[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73618-73623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 
http://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: [email protected].

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 http://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