Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, 73618-73623 [05-23973]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73618
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Column A
Column B
Column C
(b) Dry cured pork products: Members
of the National Country Ham Association.
(c) Dry cured pork products: Members
of the American Association of Meat
Processors.
(d) Dry cured pork products: Nahunta
Pork Center.
(e) California entities storing walnuts,
beans, dried plums, figs, raisins, and
pistachios in California.
(f) Growers and packers who are members of the California Date Commission, whose facilities are located in
Riverside County.
[FR Doc. 05–23971 Filed 12–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 420
[Docket Number EPA–OW–2002–0027; FRL–
8007–8]
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is amending 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. In 2002, EPA also
promulgated amendments to these
regulations. The earlier regulations
authorized for direct discharges of
pollutants the establishment of
Pork product facilities who are members of the Association.
Pork product facilities who are members of the Association.
For facilities owned by the company.
With a reasonable expectation that one or more of the following limiting critical
conditions exists: rapid fumigation is required to meet a critical market window, such as during the holiday season; when a buyer provides short (2
days or less) notification for a purchase; or there is a short period after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for using alternatives.
With a reasonable expectation that one or more of the following limiting critical
conditions exists: rapid fumigation is required to meet a critical market window, such as during the holiday season, when a buyer provides short (2
days or less) notification for a purchase, or there is a short period after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for using alternatives.
limitations applicable to the total mass
of a pollutant discharged from more
than one outfall—a ‘‘water bubble.’’ 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 mass limitation. Among the
changes adopted in the 2002
amendments was a provision that
prohibited establishment of a water
bubble for oil and grease effluent
limitations. Based on consideration of
new information and analysis, EPA is
reinstating the provision authorizing
alternative oil and grease limitations
with certain restrictions. Today’s final
rule also corrects errors in the effective
date of new source performance
standards for direct and indirect
discharges of pollutants.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
January 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–OW–2002–0027. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov 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.:
Category
Examples of regulated entities
NAICS
codes
Industry ..
Discharges from existing and new facilities engaged in metallurgical cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking,
direct reduced ironmaking, briquetting, and forging.
3311, 3312
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Dec 12, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the definitions
and applicability criteria in §§ 420.01,
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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. How Can I Get Copies of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
C. What Process Governs Judicial
Review for Today’s Final Rule?
In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2,
today’s rule is considered promulgated
for the purposes of judicial review as of
1 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, December
27, 2005. Under section 509(b)(1) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), judicial review
of today’s effluent limitations guidelines
and standards may be obtained by filing
a petition in the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for review within 120
days from the date of promulgation of
these guidelines and standards. Under
section 509(b)(2) of the CWA, the
requirements of this regulation may not
be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
16:47 Dec 12, 2005
Jkt 208001
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is promulgating 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
1. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA–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. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 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
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
II. Legal Authority
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act
(CWA) to Arestore 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73619
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 direct
dischargers 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 inplant 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
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
73620
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(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 concluded that
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 oil and grease 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
requested that EPA revise § 420.03 to
reinstate O&G trading. The
representatives asserted that EPA did
not appropriately account for
compliance costs for those facilities
possessing permits with alternative O&G
limitations when the Agency decided to
prohibit oil and grease trading. They
also asserted that these costs, due to the
loss of the treatment flexibility provided
by the water bubble, would be
substantial. In August 2005, having
reviewed the information provided
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Dec 12, 2005
Jkt 208001
concerning these facilities, EPA
proposed to amend the regulation to
restore the regulatory flexibility related
to O&G trading for direct discharges of
pollutants. EPA also proposed to correct
typographical errors in the new source
performance standards dates for direct
and indirect discharges of pollutants.
(70 FR 46459; August 10, 2005)
IV. Public Comment and Responses
EPA received four comments in
response to the August 10, 2005,
proposal. One trade association and one
iron and steel company supported the
proposal to reinstate the provision
authorizing alternative oil and grease
limitations with the associated
restrictions. One commenter requested
guidance on how the proposed changes
would be implemented in the case of
indirect dischargers. EPA notes that the
I&S water bubble applies only to the
direct discharge of process wastewater.
Finally, one public interest group
objected to the proposal contending that
the proposal would allow excessive oil
and grease discharges from single
outfalls, as long as the overall permit
limit was maintained. The commenter
suggested the possibility that
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
could accumulate in river sediment due
to oil and grease loadings.
EPA disagrees that excessive amounts
of oil and grease could be discharged to
surface waters of the United States
through the use of the water bubble. The
total discharge of oil and grease from a
facility (i.e., total allowable oil and
grease from all outfalls at a facility), as
allowed by 40 CFR part 420, would not
change because of this amendment. This
amendment would only authorize
facilities to discharge varying amounts
of oil and grease from individual
outfalls, on the condition that the total
oil and grease discharged from all of the
outfalls of the facility does not exceed
that allowed by 40 CFR part 420. In
other words, the provision allows a
facility to exceed the otherwise
applicable effluent mass limitation for a
particular outfall within a group of
outfalls so long as the facility does not
exceed the allowed mass limitations for
the grouped outfalls. This provides
facilities more economic flexibility to
achieve compliance with limits, without
increasing the amount of pollutants
discharged to the environment. If there
are any site-specific issues or water
quality problems at one or more of these
outfalls, the permitting authority could
modify the application of the water
bubble as needed to address the specific
situation. Furthermore, the amendment
retains the trading restriction on
cokemaking operations which tend to be
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the source of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons in the iron and steel
industry. (67 FR 64254; October 17,
2002) The cokemaking restriction in the
water bubble (40 CFR 420.03(f)(1))
allows alternative limitations only if
they are more stringent than the (oil and
grease) limitations in the cokemaking
subcategory. In this case, use of the
water bubble could decrease the amount
of polynuclear aromatics discharged to
the surface waters of the United States.
After analysis and review of
comments received on the proposed
amendment, EPA has determined that it
should adopt the proposed
modifications to the current regulation.
V. Amendment To Restore Oil and
Grease to the Water Bubble
Today, EPA is amending § 420.03 to
reinstate O&G as a pollutant parameter
for which alternative effluent
limitations may be established with one
exception. The amendment prohibits
sintering process O&G trades unless one
condition is met. When establishing
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 anticipates no additional
compliance costs for the three steel
mills that have applied for and received
alterative O&G limitations for multiple
outfalls in the past. EPA anticipates that
today’s amendment presents
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.
VI. Corrections and Edits to 40 CFR
Part 420
EPA is correcting typographical errors
contained in the October 17, 2002, final
rule (67 FR 64216). The Code of Federal
Regulations (2004 ed.) contains an error
for the new source performance
standards dates at §§ 420.14(a)(1),
420.16(a)(1), 420.24(a), and 420.26(a)(1).
As published, the dates used to
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 is amended 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 to current
guidance from the Office of the Federal
Register.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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 rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action would not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
amendment would re-instate O&G as a
pollutant parameter for which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Dec 12, 2005
Jkt 208001
alternative effluent limitations and
standards under the ‘‘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 rule does 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 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; (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-forprofit enterprise which is independently
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73621
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s 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 amendment would re-instate
O&G as a pollutant parameter for which
alternative effluent limitations and
standards may be established. These
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 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 has
therefore concluded that the rule will
relieve regulatory burden for all affected
small entities.
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-
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
73622
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 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
amendment would re-instate O&G as a
pollutant parameter 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 this final rule 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 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
‘‘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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Dec 12, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 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 amendment
would re-instate O&G as a pollutant
parameter 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 rule.
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 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
amendment would re-instate O&G as a
pollutant parameter 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 rule that are
owned and/or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
J. Congressional Review Act
§ 420.14
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective on January 12, 2006.
I
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420
[FR Doc. 05–23973 Filed 12–12–05; 8:45 am]
Environmental protection, Iron, Steel,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[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.’’
provisions in the December 13, 2002
interim final rule relating to how we
define grossly excessive or deficient
payment amounts and to the criteria for
using valid and reliable data in applying
the inherent reasonableness authority.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is
effective on February 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Long, (410) 786–5655.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
§ 420.24
Electronic Access
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]
I
[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.’’
I
§ 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.’’
I
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
For reasons set out in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
I
PART 420—IRON AND STEEL
MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
[CMS–1908–F]
I
Medicare Program; Application of
Inherent Reasonableness Payment
Policy to Medicare Part B Services
(Other Than Physician Services)
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316,
1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
AGENCY:
2. Section 420.03 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (c),
by removing the ‘‘; and’’ at the end of
paragraph (f)(1) and adding a period in
its place, and by adding paragraph (f)(3)
to read as follows:
I
§ 420.03 Alternative effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
best practicable control technology
currently available, best available
technology economically achievable, best
available demonstrated control technology,
and best conventional pollutant control
technology (the ‘‘water bubble’’).
*
*
*
*
*
(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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Dec 12, 2005
Jkt 208001
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule finalizes the
process that was set forth in an interim
final rule published on December 13,
2002, for establishing a realistic and
equitable payment amount for Medicare
Part B services (other than physicians’
services) when the existing payment
amounts are inherently unreasonable
because they are either grossly excessive
or grossly deficient. This process does
not apply to services paid under a
prospective payment system, such as
outpatient hospital services or home
health services. The December 2002
interim final rule also described the
factors we (or our carriers) will consider
and the procedures we will follow in
establishing realistic and equitable
payment amounts for Medicare Part B
services.
In addition, this final rule responds to
public comments we received on two
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
This Federal Register document is
available from the Federal Register
online database through GPO Access, a
service of the U.S. Government Printing
Office. Free public access is available on
a Wide Area Information Server (WAIS)
through the Internet and via
asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can
access the database by using the World
Wide Web; the Superintendent of
Documents home page address is
https://www.access.gpo.gov/nara_docs/,
by using local WAIS client software, or
by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, then
login as guest (no password required).
Dial-in users should use
communications software and modem
to call (202) 512–1661; type swais, then
login as guest (no password required).
I. Background: Legislative and
Regulatory Authority
42 CFR Part 405
RIN 0938–AN81
1. The authority citation for part 420
is revised to read as follows:
73623
Sfmt 4700
Title XVIII of the Social Security Act
(the Act) contains various
methodologies for making payment
under Part B of the Medicare program.
These payment methodologies vary
among the different categories of items
and services covered under Medicare
Part B.
A. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985
Section 9304(a) of the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1985 (COBRA of 1985), Public Law 99–
272, effective September 10, 1986,
added section 1842(b)(8) to the Act,
which expressly authorizes the
Secretary to deviate from the payment
methodologies prescribed in the Act if
their application results in a payment
amount for a particular service or group
of services that is determined to be
grossly excessive or deficient and,
therefore, is not inherently reasonable.
The statute also requires the Secretary to
describe in regulations the factors to be
considered in determining an amount
that is realistic and equitable. The
Secretary has always taken the position
that the authority to regulate
unreasonable payment amounts is
inherent in his or her authority to
determine reasonable charges according
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73618-73623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23973]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 420
[Docket Number EPA-OW-2002-0027; FRL-8007-8]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending 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. In 2002,
EPA also promulgated amendments to these regulations. The earlier
regulations authorized for direct discharges of pollutants the
establishment of limitations applicable to the total mass of a
pollutant discharged from more than one outfall--a ``water bubble.''
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 mass limitation. Among the changes
adopted in the 2002 amendments was a provision that prohibited
establishment of a water bubble for oil and grease effluent
limitations. Based on consideration of new information and analysis,
EPA is reinstating the provision authorizing alternative oil and grease
limitations with certain restrictions. Today's final rule also corrects
errors in the effective date of new source performance standards for
direct and indirect discharges of pollutants.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-OW-2002-0027. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov 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.:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........... Discharges from existing 3311, 3312
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,
[[Page 73619]]
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. 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. EPA-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.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 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 https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
C. What Process Governs Judicial Review for Today's Final Rule?
In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule is considered
promulgated for the purposes of judicial review as of 1 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time, December 27, 2005. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), judicial review of today's effluent limitations
guidelines and standards may be obtained by filing a petition in the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for review within 120 days from
the date of promulgation of these guidelines and standards. Under
section 509(b)(2) of the CWA, the requirements of this regulation may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA
to enforce these requirements.
II. Legal Authority
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating 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 Arestore 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 direct dischargers 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
[[Page 73620]]
(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 concluded that
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 oil and grease 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 requested that EPA revise Sec. 420.03 to reinstate O&G
trading. The representatives asserted that EPA did not appropriately
account for compliance costs for those facilities possessing permits
with alternative O&G limitations when the Agency decided to prohibit
oil and grease trading. They also asserted that these costs, due to the
loss of the treatment flexibility provided by the water bubble, would
be substantial. In August 2005, having reviewed the information
provided concerning these facilities, EPA proposed to amend the
regulation to restore the regulatory flexibility related to O&G trading
for direct discharges of pollutants. EPA also proposed to correct
typographical errors in the new source performance standards dates for
direct and indirect discharges of pollutants. (70 FR 46459; August 10,
2005)
IV. Public Comment and Responses
EPA received four comments in response to the August 10, 2005,
proposal. One trade association and one iron and steel company
supported the proposal to reinstate the provision authorizing
alternative oil and grease limitations with the associated
restrictions. One commenter requested guidance on how the proposed
changes would be implemented in the case of indirect dischargers. EPA
notes that the I&S water bubble applies only to the direct discharge of
process wastewater. Finally, one public interest group objected to the
proposal contending that the proposal would allow excessive oil and
grease discharges from single outfalls, as long as the overall permit
limit was maintained. The commenter suggested the possibility that
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons could accumulate in river sediment
due to oil and grease loadings.
EPA disagrees that excessive amounts of oil and grease could be
discharged to surface waters of the United States through the use of
the water bubble. The total discharge of oil and grease from a facility
(i.e., total allowable oil and grease from all outfalls at a facility),
as allowed by 40 CFR part 420, would not change because of this
amendment. This amendment would only authorize facilities to discharge
varying amounts of oil and grease from individual outfalls, on the
condition that the total oil and grease discharged from all of the
outfalls of the facility does not exceed that allowed by 40 CFR part
420. In other words, the provision allows a facility to exceed the
otherwise applicable effluent mass limitation for a particular outfall
within a group of outfalls so long as the facility does not exceed the
allowed mass limitations for the grouped outfalls. This provides
facilities more economic flexibility to achieve compliance with limits,
without increasing the amount of pollutants discharged to the
environment. If there are any site-specific issues or water quality
problems at one or more of these outfalls, the permitting authority
could modify the application of the water bubble as needed to address
the specific situation. Furthermore, the amendment retains the trading
restriction on cokemaking operations which tend to be the source of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in the iron and steel industry. (67
FR 64254; October 17, 2002) The cokemaking restriction in the water
bubble (40 CFR 420.03(f)(1)) allows alternative limitations only if
they are more stringent than the (oil and grease) limitations in the
cokemaking subcategory. In this case, use of the water bubble could
decrease the amount of polynuclear aromatics discharged to the surface
waters of the United States.
After analysis and review of comments received on the proposed
amendment, EPA has determined that it should adopt the proposed
modifications to the current regulation.
V. Amendment To Restore Oil and Grease to the Water Bubble
Today, EPA is amending Sec. 420.03 to reinstate O&G as a pollutant
parameter for which alternative effluent limitations may be established
with one exception. The amendment prohibits sintering process O&G
trades unless one condition is met. When establishing 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 anticipates no additional compliance costs for the three steel
mills that have applied for and received alterative O&G limitations for
multiple outfalls in the past. EPA anticipates that today's amendment
presents 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.
VI. Corrections and Edits to 40 CFR Part 420
EPA is correcting typographical errors contained in the October 17,
2002, final rule (67 FR 64216). The Code of Federal Regulations (2004
ed.) contains an error for the new source performance standards dates
at Sec. Sec. 420.14(a)(1), 420.16(a)(1), 420.24(a), and 420.26(a)(1).
As published, the dates used to
[[Page 73621]]
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 is
amended 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 to
current guidance from the Office of the Federal Register.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action would not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The amendment would re-instate O&G as a pollutant parameter for which
alternative effluent limitations and standards under the ``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 rule does 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 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; (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 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 amendment would re-instate O&G as a pollutant parameter for
which alternative effluent limitations and standards may be
established. These 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 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 has therefore concluded that the rule
will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.
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-
[[Page 73622]]
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 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 amendment would re-instate O&G as a
pollutant parameter 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 this final rule
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 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
``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 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 amendment would re-instate O&G
as a pollutant parameter 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 rule.
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 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 amendment would re-
instate O&G as a pollutant parameter 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 rule that are owned
and/or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
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 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 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.
[[Page 73623]]
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on January 12, 2006.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420
Environmental protection, Iron, Steel, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 420--IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
0
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.
0
2. Section 420.03 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c),
by removing the ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (f)(1) and adding a
period in its place, and by adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 420.03 Alternative effluent limitations representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best practicable
control technology currently available, best available technology
economically achievable, best available demonstrated control
technology, and best conventional pollutant control technology (the
``water bubble'').
* * * * *
(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]
0
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]
0
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]
0
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.''
Sec. 420.26 [Amended]
0
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. 05-23973 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
