Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, 46459-46465 [05-15834]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules explanations when the agency does not use available and applicable VCS. Today’s proposed decision does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA are not applicable. List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 4, 2005. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. 05–15825 Filed 8–9–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 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 Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: 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. VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 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- PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46459 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.: E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 46460 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules Category Examples of regulated entities Industry .......................... Discharges from 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 §§ 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, VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 NAICS Codes 3311, 3312 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 E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46461 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 § 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 naphthalenebased 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 § 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 E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 46462 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules requested EPA to revise § 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 § 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 §§ 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 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 § 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 E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules ‘‘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 VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 reinstate 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 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46463 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 costeffective, 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 E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 46464 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules ‘‘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’’ (65 FR 67249, 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- VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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. § 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. § 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.’’ § 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.’’ § 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.’’ E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules § 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 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Slackwater Darter and Initiation of a 5-Year Review Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of 5-year review. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting of the slackwater darter may be warranted. Accordingly, we are not required to take any further action in response to this petition. However, we believe the information in our files indicates a decline in the status of this species since its listing. Therefore, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that has become available concerning the status of or threats to the slackwater darter since it was listed in 1977. This information will help us more accurately assess its status and complete a 5-year review as required under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. DATES: The 90-day finding announced in this document was made on July 7, 2005. To allow us adequate time to conduct this 5-year review, we request any new information and comments to be submitted to us by October 11, 2005. However, we will continue to accept new information about this listed species at any time. ADDRESSES: Data, information, written comments and materials, or questions concerning this petition, our finding, or our 5-year review should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Jackson Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi, 39213. The petition VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 finding, supporting data, and comments or information received in response to this notice will be available for public review, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. New information regarding the slackwater darter may be sent electronically to daniel_drennen@fws.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Drennen, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address (telephone 601–321–1127; e-mail daniel_drennen@fws.gov). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Information Solicited When we find that there is not substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, initiation of a status review is not required by the Act. However, we continually assess the status of species listed as threatened or endangered to ensure that our information is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial data. Therefore, we are soliciting new information for the slackwater darter. Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The finding is to be based on all information available to us at the time the finding is made. To the maximum extent practicable, the finding is to be made within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and published promptly in the Federal Register. If we find that substantial information was presented in the petition, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species to determine whether the action is warranted. In making the 90-day finding, we rely on information provided by the petitioner and evaluate that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). The contents of this finding summarize that information included in the petition and that which was available to us at the time of the petition review. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b), our review is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the ‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. ‘‘Substantial information’’ is defined in 50 CFR 424.14(b) as ‘‘that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted.’’ We do not conduct PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46465 additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to rigorous critical review. Rather, in accordance with the Act and regulations, we accept the petitioner’s sources and characterizations of the information unless we have specific information to the contrary. As explained below, applying this standard we find that the petition does not state a reasonable case for delisting. The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are provided at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a result of: (1) Extinction; (2) recovery; or (3) a determination that the original data used for classification of the species as endangered or threatened were in error. Review of Petition The petition to delist the slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi), dated February 3, 1997, was submitted by the National Wilderness Institute. The petition requested that we remove the slackwater darter from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants on the basis of data error. In response to the petitioner’s request to delist the slackwater darter, we sent a letter to the petitioner on June 29, 1998, explaining our inability to act upon the petition due to low priorities assigned to delisting petitions in accordance with our Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997, which was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). That guidance identified delisting activities as the lowest priority (Tier 4). Due to the large number of higher priority listing actions and a limited listing budget, we did not conduct any delisting activities during the Fiscal Year 1997. On May 8, 1998, we published the Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998–1999 in the Federal Register (63 FR 25502) and, again, placed delisting activities at the bottom of our priority list. Subsequent to 1998, the delisting funding source was moved from the listing program to the recovery program, and delisting petitions no longer had to compete with other section 4 actions for funding. However, due to higher priority recovery workload, it has not been practicable to process this petition until recently. The petition requested that we delist the slackwater darter on the basis of data error; however, the petition did not provide any information explaining how the data used to classify the slackwater E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46459-46465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15834]


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

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'' (65 FR 67249, 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