[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 63 (Friday, March 31, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17166-17170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7986]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 130

[FRL-6569-7]


Revision to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation 
Listing Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the 
Water Quality Planning and Management regulation to remove the 
requirement in most cases that States, Territories and authorized 
Tribes submit to EPA for review by April 1, 2000, lists of water 
quality limited waterbodies. EPA's current regulations interpret the 
provision in section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for submission of 
lists to EPA ``from time to time'' to require States, Territories and 
authorized Tribes to submit lists on April 1 of every even-numbered 
year. EPA is not, however, changing the existing requirement to submit 
a list in 2000 if a court order or consent decree, or commitment in a 
settlement agreement dated prior to January 1, 2000, expressly requires 
EPA to take action related to a State's, Territory's, or authorized 
Tribe's year 2000 list. Also, EPA is not at this time changing the 
existing regulatory requirement that subsequent lists be submitted on 
April 1, 2002, and on April 1 of subsequent even numbered years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: This rule's administrative record is available for review 
and copying from 9:00 to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays, at the Water Docket (W-99-25), East Tower Basement, 
Room EB-57, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20460. The administrative record includes a Response to 
Comments document which includes a response to all timely comments that 
EPA received on the proposal for this rule. For access to materials, 
please call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Pendergast, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (4503F), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20640, (202) 260-9549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: Clean Water Act Section 303.

I. Potentially Regulated Entities

[[Page 17167]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Examples of potentially
               Category                      NAIAS codes               SIC codes            regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local, Tribal Government......  N/A....................  N/A....................  States, Territories,
                                                                                          and authorized Tribes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
you are regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 130.1 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to you, please consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

A. Existing Requirement

    Section 303(d)(1) of the CWA requires States, Territories and 
authorized Tribes to submit to EPA ``from time to time'' a list of 
waterbodies for which existing pollution effluent limitations are not 
stringent enough to attain and maintain State, Territorial and 
authorized Tribal water quality standards. The statute requires EPA to 
review and approve or disapprove the lists within 30 days of the time 
they are submitted. If EPA disapproves a list, EPA must establish the 
list for the State, Territory or authorized Tribe.
    In 1992, EPA revised the regulations implementing section 303(d)(1) 
to require States, Territories, and authorized Tribes to submit lists 
of water quality limited waterbodies to EPA every two years, with the 
1992 lists due to EPA no later than October 22, 1992, and subsequent 
lists due on April 1 of even-numbered years. The most recent listing 
deadline was April 1, 1998, and all States, Territories, and authorized 
Tribes have now submitted 1998 section 303(d) lists to EPA. As of March 
2000, EPA had approved all but one list.

B. Proposed Rule

    On February 2, 2000, EPA proposed to eliminate the regulatory 
requirement that States, Territories, and authorized Tribes submit to 
EPA by April 1, 2000, their lists of water quality limited waterbodies, 
unless EPA has been required by a court order or consent decree, or 
commitment in a settlement agreement to take action based on a year 
2000 list. (EPA used the term ``impaired and threatened'' in the 
proposal; however the precise term from the current regulations is 
``water quality limited.'') This proposed rule was published in the 
Federal Register on February 2, 2000, with a 30 day comment period. The 
public comments are available for review in the Water Docket, Room EB-
57 (East Tower Basement), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
    The February 2, 2000, proposal only affected the April 1, 2000, 
list; it retained the existing regulatory requirement that subsequent 
lists be submitted on April 1, 2002, and on April 1 of subsequent even-
numbered years. EPA proposed applying the changed regulation to 
instances where EPA has been required by a court order or consent 
decree, or commitment in a settlement agreement to take action based on 
a State's, Territory's or authorized Tribe's year 2000 list. EPA made 
this proposal to avoid unsettling a commitment embodied in documents 
filed in or entered by a court.

C. Comments Sought

    EPA sought comments in the proposal on whether to eliminate the 
April 1, 2000, listing deadline in light of the comprehensive 
improvements and clarifications proposed to the existing listing 
requirements on August 23, 1999 (see 64 FR 46012). EPA also requested 
comments on whether to move the April 2000 list submission date to 
another date prior to April 2002. EPA also requested comments on 
whether to include in the final rule the limited exception which would 
require a State, Territory, and authorized Tribe to submit a list in 
the year 2000 only if a court order or consent decree dated prior to 
January 1, 2000, expressly requires (or if a similarly dated settlement 
agreement committed) EPA to take action related to that year 2000 list. 
Finally, EPA sought comments on whether it should promulgate in this 
rule the requirements for removing a waterbody from the section 303(d) 
list that EPA proposed on August 23, 1999.

III. Summary of Final Rule

A. Removing the Requirement To Submit the April 1, 2000, List

    EPA is today amending its regulations at 40 CFR 130.7(d)(1) to 
remove the requirement that States, Territories, and authorized Tribes 
submit a section 303(d) list by April 1, 2000. After review of 
comments, EPA still believes that its reasons for removing the year 
2000 list, as proposed, are valid. Many comments supported the proposal 
by pointing out that States need additional resources to establish the 
large numbers of TMDLs required by the 1998 list. Three States noted 
that the rule would have no effect on them because they would submit a 
list by April 2000; however, these States did not oppose the rule. Of 
the comments opposing the proposal, all but two supported the proposal 
on the condition that EPA simultaneously promulgate regulations to 
require that a waterbody attain water quality standards before it can 
be removed from the list. Two other comments opposing the rule 
suggested that most States would have already developed the information 
for a year 2000 list and thus there would be no savings in resources to 
redirect towards TMDL development. However, of the 32 States submitting 
(or joining with submitted) comments, only three said they had 
developed the information for a year 2000 section 303(d) list. Another 
comment noted the value of an updated list for citizens to use to 
highlight where environmental problems require more attention. EPA 
recognizes this value of the section 303(d) lists, but does not believe 
it out-weighs the benefit of affording States, Territories, and 
authorized Tribes flexibility to make further progress in establishing 
TMDLs on already-listed waterbodies instead of submitting the section 
303(d) list in the year 2000. Two comments questioned whether States 
would actually use the additional time to collect and analyze data for 
the next section 303(d) list. EPA notes that a comment submitted by a 
State specifically discussed using the time to evaluate biological 
information that would otherwise have been directed towards preparing a 
year 2000 list. Another State comment pointed to the data collection 
efforts it had underway.
    One comment opposing the proposal claimed it was contrary to 
Congressional intent that all TMDLs be established prior to the Clean 
Water Act requirement that effluent limitations attain water quality 
standards by July 1, 1977. EPA disagrees with the assertion that the 
Clean Water Act required all TMDLs be established by July 1, 1977. 
Regardless, this assertion is irrelevant to EPA's decision to remove 
the requirement (codified by EPA by regulation in 1992) that States, 
Territories and authorized Tribes submit a section 303(d) list in the 
year 2000.

[[Page 17168]]

Nevertheless, EPA recognizes the statements in the Congressional Record 
and that section 301 of the Clean Water Act cited by the commenter 
indicates that certain benchmarks should be met by July 1, 1977. EPA 
notes, however, that section 301 applies to effluent limitations 
whereas section 303 applies to TMDLs. Furthermore, EPA has stated 
previously that water quality based effluent limits can be set in the 
absence of a TMDL. 43 FR 60664. To codify this, EPA has published 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations 
that clearly require NPDES permit authorities to ensure that effluent 
limitations are derived from and comply with all applicable water 
quality standards; this requirement does not depend on whether there 
exists an applicable TMDL. 54 FR 23879.
    Another comment claimed that persons with interests in impaired but 
unlisted waterbodies receive no benefits if a State delays listing 
their waterbody in lieu of establishing a TMDL for another water. EPA 
believes that establishing TMDLs speeds up the process towards 
attaining water quality standards, which is the underlying principal of 
the Clean Water Act. Thus, EPA believes that the overall interests of 
residents will be better served if States, Territories, and authorized 
Tribes focus their efforts on establishing TMDLs before the next 
section 303(d) list is due.
    EPA received comments suggesting that EPA should take action on 
lists that States, Territories, and authorized Tribes voluntarily 
submit by April 2000 or thereafter. EPA also received one comment 
requesting that EPA take no action on a section 303(d) list that a 
State may submit in the year 2000. EPA interprets section 303(d) to 
require EPA to review and either approve or disapprove a final section 
303(d) list whenever submitted by a State, Territory, or authorized 
Tribe.
    EPA received only four comments on its proposal to require a year 
2000 list where EPA has been required by a court order or consent 
decree, or commitment in a settlement agreement to take action based on 
a year 2000 list. Two comments supported this. The other two suggested 
that EPA condition this requirement to where it is infeasible to amend 
the court order or consent decree, or commitment in a settlement 
agreement. When EPA published the proposal, EPA stated that it believed 
that this provision would only apply to the State of Georgia and 
solicited comment on whether this would apply to others. EPA received 
no comment or information identifying any other State. EPA continues to 
believe that a State, Territory, and authorized Tribe should submit a 
section 303(d) list if a court order or consent decree, or commitment 
in a settlement agreement dated prior to January 1, 2000, expressly 
requires EPA to take action related to that year 2000 list. Therefore, 
EPA is promulgating this regulation as proposed. Information available 
to EPA indicates that this requirement only affects Georgia. EPA 
understands that Georgia intends to submit a list in the year 2000.
    EPA received several comments suggesting dates on which States, 
Territories, and authorized Tribes should be required to submit the 
next section 303(d) list. After reviewing those comments, and 
considering the fact that EPA intends to publish the final rules for 
the TMDL program fairly soon, EPA will establish the date for the next 
303(d) list when the final TMDL rules are published. Until then, the 
date for the next list is April 1, 2002.
    EPA received many comments discussing whether EPA should require in 
this final rule that a State must keep each impaired waterbody on the 
list until water quality standards are attained for that waterbody and 
may remove a previously listed impaired waterbody only if new data or 
information indicates that the waterbody has attained water quality 
standards. Many comments asked that EPA make this change in this rule 
and roughly an equal number of comments opposed making this change now 
instead as of part of the revisions to the Water Quality Planning and 
Management Regulation later. After reviewing those comments, and 
considering the fact that EPA intends to publish the final rules for 
the TMDL program fairly soon, EPA has decided to not take action on 
this issue in today's final rule. EPA believes that it can better 
consider the aspects of this issue in conjunction with decisions on the 
other issues that were proposed in the August 23, 1999 proposal. This 
belief is consistent with the recommendation of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA) Committee report on page 9 that cautioned readers 
of the report to not take individual recommendations out of context 
because many recommendations are interrelated. Because EPA relied on 
the FACA Committee report for many of the elements of the August 23, 
1999, proposal, EPA believes it is better to consider the issue of 
criteria for removing a waterbody from the section 303(d) list in 
conjunction with the other elements of the August 23, 1999, proposal.
    As stated in the proposal to this rule, EPA intends to carefully 
review any proposed removal of a waterbody from a section 303(d) list 
to ensure there is information specific to the waterbody to support the 
removal. 65 FR 4921. In particular, where a waterbody was previously 
listed based on certain data or information, and the State removes the 
waterbody without developing or obtaining any new information, EPA will 
carefully evaluate the State's re-evaluation of the available 
information, and would not approve such removals unless the State's 
submission describes in detail why it is appropriate under the current 
regulations to remove each affected waterbody. EPA has the authority to 
disapprove the list if EPA identifies existing and readily available 
information that was existing and readily available at the time the 
State submitted the list and that data shows that a waterbody does not 
attain water quality standards.

B. Other Comments

    EPA received comments on other issues germane only to the August 
23, 1999, proposal and for which EPA did not solicit comment in the 
February 2, 2000, proposal. EPA is deferring decision on those issues 
until the time when EPA publishes the final rule for the comprehensive 
TMDL program.

C. Effective Date of the Final Rule

    EPA has decided to make this rule effective upon publication. The 
Administrative Procedure Act allows the effective date of a rule to be 
less than 30 days from the publication. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)-(3). Section 
553(d)(1) allows the effective date to be less than 30 days from the 
publication date if the rule grants an exemption or relieves a 
restriction. EPA believes that the part of this rule that removes the 
obligation that States, Territories, and authorized Tribes submit 
section 303(d) lists for the year 2000 satisfies section 553(d)(1). 
Because it relieves an obligation for a list submission on April 1, 
2000, EPA believes the rule should be effective before that date. 
Furthermore, section 553(d)(3) allows the effective date to be less 
than 30 days from the publication date for good cause if the agency 
expresses the reasons and publishes them with the rule.

IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    RFA 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

[[Page 17169]]

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, a small entity is defined 
as: (1) A small business according to the RFA default definition for 
small business (based on the Small Business Administration size 
standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; (3) a small organization that is any 
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 
is not dominant in its field. For purposes of the RFA, States, 
Territories and tribal governments are not considered small governments 
jurisdictions since they are independent sovereigns.
    The RFA requires analysis of the impacts of a rule on the small 
entities subject to the rule's requirements. See United States 
Distribution Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C.Cir. 1996); 
Mid-Tex Electric Co-op., Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985); 
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449 (D.C. 
Cir. 1998). Today's rule establishes requirements for only States, 
Territories and authorized Tribes. It establishes no requirements 
applicable to small entities, and so is not susceptible to regulatory 
flexibility analysis as prescribed by the RFA. ``[N]o [regulatory 
flexibility] analysis is necessary when an agency determines that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities that are subject to the requirements of the 
rule.'' United Distribution at 1170, quoting Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op., Inc. 
v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (emphasis added by United 
Distribution court). After considering the economic impacts of today's 
final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. 
It eliminates the current regulatory requirement which directs States, 
Territories and authorized Tribes (and EPA, if it disapproves the 
State's, Territory's or authorized Tribe's efforts) to establish lists 
of impaired waterbodies in the year 2000.

B. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
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, 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.
    It has been determined that this final rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that attains 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 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.
    Today's final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and 
tribal governments or the private sector. The final rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector. The final rule is deregulatory because it eliminates 
the current regulatory requirement that States, Territories, and 
authorized Tribes submit lists of impaired waterbodies in 2000. Thus, 
today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 
and 205 of UMRA.
    For the same reasons discussed in the section on the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, EPA has determined that this final rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain any information collection, 
reporting, or record keeping requirements. Thus, this final rule is not 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This 
final rule could actually streamline and reduce existing OMB-approved 
requirements by 25,424 hours in the year 2000.

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.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance

[[Page 17170]]

costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final 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. As discussed above, the final 
rule that removes the obligation that States, Territories, and 
authorized Tribes submit a section 303(d) list is deregulatory because 
it eliminates a current requirement. Thus, the requirements of section 
6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this final rule.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and 
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies 
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments nor does it impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on them. Currently, there are no tribes 
authorized to establish TMDLs or lists of impaired waterbodies. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to today's final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (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 EPA 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 final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not ``economically 
significant'and further, it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, 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, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This final rule does not involve any technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

I. 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 March 31, 2000, for reasons 
discussed previously in this preamble.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 130

    Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: March 27, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA is amending title 40, 
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 130--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 130 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    2. Amend Section 130.7 by adding a new sentence after the third 
sentence in paragraph (d)(1) as follows:


Sec. 130.7  Total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and individual water 
quality-based effluent limitations.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * (1) * * * For the year 2000 submission, a State must 
submit a list required under paragraph (b) of this section only if a 
court order or consent decree, or commitment in a settlement agreement 
dated prior to January 1, 2000, expressly requires EPA to take action 
related to that State's year 2000 list. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-7986 Filed 3-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P