clear understanding of who is
affected and what they are expected to do, as well as achieving the
projected pollutant reductions. EPA estimates that these changes to the
Existing General Pretreatment Standards would reduce costs to POTWs to
implement and enforce this proposed rule by $47 million annually (see
TEDD).

G. What changes is EPA proposing to the General Pretreatment Standards?

    EPA proposes a new classification of CIU specifically tailored to
the Dental Office Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards rule,
``Dental Industrial User'' (DIU). EPA proposes that such Users not be
subject to the oversight requirements for SIUs (i.e., control mechanism
issuance requirement, annual inspection and sampling requirements).
Rather, EPA proposes to allow Control Authorities to focus their
oversight efforts on those dental office facilities that fail to meet
the compliance requirements of the DIU.

H. When is a dental office a DIU?

    Under the proposed rule, a dental discharger is given the option of
complying with monitoring and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 441.60,
which are tailored for dental dischargers, in lieu of the otherwise
applicable monitoring and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 403. If
a dental discharger complies with (1) the special monitoring and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 441.60, (2) the remaining 40 CFR part
403 requirements, and the applicable pretreatment standards (PSES or
PSNS), then the Control Authority may treat the dental discharger as a
DIU. The DIU must maintain compliance in order to retain its DIU
status.

I. When is a dental office not a DIU?

    If the dental office does not meet the requirements to be treated
as a DIU, under this proposal the Control Authority must treat the
dental discharger as a Significant Industrial User as defined in 40 CFR
403.3(v). As a Significant Industrial User, the POTW Control Authority
would be required to conduct the oversight duties applicable to SIUs as
described in 40 CFR 403.8(f).

J. What oversight responsibilities for DIUs is EPA proposing for
Control Authorities?

    This proposal would require that a Control Authority evaluate, at
least once per year, whether an IU previously determined to be a DIU
still meets the criteria for treatment as a DIU under 40 CFR 441.60.
EPA anticipates that this evaluation will primarily involve the Control
Authority's verification that the certification has been submitted by
the dental office documenting continued eligibility for DIU status. In
accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(F), a dental discharger would
be in significant noncompliance if it fails to provide any required
report within 45 days of the due date or if the Control Authority
elects to inspect the facility and finds the facility is not in
compliance with 40 CFR 441.60. Upon discovery that a dental office is
not in compliance with regulations at 40 CFR 441.60 (either reporting
requirements, 403, or 441 PSES/PSNS requirements), the Control
Authority must initiate enforcement in accordance with its approved
Pretreatment Program to return the dental discharger into compliance.
In order for the Control Authority to continue to treat the dentist as
a DIU, the Control Authority would need to verify and find, through an
inspection, that the dental discharger has returned to full compliance
with the criteria in 40

CFR 441.60. If, within 90 days, the Control Authority inspects,
verifies, and finds that the dental discharger has returned to full
compliance with 40 CFR 441.60, then the dental discharger would remain
a DIU. The 90 day compliance deadline is consistent with other portions
of 40 CFR part 403 (e.g., significant noncompliance compliance report
deadlines, 90 day report after effective dates of categorical
standards), and provides both the dental discharger and Control
Authority with an incentive to provide a timely return to compliance.
If the dental discharger has not returned to compliance within 90 days
of the initial noncompliance, the Control Authority could no longer
treat the dental discharger as a DIU and the dental discharger would
become a Significant Industrial User. Control Authorities are required
to provide oversight of SIUs which includes inspection and sampling of
each SIU annually, reviewing the need for a slug control plan, and
issuing a Permit or equivalent control mechanism with a duration not to
exceed five years (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii) and (f)(2)(v) and
403.10(f)(2)(i)).

K. Can a dental office DIU be a Non-Significant Industrial User
(NSCIU)?

    EPA does not propose to prohibit a Control Authority from finding
that a dental office may qualify as an NSCIU on an individual basis.
State Approval Authorities and POTW Control Authorities who have the
legal authority to implement the NSCIU classification may find that one
or more of their dental office CIUs may qualify as NSCIUs. However,
since its promulgation in 2005, many state Approval Authorities and
POTW Control Authorities have not adopted regulations to implement the
NSCIU classification. EPA believes that the DIU classification,
tailored for this single categorical pretreatment standard, while
comparable to the NSCIU classification, would be preferable, because it
would significantly reduce the Control Authority's burden in complying
with the oversight requirements that would otherwise apply.

L. Can Dental Industrial Users be covered under a general permit?

    Although this proposed rule does not require a Control Authority to
regulate DIUs as SIUs thereby requiring the Control Authority to issue
a control mechanism, designation of a dental office subject to 40 CFR
part 441 as a DIU does not preclude a Control Authority's option to
regulate the dental office under a general control mechanism, 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A), if that legal authority is adopted. The General
Pretreatment Regulations describe conditions which must be met in order
for the Control Authority to use a general control mechanism in lieu of
an individual permit or control mechanism. Provided that the Control
Authority adopted the necessary legal authority and modified its
Pretreatment Program to incorporate such authority and procedures, the
Control Authority may use a general control mechanism or ``general
permit'' for facilities that meet certain minimum criteria for being
considered substantially similar. The use of general control mechanisms
allows the permitting authority to allocate resources in a more
efficient manner and to provide timelier permit coverage, particularly
in the circumstances of covering large numbers of similar facilities
under a single mechanism. EPA considers that most dental offices
generally will conform to these requirements and could appropriately be
covered by a general control mechanism issued by a Control Authority.
The use of a general control mechanism also ensures consistency of
permit conditions for similar facilities. Additional information on the
use of general control mechanisms may be found in the Federal Register
of October 14, 2005 (70 FR 60143).

M. Would any POTW with a dentist office in its service area be required
to develop a Pretreatment Program?

    In accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(a), POTWs (or combination of POTWs
operated by the same authority) with a total design flow greater than 5
million gallons per day and receiving pollutants from IUs which pass
through or interfere with the operation of the POTW or are otherwise
subject to Pretreatment Standards are required to establish a POTW
Pretreatment Program unless the state with an approved Pretreatment
Program exercises its option to assume local responsibilities as
provided for in 40 CFR 403.10(e). For smaller POTWs, POTWs that have a
design flow of 5 million gallons per day or less, the Regional
Administrator or state Director may require the POTW to develop a local
Pretreatment Program if the nature or volume of the industrial
influent, treatment process upsets, violations of POTW effluent
limitations, contamination of municipal sludge, or other circumstances
warrant such development in order to prevent interference or pass
through. Interference and pass through are defined at 40 CFR 403.3(k)
and (p), respectively. As noted above, a state with an Approved state
Pretreatment Program may instead assume local responsibilities as
provided in 40 CFR 403.10(e). EPA anticipates that the approved states
will choose to carry out the oversight activities themselves rather
than requiring a POTW to develop a full Pretreatment Program solely to
regulate its dental dischargers.

N. Would states or municipalities that already implement Dental Amalgam
Control Programs need to modify their regulations?

    The proposed rulemaking would not affect existing state and local
requirements that control discharges of dental amalgam. However, states
with approved state programs and POTWs with approved Pretreatment
Programs would need to enforce the federal requirements at a minimum.
The new federal requirements include removal of at least 99.0% of total
mercury from amalgam discharges which can be accomplished through
proper use of a 2008 ISO 11143 certified amalgam separator with a
removal efficiency of at least 99.0%. The proposal at part 441.40(d)
would allow dentists currently operating amalgam separators no less
efficient than 95% to continue to operate their separators for ten
years before they would be required to meet the 99% removal standard.
Where ongoing state or POTW Control Authority programs require
additional information or implementation requirements, the Control
Authority must implement and enforce both program requirements and, for
overlapping requirements, the more stringent of the two programmatic
requirements.

O. Will states or municipalities that already implement Dental Amalgam
Control Programs need to issue control mechanisms or permits to impose
requirements that are more stringent than the federal requirements?

    The legal authority requirements for a POTW Pretreatment program
only require issuance of an individual or general control mechanism to
SIUs, 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(1)(iii)(A). The proposed regulation
modification in the General Pretreatment Regulations is to establish a
new DIU classification of Industrial User. The proposal indicates that
a DIU will not be a Significant Industrial User. Where the state or
POTW existing dental amalgam control programs are equal to or less
stringent than this proposal, and the state or Control Authority adopt
and have their Pretreatment Programs appropriately approved to
incorporate EPA's DIU provisions, dental offices compliant

with the DIU classification will not need to be issued a control
mechanism.

P. What reports would dental dischargers be required to submit?

    Existing and new dental dischargers could comply with the special
reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 441 in lieu of the otherwise
applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 403 by submitting the
Baseline Report (40 CFR 441.60(a)(1)) and the 90 Day Compliance Report
(40 CFR 441.60(a)(2)) and Periodic Monitoring reports (40 CFR
441.60(a)(3)). Submission of these reports would satisfy the reporting
requirements in 40 CFR parts 403 and 441. Dental dischargers who do not
submit reports consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 441.60 would
be required to submit the reports described in 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d),
and (e).

Q. Can the DIU designate a contractor or contract vendor to submit
Compliance Reports to the Control Authority or EPA?

    In accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(l), Baseline Monitoring Reports,
90-day Compliance Reports, and Periodic monitoring reports (40 CFR
403.12(b), (d), and (e), respectively) must be signed by (1) a
responsible corporate officer of the IU if it is a corporation; (2) a
general partner or proprietor if the IU is a partnership or sole
proprietorship; or (3) a duly authorized representative of the
responsible corporate officer, general partner, or proprietor if the
authorization specifies either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of the facility from which the
industrial discharge originates, such as the position of plant manager
or a position of equivalent responsibility for environmental matters
for the company and the written authorization is submitted to the
Control Authority.\28\ This does not preclude a third-party from
submitting the reports as long as the submission includes the proper
signature from the DIU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Today's proposal does not apply to third-party vendors
because they are not dental dischargers, and therefore, as such, EPA
cannot compel a third-party vendor to meet any reporting
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Would Control Authorities need to modify their Sewer Use Ordinance
and state regulations, respectively, to incorporate these changes to 40
CFR part 403?

    The proposed changes to 40 CFR part 403 to create the DIU
classification are changes that the Control Authority may adopt at its
discretion. The changes to 40 CFR part 403 provide program flexibility
and are not required to be incorporated into the state or POTW's
Pretreatment Program. However, for Control Authorities to designate
dental offices as DIUs, the state and POTW Pretreatment program would
need to incorporate these changes into their legal authority under 40
CFR 403.8(f)(l).

XXII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the OMB for review under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2514.01. To
reduce the overall costs associated with this rule, in lieu of
discharge monitoring, proposed 40 CFR 441.60 allows dentists to certify
compliance with requirements for amalgam capture and certain BMPs.
    For purposes of this estimate, EPA assumed all affected dentists
would elect to comply with this proposal through certification rather
than discharge monitoring. EPA estimates it would take a total annual
average of 153,000 hours \29\ and $2.5 million for affected dental
offices to collect and report the information required for
certification in the proposed rule. This estimate includes effort for
each dental office associated with completing the baseline monitoring
report, a one-time compliance report and an annual compliance
certification for each year of a three year ICR. This estimate is based
on average labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the
dental office personnel involved in collecting and reporting the
information required. EPA estimates it would take a total annual
average of 17,400 hours and $960,000 for control authorities to review
the information submitted by dentists that certify they meet the
requirements in the proposed rule. EPA estimates that there would be no
start-up or capital costs associated with the information described
above. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ This estimate reflects approximately three hours per office
in the first year and one hour each subsequent year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket
identification ID number EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0693. Submit any comments
related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section in this
document for where to submit comments to EPA. Since OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after October
22, 2014, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if
OMB receives it by November 21, 2014. The final rule will respond to
any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in the
Dental Office sector (NAICS 621210) with annual receipts of 7 million
dollars or less (based on SBA size standards); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    EPA estimates that 109,600 dental offices out of 109,859 dental
offices potentially subject to this proposal meet the small business
definition. EPA's analysis of projected impacts on small dental offices
is described in detail in

Section XVI. EPA projects less than 1% of 109,859 affected dental
offices would incur compliance costs exceeding 1% of revenue and no
more than 0.2% would incur compliance costs exceeding 3% of revenue.
After considering the economic impact of this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
First, while some amalgam separators currently used at some dentists
are certified to meet slightly less mercury removal than required in
this proposed rule (e.g., they are certified to remove 95% total
mercury), this proposal would allow dentists with existing separators
to satisfy the requirements for a period of up to 10 years. See Section
XIV. In addition, this proposed rule includes a compliance option that
would allow dental offices subject to the rule to certify proper
operation of a widely available, inexpensive technology that meets
certain requirements in combination with BMPs in lieu of conducting
more onerous discharge monitoring requirements that would otherwise be
associated with pretreatment standards. Finally, EPA has tried to
minimize impacts to small governments responsible for Pretreatment
Programs by proposing to amend the General Pretreatment Regulations to
create the DIU classification. The DIU classification reduces oversight
responsibilities for Control Authorities from the current regulatory
scheme, while at the same time achieving the projected pollutant
reductions. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1
year. As explained in Section XVI, the annual cost of the proposed rule
is $44-$49 million. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    The proposal is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA, because it contains no regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has not
identified any dental offices that are owned by small governments.
While this proposal would impact government entities required to
administer the proposed pretreatment standards, EPA does not expect
that this would include any small governments. By statute, a small
government jurisdiction is defined as a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601). As explained in Section XXI, control
authorities are responsible for oversight and administration associated
with this proposal. To qualify as a Control Authority, a POTW must have
a flow of at least 5 million gallons per day. The average water use per
person is 100 gallons per day so a POTW with a population less than
50,000 would likely have a flow less than 5 MGD. Therefore, EPA does
not expect small government owned POTWs would meet the definition of a
Control Authority.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule would not have federalism implications. It would
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule would not
alter the basic state-federal scheme established in the CWA under which
EPA authorizes states to carry out the NPDES permit program. EPA
expects the proposed rule would have little effect on the relationship
between, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among, the
federal and state governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
    EPA coordinated closely with states, via ECOS and local governments
and with NACWA, throughout the development of this proposed rule. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). It would not
have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes. This proposed rule contains no Federal
mandates for Tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable
duties on Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on
this proposed action from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
rules that are economically significant according to Executive Order
12866 and involve a health or safety risk that may disproportionately
affect children. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is estimated to cost less than $100 million and does not
involve a safety or health risk that may have disproportionately
negative effects on children. The proposed rule will reduce the amount
of mercury from dental amalgam entering POTW's and eventually the
nation's waters, which will reduce impacts to the neurological
development of children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, as
described in Section XX of this proposal. EPA determined that any
additional energy usage would be insignificant to the total energy
usage of Dental Offices and total annual U.S. energy consumption.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed
efficiency standards for amalgam separators (ISO 11143) in 1999 and
updated these standards in 2008. EPA proposes to use ISO 11143 2008.
This voluntary standard setting organization established a standard for
measuring amalgam separator efficiency by evaluating the retention of
amalgam mercury using specified test procedures in a laboratory
setting. It also includes requirements for instructions for use and
operation and maintenance.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations. While EPA was unable to
perform a detailed environmental justice analysis because it lacks data
on the location of POTWs to which dental discharges currently occur,
the proposal would increase the level of environmental protection for
all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority or low-income population. The proposed rule will
reduce the amount of mercury from dental amalgam entering POTW's and
eventually the nation's waters, to benefit all of society, including
minority communities.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potential
environmental justice considerations associated with this proposed
regulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 403 and 441

    Environmental protection, Dental, Dental office, Dentist, Mercury,
Pretreatment, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: September 23, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR parts 403 and 441 be amended
as follows:

PART 403--GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW
SOURCES OF POLLUTION

0
1. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342,
and 1361.

0
2. In Sec.  403.3, add paragraph (v)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  403.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (4) An industrial user subject to categorical Pretreatment
Standards under 40 CFR part 441 is designated a Dental Industrial User
(DIU) rather than a Significant Industrial User (SIU) if the Industrial
User (IU) has complied with 40 CFR part 403, the applicable
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) or pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) and the monitoring and reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 441.60. If a DIU has not complied with these
requirements and standards, such IU will be considered a SIU until the
Control Authority evaluates the IU as specified in Sec.
403.8(f)(2)(v)(D).
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  403.8, add paragraph (f)(2)(v)(D) to read as follows:

Sec.  403.8  Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and
Implementation by POTW.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (D) Where the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) finds that an
Industrial User (IU) meets the criteria for classification as a Dental
Industrial User (DIU), the POTW must evaluate, at least once per year,
whether the IU meets the criteria in Sec.  403.3(v)(4). In the event
that the POTW determines that a DIU does not meet the criteria in Sec.
403.3(v)(4), the POTW must immediately begin enforcement in accordance
with its enforcement response plan. If the dental discharger has not
returned to compliance within 90 days of the initial noncompliance, the
POTW may no longer treat the dental discharger as a DIU and must treat
the dental discharger as a SIU. Upon verification by the POTW through
an inspection and a finding that the dental discharger has complied
with all of the applicable requirements in Sec.  403.3(v)(4), the
dental discharger may be considered a DIU.
* * * * *
0
4. Add part 441 to read as follows:

PART 441--DENTAL OFFICE (MERCURY AMALGAM) POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.
441.10 Applicability.
441.20 General definitions.
441.30 General pretreatment requirements.
441.40 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
441.50 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
441.60 Discharge monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342,
and 1361. 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.

Sec.  441.10  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the provisions of this part are applicable to discharges of wastewater
to publicly owned treatment works from facilities where the practice of
dentistry is performed (``dental dischargers''), including but not
limited to institutions, permanent or temporary offices, clinics,
mobile units, home offices, and facilities, and including dental
facilities owned and operated by Federal, state, or local governments.
    (b) The provisions of this part do not apply to process wastewater
discharges from dental dischargers which exclusively practice one or
more of the following dental specialties: oral pathology, oral and
maxillofacial radiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics,
periodontics, or prosthodontics;
    (c) Dental Dischargers will be exempt from any further requirements
of this rule so long as they:
    (1) Do not place or remove amalgam except in limited emergency
circumstances
    (2) Certify to the Control Authority that that they do not and will
not use or remove amalgam, including the following information:
    (i) The facility name, address, contact information.
    (ii) The dental license number of all practicing dentists at the
location.

    (3) Notify the Control Authority of any changes to information
required under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (4) Information provided to comply with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section must be signed by the responsible corporate
officer as defined in Sec.  403.12(l).

Sec.  441.20  General definitions.

    For purposes of this part:
    Amalgam process wastewater means any wastewater generated and
discharged by a dental discharger through the practice of dentistry
that may contain dental amalgam.
    Amalgam separator means a collection device designed to capture and
remove dental amalgam from the amalgam process wastewater of a dental
facility.
    Control Authority is defined in 40 CFR 403.3(f).
    Dental amalgam means an alloy of elemental mercury and other metals
that is used in the practice of dentistry.
    Dental Discharger means a source of wastewater to a publicly owned
treatment works from a facility where the practice of dentistry is
performed as described in 40 CFR 441.10.
    Dental Industrial User (DIU) means a dental discharger as described
in Sec.  441.10(a) that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 441.60.

Sec.  441.30  General pretreatment requirements.

    (a) Any source subject to this part that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must
comply with 40 CFR part 403.
    (b) [Reserved]

Sec.  441.40  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 (removal credits) and 403.13
(fundamentally different factors) and no later than [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], any existing
source subject to this part must achieve the following pretreatment
standards:
    (a) Removal of at least 99.0% of total mercury from amalgam process
wastewater and
    (b) Incorporation of the following best management practices:
    (1) Scrap amalgam (contact and non-contact), including but not
limited to dental amalgam from chair-side traps, screens, vacuum pump
filters, dental tools, or collection devices may not be flushed down
the drain.
    (2) Chair-side traps that may drain to a sewer must be cleaned with
non-bleach, non-chlorine containing cleaners that have a pH of 6 to 8.
Such cleaning must be conducted at least weekly.
    (3) Certification that the BMPs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2) of this section are being followed is deemed to meet these
requirements.
    (c) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may be met by
installation and operation of at least one 2008 ISO 11143 certified
amalgam separator that:
    (1) Is certified to meet a removal efficiency of no less than
99.0%;
    (2) Receives all amalgam process wastewater;
    (3) Is sized to incorporate all wastewater that may pass through
it;
    (4) Is inspected at least once per month to ensure proper operation
and maintenance of the separator, including confirmation that amalgam
process wastewater is flowing through the retaining cartridge,
separator canister, or amalgam separating portion of the amalgam
separator (preventing bypass);
    (5) In the event that the separator is found to not be functioning
properly, is repaired or replaced according to manufacturer
instructions; and
    (6) Is regularly maintained by replacing the amalgam retaining
cartridge(s), separator canister(s), or separator unit(s) whenever the
collection of retained solids reaches the manufacturer's stated design
capacity or annually, whichever comes first.
    (d) Dental Dischargers that operate an amalgam separator certified
under the 1999 or 2008 ISO 11143 standard installed at a dental
facility prior to October 22, 2014, satisfy the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section until [DATE 10 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if the existing amalgam
separator:
    (1) Receives all amalgam process wastewater;
    (2) Is sized to incorporate all amalgam process wastewater that may
pass through it;
    (3) Is inspected at least once per month to ensure proper operation
and maintenance of the separator, including confirmation that
wastewater is flowing through the retaining cartridge, separator
canister, or amalgam separating portion of the amalgam separator
(preventing bypass); and
    (4) Is regularly maintained by replacing the amalgam retaining
cartridge(s), separator canister(s), or separator unit(s) whenever the
collection of retained solids reaches the manufacturer's rated design
capacity or annually, whichever comes first.

Sec.  441.50  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 (removal credits) and 40 CFR
403.13 (fundamentally different factors), any new source subject to
this part must achieve PSNS as follows:
    (a) Removal of at least 99.0% of total mercury from amalgam process
wastewater and
    (b) Incorporation of the following best management practices
(BMPs):
    (1) Scrap amalgam (contact and non-contact), including but not
limited to dental amalgam from chair-side traps, screens, vacuum pump
filters, dental tools, or collection devices may not be flushed down
the drain.
    (2) Chair-side traps that may drain to a sewer must be cleaned with
non-bleach, non-chlorine containing cleaners that have a pH of 6 to 8.
Such cleaning must be conducted at least weekly.
    (3) Certification that the BMPs specified in (1) and (2) of this
subpart are being followed is deemed to meet these requirements.
    (c) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may be met by
installation and operation of at least one 2008 ISO 11143 certified
amalgam separator that:
    (1) Is certified to meet a removal efficiency of no less than
99.0%;
    (2) Captures all amalgam process wastewater;
    (3) Is sized to incorporate all amalgam process wastewater that may
pass through it;
    (4) Is inspected at least once per month to ensure proper operation
and maintenance of the separator, including confirmation that amalgam
process wastewater is flowing through the retaining cartridge,
separator canister, or amalgam separating portion of the amalgam
separator (preventing bypass);
    (5) In the event that the separator is found to not be functioning
properly, is repaired or replaced according to manufacturer
instructions; and
    (6) Is regularly maintained by replacing the amalgam retaining
cartridge(s), separator canister(s), or separator unit(s) whenever the
collection of retained solids reaches the manufacturer's stated design
capacity or annually, whichever comes first.

Sec.  441.60  Discharge monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements.

    (a) Dental dischargers may comply with the following monitoring and
reporting requirements in lieu of the otherwise applicable requirements
in Sec.  403.12(b), (d), and (e).
    (1) Baseline report. For existing sources, a baseline report must
be

submitted within 180 days of the effective date of this rule. For new
sources, a baseline report must be submitted at least 90 days prior to
commencement of discharge. It must include:
    (i) The facility name, address, and contact information as well as
the dental license number of all practicing dentists at the location.
    (ii) A description of the operation at the dental discharger
including:
    (A) The total number of chairs,
    (B) The total number of chairs at which dental amalgam may be
present in the resulting wastewater;
    (C) For existing sources, a description of any existing amalgam
separators currently operated to include, at a minimum, the make,
model, and manufacturers recommended frequency of container change. If
no separators are currently employed, indicate none. For new sources, a
description of any planned amalgam separators to include, at a minimum,
the make, model, and manufacturers recommended frequency of container
change.
    (iii) For existing sources, statement of whether or not the
facility currently employs the best management practices (BMPs)
specified in Sec.  441.40(b).
    (2) 90-day compliance report. For existing sources, a compliance
report must be submitted within [90 days after the final compliance
date of this rule]. For new sources, a compliance report must be
submitted within 90 days following commencement of the introduction of
wastewater into the publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The report
must include:
    (i) The facility name, address, and contact information as well as
the dental license number of all practicing dentists at the location.
    (ii) A description of the operation at the dental office including:
    (A) The total number of chairs, and
    (B) The total number of chairs at which dental amalgam may be
present in the resulting wastewater.
    (C) A description of any existing amalgam separators currently
operated to include, at a minimum, the make, model, and manufacturers
recommended frequency of container change.
    (iii) Certification that the design and operation of separators
meet the requirements specified in Sec.  441.40 or Sec.  441.50, as
applicable.
    (iv) Certification that the facility is employing BMPs specified in
Sec.  441.40(b) or Sec.  441.50(b), as applicable.
    (3) Periodic monitoring report. A periodic report of ongoing
compliance must be submitted annually. The reports must include:
    (i) The facility name, address, and contact information as well as
the dental license number of all practicing dentists at the location;
    (ii) If no changes have occurred since submission of the most
recent compliance submission (e.g. 90-day compliance report or periodic
monitoring report);
    (iii) Certification that the design and operation of the separators
meets the requirements specified in Sec.  441.40 or Sec.  441.50, as
applicable and that the facility is employing the BMPs specified in
Sec.  441.40(b) or Sec.  441.50(b), as applicable;
    (iv) If changes have occurred since submission of the most recent
compliance submission (e.g. 90-day compliance report or periodic
monitoring report), you must submit the updated information required
for the 90-day compliance report as specified in Sec.  441.60(a)(2).
    (b) If the dental discharger complies with the applicable
requirements in 40 CFR part 403 and the monitoring and reporting
requirements described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section, in addition to the applicable pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES) or pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) in Sec.  441.40 or Sec.  441.50, the dental discharger may be
considered a Dental Industrial User (DIU) by the Control Authority;
otherwise the Control Authority must treat the dental discharger as a
Significant Industrial User (SIU) as defined in 40 CFR 403.3(v).
Reports submitted to comply with this section must be signed by the
responsible corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l).
    (c) Dental dischargers must maintain on site and available for
inspection (in either physical or electronic form) the following
records for a period of three years from the date they are created:
    (1) The baseline report required in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section;
    (2) The 90-day compliance report required in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section;
    (3) The periodic monitoring report required paragraph (a)(3) of
this section;
    (4) Documentation including the date of each visual inspection of
the amalgam separator(s) as specified in Sec.  441.40(c)(4) or Sec.
441.50(c)(4), including records of visual inspections of the amalgam
separator to ensure that the device is not in bypass mode;
    (5) Documentation specifying the date of amalgam retaining
cartridge replacement in accordance with Sec.  441.40(c)(5) or Sec.
441.50(c)(5); and
    (6) Records indicating the date of amalgam retaining cartridges are
sent off site for proper disposal and the shipping address of the
facility to which amalgam retaining cartridges are sent.

[FR Doc. 2014-24347 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 69086-69087]
[DOCID:fr30de09-45]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9097-8; OW-2009-0921]

Draft 2009 Update Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Ammonia--Freshwater

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft criteria and request for
scientific views.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of
draft national recommended water quality criteria for ammonia for the
protection of aquatic life. The draft criteria are based on EPA's
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for
the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (1985), (EPA/R-85-
100). EPA's recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria provide
guidance to States and authorized tribes in adopting water quality
standards for protecting aquatic life and human health and provide
guidance to EPA for promulgating Federal regulations under CWA section
303(c), when such action is necessary.

DATES: Scientific views must be received on or before March 1, 2010.
Comments postmarked after this date may not be considered.

ADDRESSES: Submit your scientific views, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009- 0921, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) Water Docket, MC 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave,
NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0921. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Water
Docket/EPA/DC, 1301 Constitution Ave, NW., EPA West, Room 3334,
Washington DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30
p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Office of Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Huff, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division (4304T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Are Water Quality Criteria?

    Water quality criteria are either narrative descriptions of water
quality or scientifically derived numeric values that protect aquatic
life or human health from the deleterious effects of pollutants in
ambient water.
    Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop
and publish and, from time to time, revise, criteria for water quality
accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. Water quality
criteria developed under section 304(a) are based solely on data and
scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant
concentrations and environmental and human health effects. Section
304(a) criteria do not reflect consideration of economic impacts or the
technological feasibility of meeting pollutant concentrations in
ambient water.
    Section 304(a) criteria provide guidance to States and authorized
tribes in adopting water quality standards that ultimately provide a
basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants. The
criteria also provide guidance to EPA when promulgating Federal
regulations under section 303(c) when such action is necessary. Under
the CWA and its implementing regulations, States and authorized tribes
are to adopt water quality criteria to protect designated uses (e.g.,
public water supply, aquatic life, recreational use, or industrial
use). EPA's recommended water quality criteria do not substitute for
the CWA or regulations, nor are they regulations themselves. Thus,
EPA's recommended criteria do not impose legally binding requirements.
States and authorized tribes have the discretion to adopt, where
appropriate, other scientifically

defensible water quality criteria that differ from these
recommendations.

II. What Are the Ammonia Criteria?

    EPA is today publishing draft national recommended water quality
criteria (NRWQC) for ammonia for protecting aquatic life. These draft
criteria updates are based on EPA's Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses (1985), (EPA/R-85-100). These Guidelines describe the
Agency's current approach for deriving national recommended water
quality criteria to protect aquatic life. Toxicity data and other
information on the effects of ammonia were obtained from reliable
sources and subjected to both internal and external scientific peer
review. The NRWQC for ammonia saltwater are not being updated at this
time.
    Freshwater: Freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not
be affected unacceptably if--
    1. The one-hour average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in
mg N/L) does not exceed, more than once every three years on the
average, the CMC (acute criterion), which is dependent on the aquatic
organisms present.
    2A. The thirty-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen
(in mg N/L) does not exceed, more than once every three years on the
average, the CCC (chronic criterion), which is dependent on the aquatic
organisms present.
    2B. In addition, the highest four-day average within the 30-day
period should not exceed 2.5 times the CCC.
    The acute and chronic criteria concentrations are expressed as
functions of temperature and pH, such that values differ across sites,
and differ over time within a site. See draft criteria document (pp.
34-38) for actual equations describing this function. As temperature
decreases, invertebrates, but not fish, become less sensitive to
ammonia, and below a particular temperature threshold, fish become the
most sensitive genera.
    Acute Criteria: At pH=8, where freshwater mussels are present, the
criterion concentration ranges from 1.90 mg N/L at 30[deg] C to 9.81 mg
N/L at 0[deg] C. At pH=8, where freshwater mussels are absent the
criterion concentration ranges from 3.29 mg N/L at 30[deg] C to 9.99 mg
N/L at 0[deg] C.
    Chronic Criteria: At pH=8, where freshwater mussels are present,
irrespective of whether fish early life stages (ELS) are present or
absent, the criterion ranges from 0.186 mg N/L at 30[deg] C to 0.817 mg
N/L at 0[deg] C. When freshwater mussels are absent, the values range
from 1.33 mg N/L at 30[deg] C to 2.32 mg N/L at 0[deg] C at times when
fish ELS are present, and from 1.33 mg N/L at 30[deg] C to 5.87 mg N/L
at 0[deg] C at times when fish ELS are absent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Draft 2009 ammonia      Current 1999
                                 criteria (at pH 8    criteria (at pH 8
                                   and 25[deg] C)       and 25[deg] C)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute.........................  2.9 mg N/L mussels   5.6 mg N/L salmon
                                 present.             present.
                                5.0 mg N/L mussels
                                 absent.
Chronic.......................  0.26 mg N/L mussels  1.2 mg N/L fish
                                 present.             early life stages
                                                      present.
                                1.8 mg N/L mussels
                                 absent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: These criteria values are appropriate at the standard
normalized pH and temperature; the criteria values are a function of
the variability of pH and temperature.

    The water quality criteria for ammonia saltwater are not being
updated at this time.

III. What is the Relationship Between the Water Quality Criteria and
State or Tribal Water Quality Standards?

    As part of the water quality standards triennial review process
defined in Section 303(c)(1) of the CWA, the States and authorized
Tribes are responsible for maintaining and revising water quality
standards. Water quality standards consist of three principal elements:
designated uses, water quality criteria to protect those uses, and
antidegradation requirements, providing for protection of existing
water uses and limitations on degradation of high quality waters.
Section 303(c)(1) requires States and authorized Tribes to review and
modify, if appropriate, their water quality standards at least once
every three years.
    States and authorized Tribes must adopt water quality criteria that
protect designated uses. States may develop their criteria based on
EPA's recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria or other
scientifically defensible methods. A State's criteria must contain
sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated uses.
Consistent with 40 CFR 131.21, new or revised water quality criteria
adopted into law by States and authorized Tribes on or after May 30,
2000 are in effect for CWA purposes only after EPA approval.

IV. Where Can I Find More Information About Water Quality Criteria and
Water Quality Standards?

    For more information about water quality criteria and Water Quality
Standards refer to the following: Water Quality Standards Handbook (EPA
823-B94-005a); Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM),
(63FR36742); Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan--Priorities for
the Future (EPA 822-R-98-003); Guidelines and Methodologies Used in the
Preparation of Health Effects Assessment Chapters of the Consent Decree
Water Criteria Documents (45FR79347); Methodology for Deriving Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000), EPA-
822-B-00-004); Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (EPA
822/R-85-100); National Strategy for the Development of Regional
Nutrient Criteria (EPA 822-R-98-002); and EPA Review and Approval of
State and Tribal Water Quality Standards (65FR24641).
    You can find these publications through EPA's National Service
Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP, previously NCEPI) or on
the Office of Science and Technology's Home-page (http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience).

    Dated: December 23, 2009.
Peter S. Silva,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. E9-30992 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71118]
[DOCID:fr25no05-61]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-24-000]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Application for Abandonment

November 17, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 10, 2005, Paiute Pipeline Company
(Paiute) filed an abbreviated application, pursuant to section 7(b) of
the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for
permission and approval to abandon a firm transportation service
rendered to United Engine & Machine Company (United Engine) pursuant to
Part 284 of the Commission's regulations.
    Paiute states that United Engine has provided Paiute with notice of
termination of its service agreement, effective as of February 28,
2006. Paiute also indicates that the terms of the service agreement
require that Paiute obtain from the Commission a specific grant of
abandonment authorization prior to abandoning service.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time December 9, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6476 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19010]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7506]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1308-000]

Palouse Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Palouse Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 11, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7506 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P