[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 12, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19659-19662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8957]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL-6576-2]


Withdrawal of Certain Federal Human Health and Aquatic Life Water 
Quality Criteria Applicable to Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of 
Columbia, Kansas and Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In 1992, EPA promulgated Federal regulations establishing 
water quality criteria for toxic pollutants for several States, 
including Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia, Kansas and 
Idaho. These States have now adopted, and EPA has approved, human 
health and aquatic life water quality criteria. In this action, EPA is 
amending the Federal regulations to withdraw certain human health and 
aquatic life criteria applicable to these States. EPA is withdrawing 
its criteria applicable to these States without a notice and comment 
rulemaking because the States' adopted criteria are no less stringent 
than the Federal criteria.

DATES: This rule is effective April 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The administrative record for consideration of Rhode Island 
and Vermont's criteria is available for public inspection at EPA Region 
1, Office of Water, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston MA 02114-1505 
during normal business hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The 
administrative record for consideration of the District of Columbia 
human health criteria is available at EPA Region 3, Water Protection 
Division, 1650 Arch St, Philadelphia PA 19103-2029 during normal 
business hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. The administrative record for 
consideration of Kansas's human health and aquatic life criteria is 
available for public inspection at EPA Region 7, Water Resources 
Protection Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 
during normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The 
administrative record for consideration of Idaho's aquatic life 
criteria is available for public inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of 
Water, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 during normal 
business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Gardner at EPA Headquarters, 
Office of Water (4305), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C., 
20460 (tel: 202-260-7309). For questions regarding Rhode Island and 
Vermont, contact Bill Beckwith in EPA's Region 1 at 617-918-1544. For 
questions regarding the District of Columbia, contact Garrison Miller 
in EPA's Region 3 at 215-814-5745. For questions regarding Kansas, 
contact Ann Jacobs in EPA's Region 7 at 913-551-7930. For questions 
regarding Idaho, contact Lisa Macchio in EPA's Region 10 at 206-553-
1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Potentially Affected Entities

    Citizens concerned with water quality in Rhode Island, Vermont, 
Kansas, the District of Columbia and Idaho may be interested in this 
rulemaking. Entities discharging toxic pollutants to waters of the 
United States in these States could be affected by this rulemaking 
since criteria are used in determining NPDES permit limits. Potentially 
affected categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
                Category                        affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................  Industries discharging toxic
                                          pollutants to surface waters
                                          in Rhode Island, Vermont,
                                          District of Columbia, Kansas
                                          and Idaho.
Municipalities.........................  Publicly-owned treatment works
                                          discharging toxic pollutants
                                          to surface waters in Rhode
                                          Island, Vermont, District of
                                          Columbia, Kansas and Idaho.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be potentially affected 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine 
whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 131.36 of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
appropriate person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

Background

    In 1992, EPA promulgated a final rule (known as the ``National 
Toxics Rule'', or ``NTR'') to establish numeric water quality criteria 
for 12 States and two Territories (hereafter ``States'') that had 
failed to comply fully with section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act 
(``CWA'') (57 FR 60848). The criteria, codified at 40 CFR 131.36, 
became the applicable water quality standards in those 14 jurisdictions 
for all purposes and programs under the CWA effective February 5, 1993.
    When a State adopts criteria that meet the requirements of the CWA, 
EPA will issue a rule amending the NTR to withdraw its criteria. 
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, U.S.C. 533(b)(B) 
provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and 
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the 
public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice 
and opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is 
good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and 
opportunity for comment because EPA has determined that, if the State's 
criteria are no less stringent than the Federal regulations, additional 
comment on the criteria is unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes 
good cause for issuing this final rule without notice and comment. EPA 
has determined that the States criteria are no less stringent than the

[[Page 19660]]

NTR criteria because they are identical, identical when rounded using 
conventional rounding techniques, or more stringent. For the same 
reason, and because this rule relieves a restriction, EPA has 
determined that good cause exists to waive the requirement for a 30-day 
period before the amendment becomes effective and therefore, the 
amendment will be immediately effective.

Rhode Island

    On August 6, 1997, Rhode Island adopted revisions to its surface 
water quality standards (Regulation EVM 112-88.97-1), regarding human 
health criteria. Rhode Island adopted human health criteria for toxic 
pollutants contained in the NTR. EPA Region 1 approved the State's 
human health criteria on January 15, 1999, because Rhode Island's 
numeric criteria for the protection of human health were consistent 
with the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 131. By 
adoption of numeric criteria, Rhode Island complied with the 
requirements of Section 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA to have numeric 
criteria for toxic pollutants. EPA Region 1 requested that the Agency 
withdraw the Federal criteria applicable to Rhode Island for which the 
State now has numeric criteria.
    In today's action, EPA is withdrawing Rhode Island from the NTR for 
those criteria that the State has adopted that are no less stringent 
than the Federal criteria in the NTR. Rhode Island adopted, and EPA 
approved, a human health (organisms only) criterion of 50 g/l 
for arsenic. The value promulgated in the NTR for this criterion is 
0.14 g/l. Rhode Island will remain in the NTR for this 
criterion. In a separate, upcoming action, EPA will propose to remove 
Rhode Island from the NTR for this criterion and provide for public 
comment. Additionally, Rhode Island adopted, and EPA approved, human 
health criteria of 18 mg/l and 59 mg/l (water and organisms, and 
organisms only, respectively) for bis(2)ethylhexyl pthalate. The values 
promulgated in the NTR are 18 g/l and 59 g/l, 
respectively. Rhode Island will remain in the NTR for these criteria.

Vermont

    On July 12, 1994, Vermont adopted revisions to its surface water 
quality standards (Appendix C, Vermont Water Quality Standards, 
effective August 1, 1994). EPA Region 1 approved the State's adoption 
of criteria for all toxics contained in the NTR on December 5, 1996, 
because they are consistent with the CWA and EPA's implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 131. EPA Region 1 requested that the Agency 
withdraw the Federal criteria applicable to Vermont for which the State 
now has numeric criteria.
    In today's action, EPA is withdrawing Vermont from the NTR for 
certain human health and aquatic life criteria where the State adopted 
criteria that are no less stringent than the Federal criteria. Vermont 
adopted, and EPA approved, a human health (organisms only) criterion of 
1.5 g/l for arsenic. The value promulgated in the NTR for this 
criterion is 0.14 g/l. Vermont will remain in the NTR for this 
criterion. In a separate, upcoming action, EPA will propose to remove 
Vermont from the NTR for this criterion and provide for public comment. 
Additionally, Vermont adopted and EPA approved, an aquatic life 
criterion continuous concentration (CCC) of 0.8 g/l for gamma-
BHC. The value promulgated for this criterion in the NTR was 0.08. 
Vermont will remain in the NTR for this criterion.

District of Columbia

    On March 4, 1994, the District of Columbia adopted revisions to its 
surface water quality standards [amended Chapter 11 of Title 21 DCMR 
pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 5 of the Water Pollution 
Control Act of 1984, D.C. Law 5-188, effective March 16, 1985, D.C. 
Code Section 6-924 (1988) and Mayor's Order 85-152, September 12, 
1985], adopting human health criteria to protect from effects related 
to fish consumption. EPA Region 3 approved these revisions on November 
4, 1996, because the District's numeric criteria are consistent with 
section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 131. EPA Region 3 requested that the Agency 
withdraw the Federal human health (organism only) criteria applicable 
to the District for which the District now has numeric criteria.
    In today's action, EPA is withdrawing the District of Columbia from 
the NTR for those human health ``organism only'' criteria that the 
District has adopted that are no less stringent than the Federal 
criteria in the NTR. The District remains in the NTR for organism + 
water human health criteria. The District removed the drinking water 
use for the only water body in the District designated for that use. 
EPA approved the removal of this use and, in a separate upcoming 
action, EPA will propose to remove the District from the NTR for 
organism + water human health criteria and will provide for public 
comment.

Kansas

    On June 29, 1994, Kansas adopted revisions to its water quality 
standards (K.A.R. 28-16-28) regarding both human health and aquatic 
life criteria, and submitted them to EPA Region 7 for review and 
approval on October 31, 1994. On February 19, 1998, EPA Region 7 
approved certain new or revised water quality criteria for the 
protection of human health and aquatic life because they are consistent 
with section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations 
at 40 CFR 131, and requested that the Agency withdraw the Federal 
criteria applicable to Kansas for which the State now has numeric 
criteria. Additionally, on June 29, 1999, Kansas adopted new and 
revised ambient water quality criteria for additional pollutants. They 
were submitted to EPA for review and approval on August 10, 1999. On 
January 19, 2000, EPA Region 7 approved these additional criteria 
because they are also consistent with section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA 
and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131, and requested that 
the Agency withdraw the Federal criteria applicable to Kansas for which 
the State now has numeric criteria.
    In today's action, EPA is removing Kansas from the NTR for certain 
human health and aquatic life criteria because the State's adopted 
criteria are no less stringent than the Federal criteria. Kansas 
remains in the NTR for arsenic (human health--organisms only) and 
cadmium (acute and chronic aquatic life). For these pollutants, Kansas 
adopted criteria that are less stringent than the Federal rule. In a 
separate, upcoming action, EPA will propose to withdraw the NTR 
criteria for these pollutants and provide for public comment. In 
addition, Kansas remains in the NTR for certain other toxic pollutants 
for which it has not yet adopted numeric criteria.
    In addition, EPA is modifying the NTR for Kansas to reflect the 
State's adoption of a 10-\6\ risk level for carcinogens and 
a change in nomenclature for one of the State's use classifications.

Idaho

    On August, 24, 1994, Idaho adopted revisions to its surface water 
quality standards (Title 1, chapter 2, Section 250 of the Idaho 
Administrative Code). For all aquatic life toxic pollutants, Idaho 
adopted the NTR criteria by reference. On June 25, 1996, EPA Region 10 
approved the criteria because they were identical to the Federal 
criteria. EPA Region 10 requested that the

[[Page 19661]]

Agency withdraw the Federal criteria applicable to Idaho for which the 
State now has numeric criteria.
    In today's action, EPA is withdrawing Idaho from the NTR for all 
aquatic life criteria because the State adopted criteria that are 
identical to the Federal criteria.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because the 
agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not 
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the regulatory 
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does 
not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a 
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 
204 of UMRA. This rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect 
the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 
13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also 
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule 
also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice 
related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994). This rule does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to 
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the 
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is 
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This 
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 
As stated previously, EPA made such a good cause finding, including the 
reasons therefore, and established an immediate effective date of April 
12, 2000. 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. This action is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 (2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental 
relations, Water pollution control.

    Dated: April 4, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble title 40, chapter I, 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.


Sec. 131.36  [Amended]

    2. Section 131.36 is amended by:
    a. Revising the table in paragraph (d)(1)(ii).
    b. Revising the table in paragraph (d)(2)(ii).
    c. Revising the table in paragraph (d)(5)(ii).
    d. Revising the table in paragraph (d)(9)(i).
    e. Revising the table in paragraph (d)(9)(ii).
    f. In paragraph (d)(9)(iii) by revising ``State-proposed'' to read 
``State-adopted''.
    g. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(13).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 131.36  Toxics criteria for those states not complying with Clean 
Water Act Section 303(c)(2)(B).

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Use classification                   Applicable criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class A...................................  These classifications are
Class B waters where water supply use is     assigned the criteria in
 designated.                                 Column D1--#2, 68
Class B waters where water supply use is    Each of these
 not designated.                             classifications is assigned
Class C;..................................   the criteria in: Column D2--
Class SA;.................................   #2, 68
Class SB;.................................
Class SC..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Use classification                   Applicable criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class A...................................  This classification is
Class B waters where water supply use is     assigned criteria in:
 designated.                                Column B2--#105
Class B waters where water supply use is    These classifications are
 not designated Class C.                     assigned all the criteria
                                             in:
                                            Column B2--#105
                                            Column D2--#2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Use classification                   Applicable criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class C...................................  This classification is
                                             assigned the additional
                                             criteria in:
                                            Column B2--#10, 118, 126
                                            Column D1--#15, 16, 44, 67,
                                             68, 79, 80, 81, 88, 114,
                                             116, 118.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (9) * * *
    (i) * * *

Section (2)(A)--Special Aquatic Life Use Waters
Section (2)(B)--Expected Aquatic Life Use Waters
Section (2)(C)--Restricted Aquatic Life Use Waters
Section (3)--Domestic Water Supply.
Section (4)--Food Procurement Use.

    (ii) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Use classification                   Applicable criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections (2)(A), (2)(B), (2)(C), (4)......  These classifications are
                                             each assigned criteria as
                                             follows:
                                            Column B1, #2, 4
                                            Column B2, #4
                                            Column D2, #2, 12, 21, 29,
                                             39, 46, 68, 79, 81, 86, 93,
                                             104, 114, 118
Section (3)...............................  This classification is
                                             assigned all criteria in:
                                            Column D1, all except #1, 9,
                                             12, 14, 15, 17, 22, 33, 36,
                                             39, 44, 75, 77, 79, 90,
                                             112, 113, and 115.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19662]]

    (iii) The Human Health Criteria shall be applied at the State 
adopted 10-\6\ risk level.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-8957 Filed 4-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P