[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25746]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 18, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[OW-FRL-5091-8]
Proposed Federal Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of
the United States in New Mexico
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a federal
regulation that would supersede an EPA disapproved provision in New
Mexico's water quality standards to ensure that the State's water
quality standards are implemented in a manner that is consistent with
the requirements of the Clean Water Act and its implementing
regulations. EPA solicits written comments on this proposal.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be submitted on or before
the close of business on December 2, 1994. In addition, oral and/or
written comments may be submitted at a public hearing on November 22,
1994 at 7 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Myron O. Knudson,
P.E., Director, Water Management Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. The public hearing will be held at the
State Capitol Building, Old Santa Fe Trail and Paseo de Paralta, Santa
Fe, New Mexico.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell Nelson (6W-QT), EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, Phone: (214) 665-6646.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Legal Authority
Under section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), States are required to develop water quality standards for the
surface waters of the State. At a minimum, water quality standards
consist of beneficial use designations, numeric or narrative water
quality criteria that support those designated uses, and an
antidegradation policy that protects existing water quality. States are
required to review, and if appropriate, revise their water quality
standards at least once every three years. States are required to
submit the results of their review of water quality standards to EPA
for review and approval or disapproval.
Whenever a State reviews its water quality standards or revises or
adopts new standards, CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) requires States to adopt
numeric criteria for all CWA section 307(a) priority toxic pollutants
for which criteria guidance has been published under CWA section
304(a), the discharge or presence of which in the affected waters could
reasonably be expected to interfere with designated uses adopted by the
State. The criteria must be specific numerical limitations for priority
toxic pollutants. If numerical criteria are not available, the CWA
requires the State to adopt criteria based on biological assessment or
monitoring methods.
The State may, at its discretion, include policies affecting the
application and implementation of mixing zones, low flows and variances
(40 CFR 131.13). These discretionary policies are subject to EPA review
and approval and, therefore, must also be submitted to EPA pursuant to
40 CFR 131.6(f).
Section 303(c)(4) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4)) authorizes the
EPA Administrator to promulgate water quality standards that supersede
disapproved State water quality standards, or in any case where the
Administrator determines that a new or revised water quality standard
is needed to meet the requirements of the CWA.
B. Background
1. Basis for Disapproval of the New Mexico Standards
In the National Toxics Rule (NTR) (see 57 FR 60848, December 22,
1992, codified at 40 CFR 131.36.), EPA promulgated numeric criteria for
priority toxic pollutants for those 14 States that had failed to adopt
such criteria on their own as required by CWA section 303(c)(2)(B). At
the time of proposal of the NTR, New Mexico was determined to be in
compliance with the toxics provisions of the CWA. However, on October
8, 1991, New Mexico adopted revisions to its water quality standards
that affected its compliance status.
In accordance with the provisions of section 303(c) of the Act and
the Federal Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131), Part 1-
105.E.4 of the New Mexico water quality standards was disapproved on
January 13, 1992. This regulatory section was determined to be
inconsistent with requirements set forth under section 303(c)(2)(B) of
the Act. In the NTR, EPA noted it's disapproval action for New Mexico,
and the potential for a separate rulemaking if the State did not adopt
acceptable water quality standards (57 FR 60848 @ page 60856, Note (2)
to Table 1).
Following disapproval of the New Mexico standards, EPA and State
staff discussed the modifications that were required to bring New
Mexico into compliance with section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA. It was
EPA's judgment that the New Mexico Environment Department was
attempting to appropriately revise its water quality standards through
the State's administrative procedures which includes final adoption by
the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC). As a result of
that effort, EPA allowed adequate time for the State to make
appropriate modifications to its water quality standards. With its
January 12, 1993 letter, EPA outlined the specific actions necessary
for New Mexico to take in order to revise the deficiency in its water
quality standards.
2. New Mexico's Response
In a February 25, 1993 letter to EPA, New Mexico committed to
correcting the deficiency in its standards by removing the disapproved
language. The State formally proposed deletion of the disapproved
language from its water quality standards and held hearings on its
proposal on October 13-15, 1993, and on January 12, 1994. To date,
however, the State has not taken final action on the proposal and has
thus failed to correct the disapproved standards.
3. Why New Mexico's Water Quality Standards Are Inadequate
The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows for application and
implementation of general discretionary policies in State water quality
standards, including provisions for mixing zones (40 CFR 131.13).
Section 1-105.E.4 of the New Mexico standards provides a specific
limitation for a general mixing zone policy that requires mixing zones
to be free from substances in concentrations that are acutely toxic to
aquatic organisms. The current State provision also allows a ``no-acute
toxicity'' provision to be determined by the performance of
biomonitoring procedures or by demonstration of compliance with acute
numeric water quality criteria. Determining compliance in this manner
essentially allows acute numerical criteria to be superseded by
biomonitoring.
For EPA to approve New Mexico's mixing zone policy, the policy must
protect against acute toxicity. Therefore, the policy must ensure that
the numeric criteria adopted pursuant to section 303(c)(2)(B) of the
CWA are not exceeded in the mixing zone. Biomonitoring cannot supersede
the State's acute numeric criteria for cadmium, chlordane, chromium,
copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc.
EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation provides that in
establishing criteria for toxic pollutants, States ``should * * *
establish narrative criteria or criteria based upon biomonitoring
methods where numerical criteria cannot be established or to supplement
numerical criteria,'' (40 CFR 131.11.(b)(2)). Clearly, narrative
criteria and criteria based on biomonitoring are to supplement
numerical criteria, not supersede them. Section 1-105.E.4 then, does
not comply with this requirement, thus resulting in this provision
being disapproved by EPA.
C. Description of the Proposed Rule
Today's proposed rule would supersede Section 1-105.E.4. of the New
Mexico water quality standards, and would establish a Federal
regulation which will ensure the application of acute numeric criteria.
The proposed rule would not allow the use of biomonitoring provisions
in lieu of, or as a surrogate for, chemical specific limits for
pollutants for which the State has numeric criteria in determining and
preventing acutely toxic conditions within mixing zones.
The proposed rule would maintain the State's narrative criteria
requiring that mixing zones be free of substances in concentrations
that are acutely toxic to aquatic organisms. Implementation of this
proposed rule will be determined by performance of the biomonitoring
procedures set out in section 1-103.D, and by demonstration of
compliance with acute numeric criteria set out in section 3-101.J and
applicable un-ionized ammonia and total chlorine residual standards in
sections 3-101.A, 3-101.C, 3-101.E, 3-101.F, and 3-101.H of the New
Mexico water quality standards.
These provisions provide for application of the State's numeric
criteria at the appropriate locations within the mixing zone, or
otherwise apply throughout the waterbody at the end of any discharge
pipe, canal or other discharge point.
D. Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1656
et seq.), federal agencies must assure that their actions are unlikely
to jeopardize the continued existence of listed threatened or
endangered species or adversely affect designated critical habitat of
such species. Today's proposal would assure the application of numeric
criteria, narrative criteria, and biomonitoring, and would result in
the protection of aquatic life from specific pollutants that could
reasonably be expected to interfere with the health and survival of the
most sensitive species, including threatened and endangered aquatic
species. In addition, this proposed rule would allow more protection
for endangered and threatened species in that both biomonitoring and
criteria requirements for waterbodies are necessary.
EPA has requested and received concurrence from the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service that this proposed rule is unlikely to
adversely affect threatened or endangered species.
E. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the 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, of 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 of 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.
Because the annualized cost of this proposed rule would be
significantly less than $100 million and would meet none of the other
criteria specified in the Executive Order, it has been determined that
this is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA
to assess whether its regulations create a disproportionate effect on
small entities. Among its provisions, the Act directs EPA to prepare
and publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any
proposed rule which may have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For purposes of this proposed rulemaking,
small entities are small dischargers, whether industrial or municipal.
The Agency concludes that this proposed rule would not have
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule is specific to New Mexico, and therefore limited in
scope. This proposed rule would not establish any new substantive
ambient water quality criteria that dischargers would need to meet. The
requirements affect monitoring requirements that most likely will be
included in future renewals of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits and in new NPDES permits. There may be treatment
process changes required in individual cases where the pollutant
specific monitoring requirements identify non-compliance. EPA expects
these to be rare.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule places no information collection activities on
the State of New Mexico, and therefore no information collection
requirement (ICR) will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
H. Availability of the Record
The entire administrative record concerning the New Mexico Water
Quality Standards discussed in this preamble is available for public
inspection and copying at the EPA, Region 6 Office, Library Services,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, on weekdays during the Agency's
normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
Water pollution control, Water quality standards, Toxic pollutants.
Dated: October 11, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 131 of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Subpart D--[Amended]
2. Section 131.38 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 131.38 New Mexico.
The following provision is intended to supersede Section 1-105.E.4.
of the ``Water Quality Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Streams
in New Mexico,'' adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission under
authority of Paragraph C, Section 74-6-4 of the New Mexico Water
Quality Act (NMSA 1978):
(a) Mixing zones shall be free of substances in concentrations
which are acutely toxic to aquatic organisms passing through the zone
of mixing. Compliance with this provision shall be determined by:
(1) Performance of the biomonitoring procedures set out in Section
1-103.D; and
(2) By demonstration of compliance with acute standards set out in
Section 3-101.J, and applicable un-ionized ammonia and total chlorine
residual standards set out in Sections 3-101.A, 3-101.C, 3-101.E, 3-
101.F, and 3-101.H.
(b) (Reserved)
[FR Doc. 94-25746 Filed 10-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P