The advantage of this approach is it achieves " zero" water discharge. Virtually all of the silver in the waste solutions is captured with the solids. There are several disadvantages, however. One is that volatile organics in the waste solution may be evaporated as well, creating an air pollution problem. One evaporation unit has a charcoal air filter to capture these organics. 58 A second disadvantage is that any organics which condense with the water will be recycled also, causing a potential buildup of their concentrations in the process. Finally, this is an energy intensive technique and so carries associated high energy costs and fuel use environmental effects. ( Calif. DHSa)

7.9 Implementation of Control Technologies As detailed above, photoprocessors practice chemical recovery and wastewater treatment for both economical and environmental reasons. The wastewater from photoprocessing operations has been a focus of regulation because of a number of parameters, including toxic metals, toxic chemicals, oxygen demand, ammonia, and bionutrients. Table 7.2 below presents 1991 data on the use of environmental controls and chemical recovery methods by commercial photoprocessors.

Table 7.3 summarizes the silver concentration at typical recovery efficiencies for end of process, in combination with low silver solutions, and in combination with process wash waters.

Table 7.2 Commercial Photoprocessor Environmental Controls, 1991 All Specialty Retailers Combined Camera Store with Minilab Stand Alone Minilab Mail Order, Wholesale, and Captive Labs Portrait Studio Firms Percent Operating Silver Recovery Systems 96.3% 89.5% 100% 66.7%

Type of Silver Recovery System Used:

! electrolytic recovery ! steel wool canister ! ion exchange ! evaporation/ distillation 80.7% 45.8% 3.6% 2.4% 82.6% 48.9% 0.9% 0.9% 81.0% 43.9% 6.3% 0.3% 94.7% 57.9% 20.8% 8.3% 63.2% 36.8% 2.0% 4.1%

Percent that Recycle Water 7.8% 10.2% 7.2% 40.9% 10.0%

Percent that Regenerate Chemistry 25.8% 19.6% 28.6% 86.4% 22.6%

Percent of Firms Visited or Contacted by State or Local Water Authority in 1991 13.1% 25.4% 73.3% 25.0%

Source: EPA 1994 Note: Population basis for these values was unspecified in source report ( EPA 1994). 59 Table 7.3 Silver Concentrations After Silver Recovery ( mg/ L)

Percent Recovery Ag in Silver Rich After Recovery1 When Combined with Silver Poor2 When Combined with Wash Water3 90%

95%

99%

99.9% 200  800 100  400 20  80 2  8 100  400 50  200 10  40 1  4 10  40 5  20 1  4 0.1  0.4 Source: Silver CMP 1. Silver concentrations after recovery. 2. Silver concentrations when treated silver rich solutions are combined with silver poor solutions. Silver rich solutions include fix, bleach fix, washless stabilizer, and low flow washwaters. Silver poor solutions include developers, bleaches, stop baths, stabilizers used after washes, and washwaters. 3. Silver concentrations when treated silver rich solutions are combined with silver poor solutions and process washwaters.

7.10 Control and Treatment Issues A barrier to the effective treatment of photoprocessing wastewaters is the small size and lack of technical sophistication of many of the photoprocessors. Processes to remove silver and other pollutants from wastewaters require careful operation and maintenance to achieve their design effectiveness. Many photoprocessors, especially the minilabs within drug stores, grocery stores, and department stores, do not have staff with sufficient training and longevity to operate this equipment effectively.( EPA 1994)

High prices for certain inputs have encouraged reduced use of those inputs over time. In addition competition based on product quality has encouraged some environmental improvements. This congruence between economic and environmental goals was particularly noted with respect to silver. Past increases in the price of silver encouraged efforts both to reduce the amount of silver used in sensitized products and to increase silver recovery and recycling. The extent to which silver is recycled is sensitive to price, and according to industry participants is currently hampered by the combination of moderate prices for silver and the costs of complying with RCRA rules. However, actions taken to reduce the amount of silver in sensitized products also had the effect of improving product quality. According to industry contacts, competition based on product quality has continued to encourage the use of less silver over time, independent of fluctuations in the price of silver.( EPA 1994)

The high cost of replacing photoprocessing equipment acts as an economic barrier to improved environmental performance. Many environmental improvements ( e. g., processes that 60 recycle photoprocessing chemicals) are embedded in the photoprocessing equipment, and replacement of existing equipment is required to achieve those improvements. Photoprocessors are reluctant to replace equipment before the end of its useful life, especially minilabs, for whom the capital investment can be a substantial burden. While the equipment replacement cycle acts as some constraint on the speed of environmental improvements, it is not clear that is causes significant delays. The basic pace of product and process improvements results in a turnover of photoprocessing equipment in only eight years on average, according to industry experts.( EPA 1994)

Photographic product users' needs are also cited by industry contacts as a factor influencing the pace and extent of environmental improvements. As described earlier, different end use segments present different demands that influence the nature of the leading photoprocessing chemistry over time. For example, the market demand for one hour processing eliminates many opportunities for reducing the chemical content of processing packages. If chemicals are reduced, the film must remain in the solution longer, extending the time required for developing. Also, the accuracy an quality requirements of x ray film an graphic arts film limit the potential for alternatives to silver halide based film.( EPA 1994) 61 8. Environmental Assessment 8.1 Introduction This chapter examines the effects that the pollutants discharged from the photoprocessing industry may have on human health, aquatic ecosystems, and Publicly Owned Treatment Works ( POTWs). First, the list of characteristic photoprocessing pollutants, introduced in Chapter 6, is re examined. Next, pollutant loads as reported in the national Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database are presented. Total industry pollutant loads are then calculated using estimated flows and pollutant concentrations from Chapter 6. A toxic weighting factor analysis is performed for the list of characteristic pollutants. This analysis is used to show the relative toxicity of the effluent components in a manner consistent with the effluent guidelines program. These toxic weighting factors are used in conjunction with the calculated pollutant loads to estimate industrywide toxic loads.

Next, a qualitative, pollutant by pollutant list of potential environmental impacts and fate is presented for typical photoprocessing effluent constituents. Evidence in the scientific literature of the negative environmental effects of photoprocessing wastewater is summarized. The three areas of concern explored here include impacts on activated sludge treatment, impacts on human health, and impacts on aquatic ecosystems.

A separate section is devoted to the potential impacts and speciation of silver, which is the pollutant of greatest concern in photoprocessing effluent. It is explained that, although certain ionic forms of silver are considerably toxic, especially to aquatic invertebrates, more prevalent compound and complexed forms of silver are generally less toxic.

8.2 Pollutants Found in Photoprocessing Effluent Table 8.1 lists the main pollutants mentioned in Chapter 6 as possible photoprocessing wastewater constituents. Two of the pollutant parameters ( Temperature and pH) are not pollutants in the traditional sense and will not be discussed further here. Five ( COD, BOD, TSS, TKN and TDS) are classes of pollutants and not individual pollutants. Discussion of health effects, environmental effects, and POTW treatment for many of these pollutants follows the loading analysis in Section 8.4. For other parameters, health and environmental effects and POTW removal data were not available. 62 Table 8.1 Possible Photoprocessing Wastewater Constituents Pollutant Parameter Ferri and Ferro cyanide Temperature Cyanide pH Chromium Biochemical Oxygen Demand ( BOD)*

Para phenylenediamene Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD)*

Hydroquinone Total Dissolved Solids ( TDS)*

Sulfonated Hydroquinone Total Suspended Solids ( TSS)*

Ascorbic Acid Ammonia Nitrogen ( NH 3 N)*

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid ( EDTA) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ( TKN)*

Hydroxylamine Thiosulfate*

Iron EDTA Complex Sulfates*

Propylenediaminetetraacetic acid ( PDTA) Silver ( after silver recovery)*

Ammonia Thiosulfate Iron*

Silver Thiosulfate Zinc*

* Pollutants for which data are available to calculate total annual discharge loads Another source for pollutant information for the photoprocessing industry is the Permit Compliance System ( PCS). PCS is a computerized information management system maintained by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance ( OECA). PCS contains data on permit conditions and monitoring, compliance, and enforcement for facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits. NPDES permits are applicable only to facilities that discharge directly to surface waters. However, some states also include data from facilities that discharge to groundwater in the PCS data base, so these groundwater data are also available in the PCS data base. Among other items, PCS records indicate the pollutant parameters listed in the permit, and may also contain information of the loadings of these pollutants discharged in the facility's wastewater.

Only five facilities in the United States are currently permitted and listed in the PCS data base under the photoprocessing SIC codes. The pollutants and limits in these permits are based 63 on ground water controls or water quality load allocations: none are based on Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 459. Table 8.2 summarizes the pollutants and annual loadings for these facilities for 1995. Loadings for Facilities 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all to groundwater. Facility 4 discharges its wastewaters directly to surface water.

Table 8.2 Pollutant Loadings for Direct Discharge Photoprocessing Facilities, 1995 Units are pounds per year, except flow is in gallons per year. " Not Mon." indicates that pollutant was not monitored in the permit.

Pollutant Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 Facility 5 Flow ( gallons/ yr) 1284 12090 45210 33,480,000 201,000 Fluoride, Total ( lbs/ yr) 0.004394 Not Mon. 0.053113 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Copper, Total 0.001479 0.035028 0.032011 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Iron, Total 0.000589 0.660947 0.058013 Not Mon. 0.397 Nickel, Total 0.005958 Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon.

Silver, Total 0 0.001382 0.014938 Not Mon. 0.044 Zinc, Total 0.009923 Not Mon. 0.050807 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Foaming Agents 0 Not Mon. 0.04808 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Nitrogen, Total Not Mon. 0.32509 Not Mon. Not Mon. 3.925 Lead, Total Not Mon. 0.001888 Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon.

Phenolics, Total Recov. Not Mon. 0 Not Mon. Not Mon. 0 Methylene Chloride Not Mon. 0 Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon.

Oil & Grease Not Mon. Not Mon. 1.029303 0 Not Mon.

Nitrate, Total as N Not Mon. Not Mon. 1.444289 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Magnesium, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. 3.475618 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Sulfate, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. 15.86418 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Iron & Manganese, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.061863 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Boron, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.061142 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Chromium, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.002772 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Manganese, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.002772 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Antimony, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.004927 Not Mon. Not Mon. Pollutant Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 Facility 5 64 Aluminum, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.030341 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Nitrogen NH3 as NH3 Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.948351 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Phenolic Compounds Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.003318 Not Mon. Not Mon.

Solids, Total Dissolved Not Mon. Not Mon. 115.4557 131328.1 Not Mon.

Bromide Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.303408 Not Mon. Not Mon.

BOD, 5 day Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 1397.108 Not Mon.

Solids, Total Suspended Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 1229.455 Not Mon.

Nitrogen  NH3 as N Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 22.0743 Not Mon.

Cyanide, Total Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 5.588431 0.044 Silver, Dissolved Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.055884 Not Mon.

Silver, Total Recoverable Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.111769 Not Mon.

Zinc, Total Recoverable Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 2.794216 Not Mon.

Aluminum, Total Recoverable Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 27.67218 Not Mon.

Aluminum, Dissolved Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 27.94216 Not Mon.

Cadmium, Total Recoverable Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 2.794216 Not Mon.

Chromium, Total Recoverable Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 2.794216 Not Mon.

Chlorine, Total Residual Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 27.94216 Not Mon.

COD Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 10897.44 Not Mon.

Acetone Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. Not Mon. 0.022 This table shows that there is a wide disparity in the pollutants measured ( permitted) from facility to facility. The variation of these photoprocessing pollutant parameters is a subject for future investigation. Permit writers also have chosen to require measurement of certain parameters ( for example, silver) by different means ( total silver, dissolved silver, and total recoverable silver) at different facilities. The reported loads for most parameters other than conventional pollutants are below one pound per year, which is very low compared to most other manufacturing and service industries. The flow values are relatively low as well. 65 TWF

5.6 AQ  5.6 HHOO 8.3 Toxic Weighting Factor Analysis EPA's Office of Water uses toxic weighting factors ( TWFs) to compare the relative toxicity of industrial effluent discharges. The toxic weighting factors applied to the photoprocessing industry are derived using the same methodology employed for other effluent guidelines, but are based on updated toxicity information. TWFs are used to calculate copper based pound equivalents, and are derived from EPA chronic aquatic life criteria ( or toxic effect levels) and EPA human health Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption of fish. For carcinogenic substances, the human health risk level is set at 10 5, ( i. e., protective to a level allowing 1 in 100,000 excess cancer cases over background). Copper, a toxic metal pollutant commonly detected and removed from industrial effluent, is selected as the benchmark ( i. e., the pollutant to which others are compared). EPA has used copper previously in TWF calculation for the cost effectiveness analysis of effluent guidelines. While the water quality criterion for copper has been revised ( to 12.0

g/ L), the TWF method uses the former criterion ( 5.6

g/ L) to facilitate comparisons with cost effectiveness values calculated for other regulations.

The TWF for aquatic life effects and the TWF for human health effects are added for pollutants of concern. The calculation is performed by dividing the former copper criterion of 5.6

g/ L by the aquatic life and human health criteria ( or toxic effect levels) for each pollutant, expressed as a concentration in micrograms per liter (

g/ L):

Where: TWF = toxic weighting factor AQ = Chronic aquatic life value (

g/ L) HHOO = Human health ( ingesting organisms only) value (

g/ L)

Toxic weighting factors for the 5 pollutants for which loadings are estimated and toxicity data are available are given in Table 8.3. 66 Table 8.3 Pollutant Toxic Weighting Factors Pollutant TWF Ammonia 0.0022 Sulfate 5.6 X 10 6 Silver 47 Iron 0.0056 Zinc 0.0051 Only one of the pollutants ( silver) has a TWF greater than 1.0. This value is based on silver nitrate, however, which is not expected to exist in any appreciable concentration in photoprocessing effluent, as described in section 8.6.

8.4 Loads Associated with Photoprocessing Effluent It is useful to estimate the total quantity of pollutants being discharged by the entire universe of facilities of a certain industrial category in order to compare the relative pollutant constituent releases within the industry, and also to compare these pollutant releases to those of other industries. The total pollutant loading for the amateur photoprocessing industry can be calculated from the flow and concentration values estimated in Chapter 6. Values for the other photoprocessing sectors can not be estimated due to lack of processing volume information. However, it is estimated that the amateur photoprocessing industry accounts for 44 percent of all photoprocessing, in correspondence to this segment's silver use as compared to all photographic silver use ( data given in Table 4.3). The results presented in Table 6.8 show that the total 1994 amateur photoprocessing flow is estimated to be 2,250 million gallons per year, based on the additive process flow demands as reported in reference WEF 1994. The pollutant concentrations found in the total combined wastestreams, as presented in Table 6.3, are multiplied by this flow rate to calculate loads according to the following equation:

Load ( lbs/ yr) = Mean Concentration ( mg/ L) x 2,250 million gallons x 3.785 L/ gal x 2.205 lbs/ kg x 1 kg/ 106 mg Since the total unweighted load does not sufficiently describe the potential environmental impact of an industry's dicharge, toxic weighting factors as described above in Section 8.3 are used to calculate a toxic load, from the following equation:

Toxic Load ( lbs eq/ yr) = Load ( lbs/ yr) x TWF 67 Table 8.4 shows the estimated loads for each pollutant constituent, and the toxic loads for those pollutants which have a toxic weighting factor.

The table shows that the total expected annual load for the amateur sector this industry is 133 million pounds per year, and that approximately 9 million toxic pounds are discharged annually ( 99.9 percent of which are due to silver, for which the given toxic weighting factor is not representative). Once again, the amateur sector is estimated to account for 44 percent of all photoprocessing volume.

Table 8.4 Estimated 1994 Loads and Toxic Loads for the Amateur Sector of the Photoprocessing Industry Pollutant Parameter Concentration# Range ( mg/ L) Concentration Average ( mg/ L) Load ( lbs/ yr) TWF Toxic Load ( lbs eq/ yr)

BOD 200 3,000 1,600 30 X 106 NA COD 400 5,000 2,700 51 X 106 NA TDS 300 3,000 1,650 31 X 106 NA TSS < 5 50 27 0.51 X 106 NA Ammonia 20 300 160 3.0 X 106 0.0022 6,610 TKN 30 350 190 3.6 X 106 NA Thiosulfate 100 1,000 550 10 X 106 NA Sulfates 50 250 150 2.8 X 106 5.6 X 10 6 16 Silver < 0.1 5 10

0.19 X 106 47* 8,830,000 Iron < 10 100 55 1.0 X 106 0.0056 5,784 Zinc < 0.75 0.75 14 X 103 0.0051 72 Total = 133 X 106 Total = 8,842,482 # Values from reference WEF 1994, pg. 10.

The value range < 0.1  5 is low compared to the concentration ranges presented in Table 7.3, for 95 percent silver recovery, combined wastestream ( combined with wash water), of 5 20 mg/ L. The value of 10 mg/ L has been taken to be more realistic. * This value is for the pure silver ion and does not accurately represent the actual toxicity of most silver compounds or complexes that would be expected to exist in photoprocessing wastewater.

As a comparison to the silver discharge value estimated above of 190,000 pounds ( 1994, amateur), the total silver loading before recovery can be calculated from the silver content of the 68 film and paper used, the quantity processed, and the silver wash out rates. The silver content of a variety of films and papers, and the proportions of these film and papers used by type for a typical photofinishing facility, are available in the literature. Assuming removal of all silver in color processing, and 80 percent silver removal in black and white processing, these values give the amount of silver rendered, in Troy ounces per 1000 square feet processed, to be 2.35 for paper, and 21.3 for film.( EPA 1991a, EPA 1991b) Multiplication by the total film and paper used for the U. S. amateur market allows the loadings calculation prior to silver recovery:

2.35 Troy ounces x 4,115 x 106 ft2 paper + 1000 ft2 paper 21.3 Troy ounces x 296 x 106 ft2 film = 16 million Troy ounce 1000 ft2 film or 1.1 million pounds silver Thus, an overall recovery rate of 83 percent of this 1.1 million pounds would lead to the estimated 1994 amateur market discharge quantity of 190,000 pounds.

8.5 Qualitative Environmental Impact of Photoprocessing Effluent Constituents This section examines the potential environmental impacts of some of the pollutants addressed earlier in this chapter as being characteristic of photoprocessing wastewater. Not all pollutants are listed due to lack of information. Examples of impacts include: impacts on human health, impacts on the health of aquatic organisms, impacts on operation of biological wastewater treatment systems, and aesthetics. Removal by typical activated sludge systems is also addressed.

Ammonia Ammonia ( NH 3) is one of the constituents of the nitrogen cycle. It is a concern because it can increase oxygen demand, promote eutrophication, and, when converted to nitrate, cause irritation of the gastrointestinal tract. The toxicity of ammonia to aquatic life is dependant on pH and dissolved oxygen level.( EPA 1981a) One study using a simulated photoprocessing waste stream showed an average removal of ammonia in activated sludge reactors of 53 percent.( Pavlostathis)

Cadmium Cadmium is an extremely dangerous toxicant. In addition to being classified as a human carcinogen, cadmium could form organic compounds with mutagenic or teratogenic properties. In addition, conventional water treatment practices do little to remove cadmium, and it has been found to accumulate in the liver, kidneys, pancreas, and thyroid of humans and other animals. Cadmium also acts synergistically with other metals; its toxicity is considerably increased when combined with copper or zinc. Among aquatic organisms, fish eggs and larvae and crustaceans appear to be especially sensitive.( EPA 1981a) 69 Chromium Chromium in industrial wastewaters exists primarily in hexavalent and trivalent states. Both are hazardous to man and aquatic life, but in photoprocessing wastewaters the trivalent form, which is considerably less toxic, predominates. Observed toxic effects on man include lung tumors, skin sensitization, corrosion of the intestinal tract, and inflammation of the kidneys. Lower forms of aquatic life are extremely sensitive to chromium. As with cadmium, chromium is not destroyed when sent to a POTW, and it either partitions to the biosolids or passes through the treatment stream. Removal by activated sludge systems is estimated to be 84 percent.( EPA 1981a, EPA 1982)

Cyanide Cyanide is generally found in photoprocessing effluent in the form of ferri and ferrocyanide ( hexacyanoferrate) ions. These forms exhibit a low order of toxicity to most aquatic species, notable exceptions being crustaceans and algae. Hexacyanoferrate ions seem to cause no adverse effect on POTW biomass at typical levels, and treatment plant removal efficiency was reported at greater than 60 percent. As mentioned in Chapter 6, however, these ions release the cyanide ion when exposed to sunlight. Some of the cyanide ions will join with hydrogen ions to form hydrogen cyanide ( HCN), depending on the pH of the solution. ( The lower the pH, the greater the percentage of cyanide ions that will be present in the form of hydrogen cyanide). The cyanide ion is non accumulative and comparatively non toxic to humans. Toxicity to fish is dependent on pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and presence of other minerals in the water. It is generally more toxic to fish that it is to lower organisms.( EPA 1981a, EPA 1982)

Iron Iron is an essential nutrient for all forms of growth, and does not have significant toxic impact on humans at any reasonable concentration. The presence of iron in water may encourage growth of iron oxidizing bacteria, resulting in formation of slimes that may affect aesthetic values of water bodies or block pipes. The recommended limit for iron in water supplies is based not on health concerns but on aesthetic and taste considerations.( EPA 1981a)

Lead Lead is not easily excreted from the human body, and thus accumulates with repeated exposure over long periods of time. Possible effects include lead poisoning ( plumbism) and cancer. Lead is also a concern among animals. More farm animals are poisoned by lead than by any other poison. Lead also causes suffocation of fish. Studies have shown POTW removal rates for lead of greater than 90 percent, although 80 percent is more common. Most of this is partitioned to the biosolids.( EPA 1981a, EPA 1982)

Silver See Section 8.6.

Sulfates 70 Sulfates are not harmful in moderate concentrations (< 1,000 mg/ L). They occur naturally in waters, especially in the western United States. Thiosulfates are commonly found in photoprocessing wastewaters, as described in Chapter 6.( EPA 1981a) One study using simulated photoprocessing wastewaters found that about 35 percent of total COD of the composite photoprocessing wastewaters was thiosulfate and sulfite. COD reductions in the activated sludge reactors used varied between 84 and 96 percent, including the almost complete removal of thiosulfate and sulfite ( reduced to sulfate). Ammonia removal in the photoprocessing wastewater amended reactors, meanwhile, was lower than in the control reactor, possibly indicating inhibition of the highly sensitive Nitrobacter species.( Pavlostathis)

Oxygen Demand ( BOD & COD) Certain levels of oxygen demand, depending on the receiving water body, will result in reduced Dissolved Oxygen ( DO) levels. Aquatic organisms experience stress at reduced DO levels, both at the individual and population levels. Some fish species experience delayed hatching of eggs, interference with food digestion, decreased growth rate, decreased tolerance to other toxicants ( including cyanide and lead), and reduced sustained swimming speed. These effects are usually more pronounced in livelier species ( such as trout and salmon). BOD removal rates by activated sludge systems are generally around 90 percent.( EPA 1981a, EPA 1982)

Total Dissolved Solids ( TDS) Dissolved solids include carbonates, chlorides and other halides, sulfates, phosphates, nitrates, and trace substances. Although moderately high concentrations of TDS do not have serious health effects on humans, drinking water becomes unpalatable when TDS exceeds 2,000 mg/ L. Tolerances of aquatic organisms for TDS is species specific, but although fish can slowly become acclimated to higher salinities, sudden exposures can often be fatal.( EPA 1981a)

Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) Suspended solids include organic ( oil, tar, vegetable waste products) and inorganic ( sand, silt) components. Impacts on aquatic ecosystems include reduced light penetration, which hampers photosynthetic activity, and clogging of gills and respiratory passages of organisms. POTW removal of TSS can be as high as 90 percent.( EPA 1981a, EPA 1982)

8.6 Toxicity and Speciation of Silver Silver is present in a number of compound and complex forms in photoprocessing effluents. The concentrations, solubilities, and toxicities of these silver compounds are widely varied, and it is essential to have some understanding of their interrelation to better comprehend the possible adverse effect an effluent may have on the environment.

The most common silver complex found in photoprocessing effluent is silver thiosulfate, or Ag( S 2 O 3) 2. This is a stable complex with a dissociation constant of 3.5 E 14, meaning that free silver ions ( Ag+) will not normally exist in any significant concentration. Silver nitrate ( AgNO 3) is 71 used extensively in the production of photosensitive films and papers, has the highest solubility of the silver salts, and is classified as a strong irritant to skin and tissue. Silver chlorate ( AgClO 3) is moderately soluble, and is toxic when ingested. Silver chloride ( AgCl) is soluble in solutions containing an excess of chloride ions, and in solutions of cyanide, thiosulfate, and ammonia, and is relatively toxic. Silver bromide ( AgBr) and silver sulfide ( Ag 2 S) are insoluble silver compounds commonly found in precipitate form in photoprocessing effluents. Solubilities and Solubility Products ( K sp) of select silver compounds are shown in Table 8.5.

Table 8.5 Solubility and Solubility Product of Some Silver Compounds/ Complexes Silver Compound Solubility ( g/ L H20 at 25o C) Ksp chloride 1.9 X 10 3 1.8 X 10 10 chlorate 90 NA bromide 1.3 X 10 4 3.3 X 10 13 nitrate 2.16 X 103 NA sulfide (@ 20o C) 1.4 X 10 4 1.0 X 10 50 The free ionic form of silver combines rapidly with naturally occurring substances to form less toxic substances. For example, silver chloride complexes are three hundred times less toxic and silver sulfide complexes are one million times less toxic than free silver.( Dufficy) Table 8.6 demonstrates this relative toxicity for fathead minnows. 72 Table 8.6 Percent Mortality of Fathead Minnows Acutely Exposed to Concentrations of Different Silver Compounds Silver Compound Mean measured total silver concentration, mg/ L Mean free silver ion concentration, mg/ L Percent Mortality 24 h 48 h 72 h 96 h Silver Nitrate 0.065 0.065 100 100 100 100 0.029 0.029 80 100 100 100 0.013 0.013 5 5 5 10 0.0058 0.0058 5 5 5 5 Silver thiosulfate complex a 280 0.12 X 10 6 5 5 5 10 140 0.33 X 10 6 0 0 0 0 70 0.80 X 10 6 0 0 0 0 Silver sulfide dispersion b 240 < 10 11 0 0 0 0 37 < 10 11 0 0 0 0 Silver chloride ( 2000 ppm Cl) a 4.6 1.03 X 10 4 40 40 40 40 2.0 1.01 X 10 4 5 10 10 10 0.38 1.01 X 10 4 0 0 0 0 Source: Dufficy a. Calculated from the mean measured free silver ion activity b. Calculated from the relationship [ Ag+] 2[ S2]= K sp = 10 50 The free silver ion is an effective bactericide, and thus it can interfere with biological treatment systems. However, one study indicated that silver thiosulfate concentrations of 100 mg/ L caused no negative impact on unacclimated activated sludge. The study also states that photoprocessing effluent with a silver concentration as high as 10 mg/ L could be handled by a biological treatment system, and that the expected effluent from the treatment system would be less than 20 ug/ l of soluble silver, even without dilution from other treatment plant inputs. Meanwhile, silver nitrate and silver chloride at concentrations of 10 mg/ L were found to cause inhibition between 43 and 84 percent.( Bard) 73 Silver that settles is removed from the treatment plant in the form of biosolids. There is currently no EPA biosolids criteria for silver. POTW biosolids are often disposed by landspreading or landfilling. Laboratory tests on biosolids containing silver in concentrations from 19 to 83,000 mg/ kg showed no release of silver to the elutriate. Field tests indicated that silver was effectively bound up by the soil.

No evidence could be found linking photoprocessing effluent to adverse human health effects. However, silver compounds can be absorbed into the circulatory system and reduced silver deposited in various tissues of the body, possibly resulting in a permanent greying of the skin and mucous membranes known as argyria. Also, concentrations from 0.4  1 mg/ L have been shown to cause kidney, liver, and spleen damage in rats.( EPA 1981a) Some local authorities in the United States consider silver to be a hazardous waste in concentrations greater that 5 mg/ L, which is far less than some of the untreated effluent silver concentrations as documented in Chapter 6.( EPA 1991a) As mentioned in Section 8.3, several other constituents in photoprocessing effluent can also have carcinogenic and systemic health effects on humans.

LC 50 concentrations of silver for a number of common aquatic organisms varies between 0.004 mg Ag/ L and 0.2 mg Ag/ L.( Bard) Other silver salts, such as silver chloride and silver nitrate, are also considerably toxic to fish. One study claims that " anthropogenic inputs of silver from the Point Loma discharge off San Diego, CA can account for essentially all of the silver in coastal waters along the United States Mexico border during summer conditions", and that " silver is one of the most toxic elements for marine invertebrates."( Sanudo)

The silver thiosulfate complex, however, is considerably less toxic; the 96 hour LC 50 was found to be greater than 250 mg Ag/ L. Other work indicated that a model laboratory ecosystem including rotifers, Daphnia, algae, mussels, and fish remained viable during the ten week study period in spite of continuous exposure to silver thiosulfate at concentrations as high as 5 mg Ag/ L.( Bard) Despite this, it is still desirable to remove as much silver thiosulfate from the wastestream as possible, since thiosulfate accounts for a major portion of the oxygen demand in photoprocessing effluent.( Hendrickson)

Bioaccumulation of silver in clams in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant ( RWQCP) has been well documented. Silver concentrations in clams near the RWQCP discharge channel were found to be from 6 to 55 times the levels of silver found in clams in other areas of the San Francisco Bay. After initiating a silver reduction pilot program, silver concentrations in the clams showed a continual decline. However it is not clear if the original higher concentrations of silver caused any negative impacts on the clams.( WEF 1994) 74 References Bard: Bard, C. C., et al, " Silver in Photoprocessing Effluents." Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48, 1976. pp 389 394.

Calif. DHSa: California Department of Health Services, Alternative Technology Section, Toxic Substances Control Division, " Waste Audit Study: Photoprocessing Industry," 1989.

Calif. DHSb: California Department of Health Services, Alternative Technology Section, Toxic Substances Control Division, " Reducing California's Metal Bearing Waste Streams," 1989.

Cook: Cook, M. M. and Lander, J. A., " Use of sodium borohydride to control heavy metal discharge in the photographic industry." Journal of Applied Photographic Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1979. pp 144 147.

Dufficy: Dufficy, T. J. et al, " Silver Discharge Regulations Questioned." Water Environment & Technology, April 1993. p. 54.

EPA 1976: USEPA, Office of Water, Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the Photographic Processing Subcategory of the Photographic Point Source Category, EPA 440/ 1 76/ 0601, July 1976.

EPA 1980: USEPA, Office of Water, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Silver, EPA 440/ 5 80 071, 1980.

EPA 1981a: USEPA, Office of Water, Guidance Document for the Control of Water Pollution in the: Photographic Processing Industry, EPA 440/ 1 81/ 082 9, April 1981.

EPA 1981b: June 15, 1981 Affidavit of Echardt C. Beck, Assistant Administrator, EPA, submitted under Natural Resources Defense Council et. al. Versus EPA, 12 ERC 1833 ( March 9, 1979)

EPA 1982: USEPA, Office of Water, Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, EPA 440/ 1 82/ 303, September 1982. p 61.

EPA 1987: USEPA, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program, December 1987. 75 EPA 1991a: USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Photoprocessing Industry, EPA/ 625/ 7 91/ 012, October 1991.

EPA 1991b: USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment: A Photofinishing Facility, EPA/ 600/ 2 91/ 039, August 1991 EPA 1994: USEPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Sustainable Industry: Promoting Strategic Environmental Protection in the Industrial Sector  Photoimaging Industry, Phase 1 Report, June 1994.

Hendrickson: Hendrickson, T. N. and Dagon, T. J.; U. S. Patent 3,594,157; July 20,1971; assigned to Eastman Kodak Company.

Lewis: Lewis, R. J. Sr.[ Ed.], Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Twelfth Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1994.

Kirk: Kirk Othmer [ Eds.], Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 21, 1983. pp 16 23.

Kodak 1980: Eastman Kodak Company, " Recovering Silver from Photographic Materials," Publication J 10, 1980.

Kodak 1989a: Eastman Kodak Company, " Choices  Choosing the Right Chemicals for Photofinishing Labs," Publication J 35, 1989.

Kodak 1989b: Eastman Kodak Company, " Disposing of Mini Lab Effluent," Publication J 20, 1989.

Kodak 1990: Eastman Kodak Company, " Disposal and Treatment of Photographic Effluent. In Support of Clean Water." Publication J 55, 1990.

Pavlostathis: Pavlostathis, S. G. and Jugee, S., " Biological Treatment of Photoprocessing Wastewaters." Water Science and Technology, Vol. 29, No. 9, 1994. pp 89 98.

PMA 1995: Marketing Research Department, The 1994 95 PMA Industry Trends Report, Photo Marketing Association International ( PMA), Nov. 1995.

Sanudo: Sanudo Wilhelmy, S. A., and Flegal, A. R., " Anthropogenic Silver in the Southern California Blight: A New Tracer of Sewage in Coastal Waters." Environmental Science Technology, Vol. 26, No. 11, 1992. pp 2147 2150 Silver CMP: Silver Council and Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, " Code of Management Practice for Silver Dischargers," November 1996. 76 Sribnick: Sribnick, L., " The Color Darkroom  How to tell when your color chemicals and printing papers go bad, and how to make them last longer." Popular Photography, April 1986. p. 18.

WEF 1994: Water Environment Federation, Pollution Prevention Committee, Controlling Silver Discharges in Wastewater: Technical Guidance Manual for Silver Discharges, 1994.

WSS 1993: The Silver Institute, World Silver Survey 1993, 1993.

WSS 1996: The Silver Institute, World Silver Survey 1996, 1996. 77 Appendix A. Calculation of Total United States Surface Area of Photographic Film and Paper Developed for Amateur Market Values from Literature* Surface Area per 24 Exposure Role ( ft2) Rolls Processed 1994: 715.5 million

659 million rolls 35mm 0.440

48.7 million rolls 110/ 126 0.131

5.01 million rolls disc Not Available

2.86 million rolls other Not Available Exposures Processed 1994: 17.58 billion

16.65 billion color print

615 million slide

316 million black and white Original Print Market Share: ! Single Prints 53.4% versus Twin Prints 46.6%

! 3 ½ x 5 inch 59.4% versus 4 x 6 inch 40.6%

Assumptions and Simplifications ! Assume all rolls of 24 exposure, supported by result: 17.58 billion exposures/ 715.5 million rolls = 24.6 exposures/ roll ! Based on information that photoprocessors gain 75% of revenue from original prints and 14% from reprints and enlargements, assume that paper surface area of reprints and enlargements is 14/ 75 or 18.6 % of original print area.

! Include back and white photoprocessing in with color, because while greatly simplifying the calculation the only waste steam affected in these calculations is bleach, effected by less than 2 percent.

* All values taken from reference PMA 1995, except surface area per roll values from reference EPA 1991a. A 78 Calculation of Film Surface Area 35mm: 659 million rolls 35mm x 0.440 ft2/ roll 24 exposures = 290 million ft2 110/ 126: 48.7 million rolls 110/ 126 x 0.131 ft2/ roll 24 exposures = 6.37 million ft2 Total: 296 million ft2 Note: Total does not include disc and " other" film area due to lack of surface area/ roll data.

Calculation of Print Paper Surface Area 59.4% 3 ½ x 5: ( 16.65 billion + 316 million) x 3.5" x 5" x 1 ft2/ 144 in2 x .594 = 1.22 billion ft2 40.6% 4 x 6: ( 16.65 billion + 316 million) x 4" x 6" x 1 ft2/ 144 in2 x .406 = 1.15 billion ft2 Total: 2.37 billion ft2 Total with twin prints ( 46.6% of exposures): 2.37 billion ft2 x 1.466 = 3.47 billion ft2 Total with reprints and enlargements ( 18.6% of original prints): 3.47 billion ft2 x 1.186 = 4.12 billion ft2


[Federal Register: April 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 19569-19570]
[DOCID:fr18ap07-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55620; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Distributor Fee
for Nasdaq Index Weighting Information

 April 12, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 4, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to modify distributor fees for Nasdaq Index
Weighting Information. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at Nasdaq, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.nasdaq.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it had received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify distributor
fees for Nasdaq Index Weighting Information.
    Nasdaq disseminates Nasdaq Index Weighting data via the Nasdaq
Index Dissemination Service (``NIDS'') data feed and via the Nasdaq
Trader Web site. Nasdaq Index Weighting reports include component and
weighting information for a number of Nasdaq indices on a daily basis.
Market participants pay a fee to obtain a license to distribute the
Index Weighting Information to end users. The fees are based on the
number of end users (whether internal or external to the organization)
and the frequency of the distribution. The fees permitting distribution
with unlimited frequency range from $1000 for the right to distribute
the data to 1-500 subscribers up to $5,000 for the right to distribute
to 10,000+ subscribers. The fees permitting distribution of data once a
month, quarter, or year range from $500 for the right to distribute
data to 1-500 subscribers to $1,000 for the right to distribute to
10,000+ subscribers.
    The proposed rule change would decrease the distributor fee for the
lowest pricing tier, 1-500 subscribers, from $1,000 to $300 in the case
of unlimited frequency of distribution, and from $500 to $275 in the
case of distribution once a month, quarter, or year. Although the fee
schedules provide for multiple tiered pricing based on the number of
end users, the lowest pricing tier is the most common option selected
by existing customers. The proposed fee would apply to distributors
receiving the data via any delivery platform, including via NIDS or the
Nasdaq Trader Web site. Distributors receiving the data via more than
one delivery platform would be charged only once. The remaining tiers
of the fee schedules (i.e., fees for 501-999, 1,000-4,999, 5,000-9,999,
and 10,000+ subscribers) will not change under this proposal.
    Nasdaq believes that the fee decrease would make this data report
more attractive to vendors who may already be receiving and
distributing other Nasdaq data feeds, thereby promoting the broader
dissemination of Index Weighting Information.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which the Nasdaq operates or controls, and it does not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The
proposed rule change reflects demand patterns for Index Weighting
Information and is designed to provide an equitable allocation of fees
across the customer base of Nasdaq market data distributors. Nasdaq
further believes that this rule change would encourage the broader
distribution of the Index Weighting data, thus improving transparency
and thereby benefiting the investing public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which Nasdaq consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve such proposed rule change; or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-039 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-039. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-039 and should be submitted on or before May
9, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7330 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5770-5771]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0118; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
Model Year 1994 to 1997 Jaguar Daimler Double Six Passenger Cars Are
Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) receipt of a petition for a decision that model
year (MY) 1994 to 1997 Jaguar Daimler Double Six passenger cars (PCs)
that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are eligible for
importation into the United States because they are substantially
similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the
United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as
complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the
1994 to 1997 Jaguar Daimler Double Six PCs) and are capable of being
readily altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is March 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard along with
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mazurowski, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same MY as the
model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
of each petition that it receives in the Federal Register, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc, (Registered Importer R-90-007), of
Santa Ana, California has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
nonconforming 1994 to 1997 Jaguar Daimler Double Six PCs are eligible
for importation into the United States. The vehicles which G&K
Automotive Conversion believes are substantially similar to MY 1995
Jaguar XJ PCs sold in the United States and certified by their
manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified MY 1994
to 1997 Jaguar Daimler Double Six PCs to their U.S. certified
counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. submitted information with its
petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified MY 1994 to
1997 Jaguar Daimler Double Six PCs, as originally manufactured, conform
to many applicable FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S.-certified
counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to
those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non-U.S.
certified MY 1994 to 1997 Jaguar Daimler Double Six PCs, as originally
manufactured, conform to FMVSS Nos. 102, Transmission Shift Lever
Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103,
Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104, Windshield Wiping and
Washing Systems, 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, 106, Brake
Hoses, 113, Hood Latch System, 114, Theft Protection, 116, Motor
Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118, Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof
Panel System, 124, Accelerator Control Systems, 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles, 201, Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact, 202, Head Restraints, 204, Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, 205, Glazing Materials, 206, Door Locks and Door
Retention Components, 207, Seating Systems, 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, 210, Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages, 212, Windshield Mounting, 214, Side Impact Protection, 216,
Roof Crush Resistance, 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, 301, Fuel system
integrity,

and 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the subject non-U.S. certified
vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following
FMVSS, in the manner indicated:
    FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays: Modification of the
speedometer for units of miles per hour. FMVSS No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment: Addition of third brake
light and replacement of headlamps. FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and
Rims: Installation of the required tire information placard. FMVSS No.
111, Rearview Mirrors: Inscription of the required warning statement on
the face of the passenger mirror.
    The petitioner additionally stated that a vehicle anti-theft device
will be installed, if needed, to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part
541, Anti-Theft Devices, and that the vehicles meet the requirements of
49 CFR part 581, Bumper Standard. Also, a vehicle identification plate
must be affixed to the vehicle, near the left windshield pillar, to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565, Vehicle Identification
Requirements, as well as, a reference and certification label added to
the left front door post area to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part
567, Certification.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-01828 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44027-44031]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15720]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0655; FRL-10012-46-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; SC and TN: Minimum Reporting Requirements in
SIPs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a portion of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for
South Carolina submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) through letters dated August 8, 2014,
and August 12, 2015, and a portion of a SIP revision for Tennessee
submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC) through a letter dated February 17, 2014. The South Carolina SIP
revisions modify a provision that requires fossil fuel-fired steam
generators having a heat input capacity of more than 250 million
British thermal units (Btu) per hour (Btu/hr) to submit continuous
opacity monitoring reports required by the SIP on a quarterly basis.
This provision is being modified to allow such reporting on a
semiannual basis instead. The South Carolina SIP does not contain any
other continuous opacity monitoring report requirements for the subject
sources, and this rule revision has no impact on any federal reporting
requirements. Specifically, the South Carolina SIP revisions do not
override any other reporting requirements that might continue to
require more frequent reporting. The Tennessee SIP revision would add a
new provision that requires any source subject to the State's title V
operating permit program to submit emission monitoring reports required
by the SIP on a semiannual basis rather than on a quarterly basis. Much
like the South Carolina SIP revisions, the Tennessee SIP revision has
no impact on any federal reporting requirements and does not override
any other reporting requirements that might continue to require more
frequent reporting. EPA is proposing to approve these changes to the
South Carolina and Tennessee SIPs because they are consistent with
recent proposed changes to federal regulations and because EPA has
preliminarily determined that the South Carolina and Tennessee SIP
revisions are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0655 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960, or Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air
Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562-9104 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mr. Lakeman
can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Historical and Regulatory Background for Appendix P

    The following discussion provides a brief historical and regulatory
background associated with Appendix P to 40 CFR part 51 (Appendix P),
which is related to the South Carolina and Tennessee SIP revisions
being proposed for approval in this rulemaking.

A. SIPs and EPA's Regulations at 40 CFR Part 51

    The SIP is a state's plan identifying how the state will meet
certain CAA requirements, such as how to attain and maintain compliance
with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110 of
the CAA requires each state to submit a SIP for EPA approval, and EPA
is required to evaluate and either approve or disapprove the state's
submission. The SIP (including revisions over time) contains control
measures and strategies developed through a public process and formally
adopted by the state. Pursuant to CAA section 110, EPA established
procedural requirements applicable to all states concerning the
preparation, adoption, and submission of SIPs and SIP revisions. These
regulations, initially promulgated in 1971, comprise 40 CFR part 51,
``Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans.'' Like the SIPs themselves, these regulations are
periodically revised. Of particular relevance to this proposed
rulemaking, CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) governs requirements associated
with stationary source monitoring and reporting in the context of SIPs.

B. Part 51 Requirement for Continuous Monitoring Systems

    In 1974, EPA proposed to amend its SIP preparation regulations
under 40 CFR part 51 to require that SIPs contain legally enforceable
procedures mandating owners or operators of stationary sources to
install equipment to monitor pollutant emissions on a continuous basis
and to report the data obtained.\1\ As was explained in the 1974 notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the regulations already required states
to have the legal authority to require such monitoring and recording.
The notice stated, however, that at the time that EPA's SIP preparation
regulations were originally published, ``[t]he Agency believed that the
state-of-the-art was such that it was not prudent to require existing
sources to install [continuous monitoring] devices.'' EPA went on to
explain that emission monitoring techniques had continued to develop
since that time and, as a result of that work, the Agency believed that
for certain sources, including existing ones, ``general specifications
for accuracy, reliability and durability can be established for
continuous emission monitors . . .'' Accordingly, the Agency proposed
to amend 40 CFR part 51 by adding a new requirement that would
``require States to revise their implementation plans to require
sources to install monitoring instruments and to

report the resulting data to the appropriate State Agency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption and Submittal
of Implementation Plans: Emission Monitoring of Stationary Sources;
Proposed rules,'' 39 FR 32871 (September 11, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In choosing the types of sources and pollutants listed in Appendix
P, EPA selected four source categories that would be covered by
continuous emission monitoring requirements and performance testing
methods simultaneously proposed under new source performance standards
(NSPS) promulgated pursuant to section 111 of the CAA (i.e., under part
60).\2\ The four source categories subject to Appendix P are fossil
fuel-fired steam generators, nitric acid plants, sulfuric acid plants,
and fluid bed catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators at
petroleum refineries. EPA even noted in the Appendix P proposal that
the SIP rulemaking was very closely connected with the NSPS rulemaking.
EPA urged states and other affected parties to consider the companion
NSPS proposal as part of the Appendix P proposal and to direct comments
to the relevant portions of both proposals.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 39 FR 32871 at 32872; see also ``Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources: Emission Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Testing Methods; Proposed rules,'' 39 FR 32852
(September 11, 1974).
    \3\ See id. at 32872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1975, EPA promulgated Appendix P on the same day it promulgated
the final NSPS monitoring and performance requirements under 40 CFR
part 60.4 5 In the final amendments to 40 CFR part 51, EPA
expanded the SIP continuous emission monitoring requirements at 40 CFR
51.19 (now 40 CFR 51.214) to require states to revise their SIPs to
include legally enforceable procedures for certain specified categories
of existing stationary sources to monitor emissions on a continuous
basis. The Agency explained that requiring ``a sound program of
continuous emission monitoring and reporting'' would more fully
implement CAA sections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii). Section 51.19(e)(4)
(now Sec.  51.214(e)) specifies that the SIP must ``require the source
owner or operator to submit information relating to emissions and
operation of the emission monitors to the State to the extent described
in appendix P at least as frequently as described therein.'' Each state
is required to include in its SIP, as a minimum, all of the continuous
emission monitoring and recording requirements set forth in Appendix P.
See Appendix P, paragraph 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Part 51--Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption and
Submittal of Implementation Plans: Emission Monitoring of Stationary
Sources,'' 40 FR 46240 (October 6, 1975).
    \5\ ``Part 60--Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources,'' 40 FR 46250 (October 6, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to reporting requirements, Appendix P specifies under
paragraph 4.1 that the SIP ``shall require owners or operators of
facilities required to install continuous monitoring systems to submit
a written report of excess emissions for each calendar quarter and the
nature and cause of the excess emissions, if known.'' At the time of
promulgation in 1975, this specification in Appendix P of quarterly
reporting as the minimum frequency was by design aligned with the
quarterly reporting frequency generally specified for new sources under
Part 60. This ``report of excess emissions,'' like the corollary
``excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report''
specified under 40 CFR part 60 (see Sec.  60.7(c)), should be submitted
by the facility owner or operator whether or not excess emissions
occurred within the reporting period (see Appendix P, paragraph 4.5).
    In 1999, EPA promulgated the ``Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden
Reduction, Final amendments,'' 64 FR 7457 (February 12, 1999) (Burden
Reduction Rule), which, among other things, revised the NSPS reporting
frequency, with a few exceptions, to semiannually for nearly all source
categories. As noted in the NPRM for the 1999 rule,\6\ EPA's most
recent NSPS and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) rules had moved almost exclusively to semiannual
reporting. In addition, EPA's operating permit rules at 40 CFR part 70,
promulgated in 1992,\7\ require CAA title V operating permit (title V)
holders to submit any required monitoring reports at least every six
months and to clearly identify all instances of deviations from permit
requirements in such reports. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) and 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction; Proposed
revisions to rules and notice of public hearing,'' 61 FR 47840
(September 11, 1996). See 61 FR 47844/2 and 64 FR 7457 at 7458/3.
    \7\ See 57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's Proposed Revisions to Appendix P Concerning Minimum Emission
Reporting Requirements in SIPs

    In a NPRM published on February 21, 2020 (hereinafter referred to
as the February 21, 2020, NPRM, EPA proposed updates to Appendix P. See
85 FR 10121. In particular, the proposed amendments to Appendix P would
revise the minimum frequency for submitting reports of excess emissions
from ``each calendar quarter'' to ``twice per year at 6-month
intervals.'' If EPA finalizes these amendments as proposed, states will
be able to make similar revisions in their SIPs. States will be able to
establish semiannual reporting as the minimum frequency for affected
sources to submit reports of excess emissions to the state. This aligns
with what EPA has generally established as the reporting frequency
applicable to the Appendix P source categories under more recently
updated regulations. The comment period for EPA's proposed revisions
closed on March 23, 2020. EPA received no adverse comments on the
February 21, 2020, NPRM. Both South Carolina and Tennessee and the
American Petroleum Institute submitted comments in support of it.

II. EPA's Proposal on the South Carolina and Tennessee Submittals

    On August 8, 2014, and August 12, 2015, SC DHEC submitted revisions
to the South Carolina SIP concerning the frequency with which fossil
fuel-fired steam generators are required to submit continuous opacity
monitoring reports to the State. On December 30, 2016, SC DHEC
submitted additional information on this topic in response to questions
raised by EPA Region 4. On February 17, 2014, TDEC submitted a revision
to the Tennessee SIP concerning the frequency with which major sources
subject to the title V operating permit program are required to report
excess emissions data to the State. On July 16, 2015, TDEC submitted
additional information on this topic in response to questions raised by
EPA Region 4. These SIP revisions would change certain existing
quarterly emission reporting requirements to semiannual requirements
for affected facilities. Additionally, these SIP revisions do not
purport to override other SIP provisions which may require quarterly,
or more frequent, reporting.
    In their submittals, SC DHEC and TDEC note that most of the NSPS of
40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP of 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 require semiannual
reporting of emissions data. SC DHEC and TDEC also note that the title
V permitting program under 40 CFR part 70 allows semiannual reporting
of any required monitoring. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). In addition,
SC DHEC and TDEC emphasize the significance of the amendments to
federal rules that EPA finalized in the 1999 Burden Reduction Rule.
Through that rulemaking, as discussed above, EPA changed the frequency
of required emission data reporting from quarterly to semiannually for
nearly all NSPS categories, consistent with the most recent NSPS and
NESHAP rules

promulgated at that time, and for the general provisions for the NSPS
and NESHAP programs. SC DHEC and TDEC assert, therefore, that quarterly
reporting is inconsistent with most federal reporting requirements and
overly burdensome to industry. Both States assert that modifying
certain SIP provisions to require semiannual rather than quarterly
reporting would improve implementation of their air quality programs by
simplifying and reducing the reporting burden on sources.
    As noted in section 1.B, above, Paragraph 1.1 of Appendix P applies
to fossil fuel-fired steam generators, nitric acid plants, sulfuric
acid plants, and fluid bed catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators at petroleum refineries. Appendix P requires sources in
these categories to install, calibrate, operate, and maintain all
monitoring equipment necessary for continuously monitoring the
pollutants specified and to begin monitoring and recording the relevant
data within 18 months of plan approval or promulgation. With regard to
emissions data reporting requirements, paragraph 4.1 of Appendix P
provides that the state plan must ``require owners or operators of
facilities required to install continuous monitoring systems to submit
a written report of excess emissions for each calendar quarter and the
nature and cause of the excess emissions, if known.'' \8\ The SC DHEC
and TDEC submittals would change the frequency of required emission
reports for some facilities subject to Appendix P from quarterly to
semiannually. As such, these submittals are inconsistent with the
current Appendix P requirement for affected facilities to submit a
report of excess emissions for ``each calendar quarter.'' However, as
mentioned above, on February 21, 2020, EPA proposed to change the
Appendix P provision regarding the minimum frequency for submitting
reports of excess emissions from ``each calendar quarter'' to ``twice
per year at 6-month intervals.'' If EPA finalizes the February 21,
2020, NPRM as proposed, the South Carolina SIP revision and the
Tennessee SIP revision will no longer be in conflict with federal
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The South Carolina SIP requires sources subject to the
State's opacity monitoring requirements to submit to the State
reports of excess opacity measurements, together with their nature
and cause. See SC Regulation 61-62.5 Standard 1, Section IV.B.1.a.
The Tennessee SIP requires owners or operators of facilities of the
four Appendix P source categories to submit a written report of
excess emissions for each calendar quarter and the nature and cause
of the excess emissions, if known. See TN Rule 1200-03-
10-.02(2)(b)1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) of the CAA provides that EPA shall not approve a
revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As described further in
sections III and IV below, the South Carolina and Tennessee SIP
revisions that are the subject of the proposed actions will not
override any more stringent reporting requirements,\9\ will not cause
any changes in allowable pollutant emissions, and will not otherwise
interfere with the States' abilities to attain and maintain the NAAQS
or interfere with any other applicable CAA requirement. Furthermore,
these revisions will not interfere with the revised Appendix P because
they will not conflict with the minimum reporting requirements
contained therein, and EPA does not intend to take final action on
these revisions unless and until EPA takes final action to revise
Appendix P as proposed in the February 21, 2020, NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ To the extent any sources are required by other CAA
requirements to submit continuous opacity monitoring reports more
frequently, those requirements will continue to apply and will not
be impacted by these proposed revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Analysis of the South Carolina SIP Submittals

    The August 8, 2014, submittal from SC DHEC seeks to make multiple
changes to the State's implementation plan, including Regulation 61-
62.5 Standard 1, Section IV.B, ``Continuous Opacity Monitor Reporting
Requirements.'' \10\ Section IV.B applies to the owner or operator of
any fossil fuel-fired steam generator of more than 250 million Btu/hr
of heat input. South Carolina's change to Section IV.B reduces the
required frequency of the State's continuous opacity monitoring data
reporting requirement for these units from quarterly to semiannually.
The change also makes some stylistic edits, such as changing ``Section
(IV)(A)'' to ``Section IV.A'' and ``semiannual'' to ``semi-annual.''
The August 12, 2015, submittal from SC DHEC made changes to the August
8, 2014, submittal and contained other, new changes to the SIP as well.
The only change to Section IV.B included in the August 12, 2015,
submittal changes the word ``semiannual'' to ``semi-annual'' in the
last sentence of Section IV.B.1 and in the first sentence of Section
IV.B.3. In these actions, EPA is only proposing to act on the changes
to Regulation 61-62.5 Standard 1, Section IV.B. These revisions do not
cause any changes to allowable pollutant emissions under the South
Carolina SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA has taken action or will act on the remainder of SC
DHEC's submittals in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed South Carolina's revisions to Regulation 61-62.5
Standard 1, Section IV.B and is proposing to determine that this change
is approvable. If EPA finalizes the changes proposed in the February
21, 2020, NPRM, the proposed SIP revisions will not conflict with the
minimum reporting requirements of the revised Appendix P. In addition,
while Regulation 61-62.5 Standard 1, Section IV.B, as proposed,
requires fossil fuel-fired steam generators having a heat input
capacity of more than 250 million Btu/hr to submit continuous opacity
monitor reports to the State semiannually, subject facilities must
continue to comply with any more stringent reporting obligations under
any applicable federal or state rules. A SIP requirement for a
semiannual monitoring report is consistent with EPA's part 70
monitoring report requirement at 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). Also, as
described in the 1999 Burden Reduction Rule, the EPA's experience with
a variety of NSPS and NESHAP rulemakings covering industries of all
types suggests that semiannual reporting provides sufficiently timely
information to both ensure compliance and enable adequate enforcement
of applicable requirements, while imposing less burden on the affected
industry than would quarterly reporting.
    On the bases described above, EPA proposes to determine that
submission of continuous opacity monitoring reports on a semiannual
basis by owners or operators of fossil fuel-fired steam generators
having a heat input capacity of more than 250 million Btu/hr will
provide sufficiently timely information to ensure compliance and enable
adequate enforcement of applicable requirements for the affected
sources. Consequently, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's
changes to Regulation 61-62.5 Standard 1, Section IV.B as outlined in
this proposed rulemaking. EPA does not intend to take final action on
South Carolina's SIP revisions related to Appendix P unless and until
EPA takes final action to revise Appendix P as proposed in the February
21, 2020, NPRM.

IV. EPA's Analysis of the Tennessee SIP Submittal

    On February 17, 2014, TDEC submitted a revision to Rule 1200-03-
10-.02, ``Monitoring of Source Emissions, Recording, and Reporting of
the Same Are Required,'' by adding a new subparagraph (2)(d) which
states: ``Any source located at a facility required to obtain a major
source

operating permit in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (11) of
Rule 1200-03-09-.02 may submit the reports required by this rule on a
semi-annual basis.'' Paragraph (11) of Rule 1200-03-09-.02 is the State
of Tennessee's title V operating permits program for major stationary
sources, as approved under 40 CFR part 70. The State's rationale for
the revision to Rule 1200-03-10-.02 is to allow sources subject to the
continuous in-stack monitoring requirements and quarterly excess
emission reporting requirements set forth in the rule to synchronize
with the semiannual reporting requirements of their title V program (as
required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)) and with other federal rules.
This revision does not cause any changes in allowable pollutant
emissions under the Tennessee SIP.
    EPA has reviewed Tennessee's change to Rule 1200-03-10-.02 and is
proposing to determine that this change is approvable. If EPA finalizes
the changes proposed in EPA's February 21, 2020, NPRM, the proposed SIP
revisions will not conflict with the minimum reporting requirements of
the revised Appendix P. In addition, while Rule 1200-03-10-.02, as
proposed for revision, allows facilities subject to the State's title V
operating permits program to submit emissions reports required by Rule
1200-03-10-.02 to the State semiannually, sources must continue to
comply with any other, more stringent reporting obligations under any
applicable federal or state rules. A SIP requirement for a semiannual
monitoring report is consistent with EPA's part 70 monitoring report
requirement at 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). Also, as described in the
1999 Burden Reduction Rule, the EPA's experience with a variety of NSPS
and NESHAP rulemakings covering industries of all types suggests that
semiannual reporting provides sufficiently timely information to both
ensure compliance and enable adequate enforcement of applicable
requirements, while imposing less burden on the affected industry than
would quarterly reporting.
    On the bases described above, EPA proposes to determine that
submission of reports required by the Tennessee SIP for owners or
operators of facilities subject to the State's title V operating permit
program on a semiannual basis will provide sufficiently timely
information to ensure compliance and enable adequate enforcement of
applicable requirements for the affected sources. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to approve Tennessee's change to Rule 1200-03-10-.02 as
outlined in this proposed rulemaking. EPA does not intend to take final
action on this proposal to approve Tennessee's SIP revision related to
Appendix P unless and until EPA takes final action to revise Appendix P
as proposed in the February 21, 2020, NPRM.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5 Standard 1, Section IV,
``Opacity Monitoring Requirements,'' state effective June 26, 2015,
which revises the quarterly reporting requirement to a semiannual
requirement. Also, in accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA
is proposing to incorporate by reference the Tennessee Rule 1200-03-
10-.02, ``Monitoring of Source Emissions, Recording, and Reporting of
the Same Are Required,'' state effective February 5, 2013, which
revises the quarterly reporting requirement to a semiannual
requirement. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4
office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of South Carolina's August 8,
2014, and August 12, 2015, SIP revisions to change Rule 61-62.5
Standard 1, Section IV.B.1 to provide that the owner or operator of any
fossil fuel-fired steam generators having a heat input capacity of more
than 250 million Btu/hr shall submit a written continuous opacity
monitor report to SC DHEC semiannually or more often if requested, thus
revising the existing requirement to submit such reports on a quarterly
basis. EPA is also proposing to approve Tennessee's February 17, 2014,
SIP revision including a change to Rule 1200-03-10-.02 to add a new
subparagraph (2)(d) which states: ``Any source located at a facility
required to obtain a major source operating permit in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph (11) of Rule 1200-03-09-.02 may submit the
reports required by this rule on a semi-annual basis.'' This revision
to the Tennessee SIP changes the existing SIP requirement for title V
sources to submit monitoring reports required by Rule 1200-03-10-.02 to
the State on a quarterly basis to a semiannual basis. EPA does not
intend to take final action on South Carolina's and Tennessee's SIP
revisions related to Appendix P unless and until EPA takes final action
to revise Appendix P as proposed in the February 21, 2020, NPRM.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, for Tennessee, the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. The rule does not
have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    For South Carolina, because this proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this
proposed action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). Therefore, this proposed action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN) Reservation is located within the
boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian
Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all
state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the
[Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by
all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.'' The CIN also
retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental
standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local
governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 15, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-15720 Filed 7-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P