Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category
[Federal Register: August 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 153)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46459-46465]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au05-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 420
[Docket Number OW-2002-0027; FRL-7950-8]
RIN 2040-AE78
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend certain provisions of the regulations establishing effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source
performance standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source
Category. Prior to 2002, regulations applicable to the Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Point Source Category had authorized the establishment of
limitations applicable to the total mass of a pollutant discharged from
more than one outfall. The effect of such a ``water bubble'' was to
allow a greater or lesser quantity of a particular pollutant to be
discharged from any single outfall so long as the total quantity
discharged from the combined outfalls did not exceed the allowed total
mass limitation. In 2002, EPA revised the water bubble to prohibit
establishment of alternative oil and grease effluent limitations. Based
on consideration of new information and analysis, EPA proposes to
reinstate the provision authorizing alternative oil and grease
limitations with one exception. Today's notice also proposes to correct
errors in the effective date of new source performance standards.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 9, 2005. Comments
postmarked after this date may not be considered.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, data and information for this proposed
rule identified by Docket ID No. OW-2002-0027, by one of the following
methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
B. Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA'S
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
C. E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov.
D. Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention
Docket ID No. OW-2002-0027. Please include a total of 3 copies.
E. Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
20460. Attention Docket ID No. OW-2002-0027. Please include a total of
3 copies. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments, data and information to Docket
ID No. OW-2002-0027. EPA's policy is that all comments, data and
information received will be included in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket,
including any personal information provided, unless the material
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET
and the Federal regulations.gov Web site are ``anonymous access''
systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line
or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 88102). For
additional instructions on obtaining access to comments, go to Section
I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elwood H. Forsht, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Water, Mail code 4303T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1025; fax
number 202-566-1053; and e-mail address: forsht.elwood@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities of
the following types that discharge pollutants directly or indirectly to
waters of the U.S.:
[[Page 46460]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities NAICS Codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... Discharges from 3311, 3312
existing and new
facilities engaged in
metallurgical
cokemaking, sintering,
ironmaking,
steelmaking, direct
reduced ironmaking,
briquetting, and
forging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the definitions and applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 420.01,
420.10, 420.20, 420.30, 420.40, 420.50, 420.60, 420.70, 420.80, 420.90,
420.100, 420.110, 420.120, and 420.130, of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions about the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-
mail. Send information claimed as CBI by mail only to the following
address, Office of Science and Technology, Mailcode 4303T, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Ahmar Siddiqui/Docket ID No. OW-2002-
0027. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by
marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI
on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the
copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of
the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OW-2002-0027. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
The official public docket is the collection of materials that is
available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-
2426. To view these docket materials, please call ahead to schedule an
appointment. Every user is entitled to copy 266 pages per day before
incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents a page for each page
over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of $25.00.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, ``EPA Dockets.'' You
may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic docket. Although
not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available docket materials through the
docket facility identified in Section I.C.1.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in
[[Page 46461]]
EPA's electronic docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
II. Legal Authority
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing these
regulations under the authorities of Sections 301, 304, 306, 308, 402
and 501 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318,
1342 and 1361.
III. Overview of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry
A. Legislative Background
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters'' (section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this,
the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters
except in compliance with the statute. The CWA confronts the problem of
water pollution on a number of different fronts. It relies primarily,
however, on establishing restrictions on the types and amounts of
pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and public
sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the Nation's waters would not achieve
the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires EPA to set nationally-
applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges
from those who discharge wastewater into sewers flowing to publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) (section 307(b) and (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs.
Generally, pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that
wastewater from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject
to similar levels of treatment. The General Pretreatment Regulations,
which set forth the framework for the implementation of national
pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403.
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
B. Overview of 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendment
EPA promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards for the Iron and Steel Point Source Category on May 27, 1982
(47 FR 23258), at 40 CFR Part 420, and amended these regulations on May
17, 1984 (49 FR 21024). These actions established limitations and
standards for three types of steel-making operations: Cokemaking, hot-
end and finishing operations. Regulations at Subpart A of Part 420
cover cokemaking operations. Regulations at Subpart B (sintering),
Subpart C (ironmaking), Subpart D (steelmaking), Subpart E (vacuum
degassing), Subpart F (continuous casting) and Subpart G (hot forming)
cover hot-end operations. Subpart H (salt bath descaling), Subpart I
(acid pickling), Subpart J (cold forming), Subpart K (alkaline
cleaning) and Subpart L (hot coating) cover finishing operations. The
1984 amendment (49 FR 21028; May 17, 1984) also included a provision
that would allow existing point sources to qualify for ``alternative
effluent limitations'' for a particular pollutant that was different
from the otherwise applicable effluent limitation. These
``alternative'' limitations represented a mass limitation that would
apply to a combination of outfalls. Thus, a facility with more than one
outfall would be subject to a combined mass limitation for the grouped
outfalls rather than subject to mass limitations for each individual
outfall. This provision allowed for in-plant trading under a ``water
bubble.'' The effect of this provision was to allow a facility to
exceed the otherwise applicable effluent mass limitation for a
particular outfall within a group of outfalls so long as the facility
did not exceed the allowed mass limitations for the grouped outfalls.
The provision prohibited establishing alternative effluent limitations
for cokemaking (Subpart A) and cold forming (Subpart J) process
wastewaters. See 40 CFR 420.03(b) (2001 ed.). The water bubble is a
regulatory flexibility mechanism that allows trading of identical
pollutants at any existing, direct discharging steel facility with
multiple compliance points.
C. The Water Bubble Provisions in the 2002 Rule
On October 17, 2002, EPA promulgated amendments to the iron and
steel regulations (67 FR 64216). In that action, EPA revised effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for Subpart A (cokemaking),
Subpart B (sintering), Subpart C (ironmaking), and Subpart D
(steelmaking), and promulgated new effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for a new subpart, Subpart M (other operations), that is also
considered a hot-end operation. Subparts E through L remained unchanged.
At that time, EPA also amended the scope of Sec. 420.03--the water
bubble provision--to allow establishment of alternative mass
limitations for facilities subject to new source standards and for cold
rolling operations. At the same time, EPA excluded oil and grease (O&G)
trading under the water bubble. 40 CFR 420.03(c); 67 FR 64261 (October
17, 2002).
EPA allowed trades involving cold forming operations (Subpart J)
because of process changes since promulgation of the 1984 amendments.
The original prohibition of trades involving cold rolling operations
was primarily based on concerns about discharges of naphthalene and
tetrachloroethylene. Since the 1984 amendments, industry use of
chlorinated solvents for equipment cleaning has virtually been
eliminated and the use of naphthalene-based rolling solutions has been
significantly reduced. [67 FR 64254]
Consequently, EPA decided trading
involving cold rolling operations could be authorized without adverse
consequences to receiving waters.
Prior to the 2002 revision, described above, part 420 authorized
the establishment of a single mass effluent limitation for O&G for
multiple outfalls. There were three steel mills that had applied for
and received alternative O&G limitations under Sec. 420.03. In the
2002 rule, EPA explained that it had decided not to allow trades of O&G
pollutant discharges among different outfalls because of differences in
the types of O&G used among iron and steel operations. See 67 FR 64261,
64254 (October 17, 2002).
After publication of the 2002 amendment, representatives of steel
mills affected by this change expressed concern about the prohibition
on establishing alternative O&G effluent limitations under the water
bubble and
[[Page 46462]]
requested EPA to revise Sec. 420.03 to reinstate O&G trading. The
representatives assert that EPA did not appropriately account for
compliance costs for those facilities possessing permits with
alternative O&G limitations. They also assert that these costs, due to
the loss of the treatment flexibility provided by the water bubble,
would be substantial. After a careful review of the rulemaking record,
EPA agrees that it did not adequately consider the costs of compliance
for the three known mills with NPDES O&G effluent limitations based on
the provisions of the water bubble. EPA also determined that it should
restore the regulatory flexibility related to O&G trading. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to modify the current rule.
IV. Proposed Water Bubble Amendment
Today, EPA proposes to amend Sec. 420.03 to reinstate O&G as a
pollutant for which alternative effluent limitations may be established
with one exception. The proposed amendment would prohibit sintering
process O&G trades unless one condition is met. In determining
alternative O&G mass limitations for combined outfalls that include
outfalls with sintering process wastewater, the allocation for
sintering process wastewater must be at least as stringent as otherwise
required by Subpart B. This restriction addresses the Agency's concern
about the possibility of net increases in discharges of furans and
dioxins. Sinter lines may receive wastes from all over the facility,
from other facilities owned by the same company, and, in some cases,
from other companies. Therefore, the sintering process O&G constituents
are unpredictable and may contain solvents, a likely source material
for furan and dioxin formation.
EPA also considered allowing O&G trading only among subcategories
with ``similar or like-kinds'' of O&G, one of the bases for its earlier
decision not to allow O&G trading. ``Similar or like kinds'' of O&G
compounds are defined as O&G compounds originating from within the same
category of manufacturing operations with similar O&G compositions. For
example, a facility with multiple outfalls could trade O&G limitations
within its hot-end operations with predominantly petroleum-based O&G or
it could trade within its finishing operations with predominantly
synthetic and animal O&G, but a facility could not trade O&G
limitations between its hot-end and finishing operations.
EPA, however, recognizes that if it retained such a restriction, in
certain circumstances, facilities discharging process wastewaters from
multiple subcategories through a single outfall would have greater
flexibility than those discharging under a water bubble through
multiple outfalls. At the present time, an iron and steel mill that
discharges wastewater from multiple subcategories through a single
outfall must comply with a single set of oil and grease limitations. In
most cases, the limitations are based on the sum of the allowable
pollutant loadings from each subcategory to arrive at a single set of
oil and grease limitations for the outfall (i.e., a ``building block''
approach). For compliance purposes, as long as the mill meets the oil
and grease limitations at the single outfall, the mass discharge from
each subcategory may vary above or below the otherwise applicable
limitation that would apply if the particular wastestream would be
discharged alone. Thus, adoption of a restriction on trading among
finishing and hot-end operations would effectively penalize those
discharging finishing and hot-end wastewater from multiple outfalls
relative to those discharging the same wastestreams from a single
outfall. As a result, EPA decided not to adopt such a restriction. The
current regulations do contain one general restriction, first published
as part of the 1984 water bubble, that would also apply to O&G trading.
Section 420.03(f)(1) states that ``(t)here shall be no alternate
effluent limitations for cokemaking process wastewater unless the
alternative limitations are more stringent than the limitations in
Subpart A of this part.''
EPA anticipates no additional compliance costs for the three steel
mills that have applied for and received alterative O&G limitations for
multiple outfalls if EPA decides to promulgate the rule with the
proposed restriction. EPA anticipates that today's proposal would
present opportunities for other facilities (through existing plant
configurations or future expansions) to utilize the cost saving,
regulatory flexibility provided by the provisions for establishing
alternative O&G limitations under the water bubble.
EPA solicits comment on all aspects of this amendment.
V. Corrections to Part 420
EPA is also proposing to correct typographical errors contained in
the October 17, 2002, final rule (68 FR 64215). The Code of Federal
Regulations (2004 ed.) contains an error for the new source performance
standards dates in Sec. Sec. 420.14(a)(1), 420.16(a)(1), 420.24(a),
and 420.26(a)(1). As published, the dates used to determine whether a
facility must comply with new source requirements do not make sense
because the ``beginning date'' was later than the ``ending date.'' The
first sentence in each of these citations will be revised to read as
follows: ``Any new source subject to the provisions of this section
that commenced discharging after November 18, 1992 and before November
18, 2002, must continue to achieve the standards specified in Sec.
420.14 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of
July 1, 2001 * * *.'' The November 18, 1992 date was incorrectly
published as November 19, 2012.
In addition, the ``Authority'' citation is revised to conform with
current guidance from the Office of the Federal Register.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735, (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action would not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The proposed amendment would re-instate O&G as a pollutant
parameter for which alternative effluent limitations and standards
under the
[[Page 46463]]
``water bubble'' provision of the rule may be available and would
correct a date for new source performance standards that was
incorrectly transcribed from the version signed by the Administrator.
Consequently, today's proposed rule would not establish any new
information collection burden on the regulated community.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based
on full time employees (FTEs) or annual revenues established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
The proposed amendment would re-instate O&G as a pollutant for
which alternative effluent limitations and standards may be
established. These proposed changes may reduce the economic impacts of
the regulation on those entities, including small entities, that have
already elected or may elect to use the trading provisions of the water
bubble for alternative O&G effluent limitations. The proposed change in
the compliance date for new source performance standards would result
in no economic burden. The change would only correct a date for new
source performance standards that was incorrectly transcribed from the
version signed by the Administrator. EPA therefore has concluded that
the proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small
entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed,
under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The proposed amendment would re-instate
O&G as a pollutant for which alternative effluent limitations and
standards may be established and would correct a date for new source
performance standards that was incorrectly transcribed from the version
signed by the Administrator. EPA has determined that the proposal if
adopted will result in no additional costs. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
For the same reason, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The rule would not uniquely affect
small governments because small and large governments are affected in
the same way. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
[[Page 46464]]
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed amendment would re-
instate O&G as a pollutant for which alternative effluent limitations
and standards may be established and would correct a date for new
source performance standards that was incorrectly transcribed from the
version signed by the Administrator. EPA has determined that there are
no iron and steel facilities owned and/or operated by State or local
governments that would be subject to today's rule. Further, the rule
would only incidentally affect State and local governments in their
capacity as implementers of CWA NPDES permitting programs and approved
pretreatment programs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on the
proposed rule from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The proposed amendment would re-instate O&G as a pollutant for which
alternative effluent limitations and standards may be established and
would correct a date for new source performance standards that was
incorrectly transcribed from the version signed by the Administrator.
EPA has not identified any iron and steel facilities covered by today's
proposed rule that are owned and/or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits comments on the proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Further, this regulation does not concern an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This regulation is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d), (15
U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any new voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420
Environmental protection, Iron, Steel, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: August 4, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 420--IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
1. The authority citation for part 420 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
Sec. 420.03 [Amended]
2. Section 420.03 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(c) and by adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for O&G in
sintering process wastewater unless the alternative limitations are
more stringent than the otherwise applicable limitations in Subpart B
of this part.
Sec. 420.14 [Amended]
3. Section 420.14 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the
date ``November 19, 2012'' and replacing it with the date ``November
18, 1992.''
Sec. 420.16 [Amended]
4. Section 420.16 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the
date ``November 19, 2012'' and replacing it with the date ``November
18, 1992.''
Sec. 420.24 [Amended]
5. Section 420.24 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the date
``November 19, 2012'' and replacing it with the date ``November 18, 1992.''
[[Page 46465]]
Sec. 420.26 [Amended]
6. Section 420.26 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the
date ``November 19, 2012'' and replacing it with the date ``November
18, 1992.''
[FR Doc. 05-15834 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}