[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59417-59418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29554]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7109-5]


Proposed Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public 
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
settlement agreement in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of 
America v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-1537 
(D.C. Circuit). This case concerns the National Emission Standard for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (``NESHAP'') for Publicly Owned Treatment 
Works (``POTW''), 40 CFR subpart VVV. The proposed settlement agreement 
was lodged with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit on November 16, 2001.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreements must be 
received by December 28, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Timothy D. Backstrom, Air 
and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. A copy of the proposed settlement agreement is 
available from Phyllis J. Cochran, (202) 564-5566. A copy of the 
proposed settlement agreement was also lodged in the case with the 
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit on November 16, 2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA promulgated the National Emission 
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (``NESHAP'') for Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (``POTW''), 40 CFR subpart VVV, on October 26, 1999, 64 
FR 57579. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 
(``PhRMA'') then petitioned for judicial review of this standard in the 
DC Court of Appeals.
    The POTW MACT standard included separate maximum available control 
technology (``MACT'') requirements for ``industrial POTWs,'' which 
accept wastewater for treatment from sources like the pharmaceutical 
manufacturers who are subject to other MACT standards. The POTW 
standard also included a provision stating that industrial POTWs which 
accept wastewater from major sources for treatment are also considered 
to be major sources, which was intended to assure that such POTWs would 
be subject to direct enforcement. PhRMA challenged this provision based 
on concern that POTWs which thereby become major sources could be 
subject to additional requirements like permitting and might therefore 
decline to accept wastewater from PhRMA members.
    The settlement agreement addresses the PhRMA concerns by proposing 
to rescind the applicability provision that classifies industrial POTWs 
which accept wastewater from major sources as major sources. The 
original objective of assuring that MACT requirements will be directly 
enforceable for industrial

[[Page 59418]]

POTWs will be achieved instead by extending MACT requirements for 
industrial POTWs to area sources. These area sources are among those 
already listed for regulation under the urban toxic strategy required 
by CAA section 112(k)(3). EPA will also propose to exempt industrial 
POTW treatment plants which are area sources of HAP from the permit 
requirements in Clean Air Act section 502(a), because all applicable 
wastewater treatment requirements will be otherwise determined in the 
permit issued to the discharger.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication 
of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the 
proposed settlement agreements from persons who were not named as 
parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the 
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed 
consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that 
indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or 
inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the 
Department of Justice determine, following the comment period, that 
consent is inappropriate, the settlement agreement will then be 
executed by the parties.

    Dated: November 20, 2001.
Alan W. Eckert,
Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation Law Office.
[FR Doc. 01-29554 Filed 11-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P