Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/08/10/05-15834/effluent-limitations-guidelines-pretreatment-standards-and-new-source-performance-standards-for-the
Timestamp: 2017-11-25 08:33:18
Document Index: 13426997

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 420', 'art 420', '§\u2009420', 'art 2', 'art 403', 'art 420', 'art 420', '§\u2009420', 'art 420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', '§\u2009420', 'art 420', '§\u2009420', 'art.\n3', '§\u2009420']

Comments must be received by September 9, 2005. Comments postmarked after this date may not be considered.
70 FR 46459
46459-46465 (7 pages)
Docket Number OW-2002-0027
FRL-7950-8
2040-AE78
III. Overview of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry
B. Overview of 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendment
C. The Water Bubble Provisions in the 2002 Rule
IV. Proposed Water Bubble Amendment
V. Corrections to Part 420
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/05-15834 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/05-15834
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.
Submit your comments, data and information for this proposed rule identified by Docket ID No. OW-2002-0027, by one of the following methods:
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.
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.
Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities of the following types that discharge pollutants directly or indirectly to waters of the U.S.: Start Printed Page 46460
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 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.
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.
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.
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 Start Printed Page 46461EPA's electronic docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 § 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 Start Printed Page 46462requested 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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:
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.
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 Start Printed 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.
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.
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.
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.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure Start Printed 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I is proposed to be amended as follows:
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
2. Section 420.03 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c) and by adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
(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.
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.”
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
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.”
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]