[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 82 (Thursday, April 27, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24641-24653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8536]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL-6571-7]
RIN 2040-AD33


EPA Review and Approval of State and Tribal Water Quality 
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule specifies that new and revised standards adopted by 
States and authorized Tribes after the effective date of today's rule 
become ``applicable standards for Clean Water Act purposes'' only when 
approved by EPA. To facilitate transition to this approach, standards 
in effect under State and Tribal law and submitted to EPA before the 
effective date of the new rule may still be used for Clean Water Act 
purposes, whether or not approved by EPA, until replaced by Federal 
water quality standards or approved State or Tribal standards.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 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, East Tower Basement, Room EB57, 
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC. For access to materials, 
please call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.
    The Clean Water Act Water Quality Standards dockets discussed in 
III.E.4 of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below are available for 
viewing in the Regional Offices. Regional contacts, addresses, and 
phone numbers are included in the supplementary section of this 
preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Morrow, Office of Science and 
Technology, Standards and Applied Science Division, (202) 260-3657, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  

I. Potentially Regulated Entities
II. Background
III. Summary of final rule and response to major comments
    A. General Approach
    B. Integration with CWA Section 510
    1. Proposed Rule
    2. Major Comments and Responses
    3. Final Rule
    C. EPA Transition Strategy
    1. Proposed Rule
    2. Major Comments and Responses
    3. Final Rule
    D. Delay Related Comments
    1. Default Approval/Disapproval
    2. Integration with ESA
    E. Other Issues
    1. Integration with TMDL/NPDES Programs
    2. Coordination between Federal and State and Tribal Processes
    3. Standards subject to the rule
    4. CWA WQS Docket
    a. Proposed Rule
    b. Major Comments and Responses
    c. Final Rule
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VI. Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 12866

[[Page 24642]]

VII. Federalism, Executive Order 13132
VIII. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
Executive Order 13084
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks, Executive Order 13045
XI. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
XII. Congressional Review Act

I. Potentially Affected Entities

    Citizens concerned with water quality may be interested in this 
rulemaking. Entities discharging pollutants to waters of the United 
States could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking since water 
quality standards are used in determining National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. Potentially affected entities 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
                Category                        affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States, Tribes, and Territories........  States, Territories, and Tribes
                                          authorized to administer water
                                          quality standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

II. Background

    Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States, which as 
defined include Territories and authorized Tribes, to review their 
water quality standards periodically, to adopt new or revised standards 
as needed, and to submit their standards for EPA review. Authorized 
Tribes are Tribes that have approved CWA section 303 authority pursuant 
to 40 CFR 131.8. EPA will approve or disapprove any such new or revised 
standards. Section 303(c)(3) states that ``If the Administrator, within 
sixty days after the date of submission of the revised or new standard, 
determines that such standard meets the requirements of this Act, such 
standard shall thereafter be the water quality standard for the 
applicable waters.'' If the Administrator determines that the new or 
revised standard does not meet those requirements, she shall take 
specified steps to ensure that an adequate standard is in place. (See 
preamble to proposed rule (64 FR 37072 (July 9, 1999)) for a more 
detailed description of the statutory background.)
    Notwithstanding this statutory language, EPA's 1983 water quality 
standard regulations set out an interpretation of the Act which allowed 
State and Tribal standards to go into effect for CWA purposes as soon 
as they were adopted and effective under State or Tribal law, and to 
remain in effect unless and until replaced by another standard. The 
1983 rule reflected an Agency interpretation which dated back at least 
to 1977. See Opinion of the General Counsel No. 58, Issue 2, In re 
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, March 29, 1977. On July 8, 1997, the 
district court issued an opinion in Alaska Clean Water Act Alliance v. 
Clark, No. C96-1762R (W.D. Wash.) holding that the plain meaning of the 
Clean Water Act was that new and revised state water quality standards 
were not effective for Clean Water Act purposes until approved by EPA. 
The parties to the lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement under 
which EPA agreed to propose revisions to 40 CFR 131.21(c) consistent 
with the Court's opinion no later than July 1, 1999, and to take final 
action within nine months of the proposal. Today's final rule is issued 
in accordance with this settlement agreement.
    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 
1999, with a 45 day comment period. The public comments on the proposed 
rule are available in the docket for this rule.

III. Summary of Final Rule and Response to Major Comments

A. General Approach

    Like the proposal, the final regulation sets out a general rule 
that if a State or authorized Tribe adopts a WQS that goes into effect 
after the effective date of this rule, that standard becomes the 
applicable WQS for purposes of the CWA when EPA approves it, unless or 
until EPA has promulgated a more stringent Federal WQS for the State or 
authorized Tribe. For example, where EPA has previously promulgated a 
more stringent Federal standard, the newly approved State or Tribal 
standard will go into effect for CWA purposes after EPA removes the 
Federal rule. Another example is where EPA approves a State or Tribal 
standard and at a later date, based on new information, determines that 
a new or revised standard is necessary. If the State or Tribe does not 
revise the previously approved standard, EPA would promulgate a Federal 
standard to supercede the previously approved standard. EPA clarified 
this in today's final rule by changing the heading in the table at 
Sec. 131.21(c) from ``unless'' to ``unless or until.''
    As discussed in section III.C., in response to comments, today's 
final rule modifies the proposed transition provision (referred to in 
the proposal as a grandfather provision) allowing standards which went 
into effect prior to the effective date of today's rule to be used for 
CWA purposes. The final rule also establishes an approach to integrate 
the requirements of CWA sections 303 and 510 that is different than the 
proposal. The following discussion summarizes the major comments, and 
explains why EPA did or did not modify the proposal in response to 
these comments. A complete response to comments is in the 
administrative record for this rule--see ADDRESSES.
    The comments were divided on the general approach in the proposal. 
A number of commenters, especially environmental groups, strongly 
supported the proposal in general as mandated by the Clean Water Act 
and as ensuring that only standards which meet the requirements of the 
CWA would be used for CWA purposes (although some objected to the 
exceptions provided for standards adopted before the effective date of 
the final rule and for new, not less stringent standards). Other 
commenters indicated that the new approach would be acceptable if steps 
were taken to address delays in EPA approval of standards (e.g., 
provide for default approvals if EPA did not act in a timely fashion). 
Finally, a number of commenters expressed support for retaining the 
current approach; particular commenters questioned the legal basis for 
the new approach or felt that it infringed on States' rights; or 
expressed concerns that the new approach would create a confusing 
system of dual standards and/or result in gaps when a State repealed an 
old standard.
    The final rule retains the general approach of the proposed rule. 
EPA agrees that this approach (that is, standards are not effective for 
CWA purposes until approved by EPA)

[[Page 24643]]

reflects the plain language of CWA section 303(c)(3). While the 
commenters have raised various practical issues concerning the 
implementation of the proposed approach, EPA believes that these 
problems can generally be addressed and do not justify a different 
interpretation of the language of section 303(c)(3). EPA does not 
believe that the final rule infringes on State or Tribal rights. States 
and authorized Tribes will continue to have the flexibility to adopt 
new and revised standards whenever deemed appropriate or necessary. 
Today's final rule does not affect the basis for EPA review and 
approval/disapproval. The substantive requirements of the CWA and EPA's 
implementing regulations remain unchanged. Today's final rule only 
affects the timing of the effectiveness, for CWA purposes, of State and 
Tribal revisions to standards.
    Many commenters noted that EPA has not always been able to meet its 
CWA deadlines when reviewing and taking action on (i.e., approving and/
or disapproving) WQS submissions and expressed concern that such delays 
would cause problems under the new rule. EPA acknowledges this concern 
and is working with its EPA Regional offices and States and authorized 
Tribes to streamline the EPA review and approval/disapproval process. 
For example, EPA has identified Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
consultations as one source of delay in EPA approval actions. EPA is 
working with both the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to streamline the consultations. One 
key outcome of these discussions will be the finalization of the 
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that EPA, NMFS, and FWS solicited public 
comment on in January of 1999 (see 64 FR 2741). EPA, NMFS, and the FWS 
believe the final MOA will provide a framework for streamlining 
consultations in the Regional and Field offices. EPA is also discussing 
with States and authorized Tribes how they can assist EPA in assuring 
that the needs of threatened and endangered species are addressed in 
the development of State and Tribal standards. Although consultation 
under the ESA is EPA's obligation, in discussions with EPA, States have 
acknowledged they have a role in assuring that State standards 
adequately protect aquatic life and the environment, including 
threatened and endangered species.
    EPA is also working with States and authorized Tribes to determine 
if it needs to further clarify the WQS program requirements in 40 CFR 
Part 131 (see 63 FR 36742). At a minimum, EPA will jointly develop 
guidance with States and authorized Tribes to improve the current State 
and Tribal adoption and EPA review and approval/disapproval process. 
EPA believes that, once completed, this guidance will inform EPA 
Regional offices and States and authorized Tribes on how to identify 
and resolve concerns early in the process, so that when new or revised 
State and Tribal WQS are submitted to EPA, there are no unexpected 
issues and EPA can act in a timely fashion. In addition, EPA will 
continue to provide technical assistance and training for the water 
quality standards program. Such training and workshops will reflect the 
joint strategy developed by EPA, States and authorized Tribes in the 
aforementioned guidance.
    Several commenters expressed concern that when States adopt new or 
revised standards, the old ones expire as a matter of State law. They 
wanted to know how the old standards can be used for CWA purposes when 
the new or revised standards are the only standards in effect for State 
purposes. The old standards remain the applicable CWA standards and 
will be retained in the CWA WQS docket until EPA approves the State or 
Tribal revisions, or until EPA promulgates a more stringent standard 
(see also section 131.21(e) of today's final rule). There are several 
things States and authorized Tribes can do to avoid or minimize using 
such old standards pending EPA action on their replacement. First and 
foremost, States and authorized Tribes should submit new and revised 
standards to EPA for review and approval/disapproval as soon as duly 
adopted into State or Tribal law. Such a submission, meeting the 
requirements of 40 CFR 131.6, will start EPA's 60/90 day clock for 
review and approval/disapproval respectively under the CWA. Secondly, 
States and Tribes should coordinate with EPA's Regional Offices early 
in the State and Tribal standards development process. This will help 
avoid any confusion as to what is ``approvable.'' EPA believes that 
early and frequent communication will help ensure that States and 
authorized Tribes submit standards revisions that are scientifically 
defensible and consistent with the CWA, thus avoiding a disapproval 
once officially submitted to EPA. For more information on coordinating 
State and Tribal actions with EPA's CWA review see section E. Starting 
(and completing) EPA's review process as quickly as possible will 
minimize the number of regulatory actions a State or authorized Tribe 
is likely to take prior to a new or revised standard being approved by 
EPA. In addition, States and authorized Tribes may consider changing 
their procedures so that a revision to a State or Tribe's standard is 
not effective under State or Tribal law until after EPA approves or 
after a period of time--such as 90 days--that provides an opportunity 
for submittal and completion of EPA review while the old standard 
remains on the State or Tribal books. In addition, some States and 
authorized Tribes may decide to delay any regulatory actions (e.g., 
draft NPDES permits) until EPA approval of revised standards.
    In the (hopefully rare) event that a State or authorized Tribe does 
need to take a regulatory action before EPA review of a revision is 
complete, there are several options available. Some States or 
authorized Tribes may propose regulatory actions based on newly adopted 
standards not yet approved by EPA. For example, a State might develop a 
draft permit based on new or revised, less stringent standards. If the 
revised standards are not approved by EPA by the end of the permit 
review period, then EPA could object to the proposed permit, or the 
State could decide to withdraw and re-propose the permit based on the 
previous standards. Alternatively, the State could develop, and take 
public comment on, limits calculated from both the old and new 
standards with the final limits contingent on EPA's standards approval 
decision. This approach may avoid the need to withdraw and reissue the 
permit if EPA disapproves the changes to the water quality standards. 
EPA believes that, as a practical matter, these timing issues will only 
apply to new and revised standards that are less stringent than the 
previous standard. If the State or authorized Tribe's new and revised 
standard is equal to, or more stringent than the previous standard, 
both standards would be satisfied by implementing the more stringent 
standard pusuant to State or Tribal law.

B. Integration With CWA Section 510

1. Proposed Rule
    Section 131.21(f) of the proposed rule specified that State or 
Tribal water quality standards which are not less stringent than the 
``applicable water quality standards'' (that is, not less stringent 
than approved (or grandfathered) standards may be adopted and enforced 
within the boundaries of the adopting State or authorized Tribe. The 
preamble also specified that, under CWA sections 301(b)(1)(C) and 510, 
NPDES permits within the State or Tribe in question were required to 
assure compliance

[[Page 24644]]

with such a ``510 standard'' even prior to EPA approval.
2. Major Comments and Responses
    The comments were almost uniformly critical of the proposed 
Sec. 131.21(f) and the interpretation of section 510 which it 
reflected, although the nature of the objections varied.
    Comment: Several commenters argued that even ``not less stringent'' 
standards required EPA approval before they could be used in any way 
under the CWA. EPA interprets these comments to argue that section 510 
did not preempt EPA's section 303(c) approval requirement in such cases 
but simply made it clear that an approved standard could be more 
stringent than a minimum requirement established by the CWA. Some of 
these commenters also argued that the district court had already 
rejected the approach set out in the proposal. Others who argued that 
all standards needed approval before being used assumed that EPA could 
disapprove a ``more stringent'' standard as unjustified; and these 
commenters wanted EPA approval as a pre-requisite for any standard 
going into effect to ensure that overly stringent standards did not 
become effective. Commenters in both camps were concerned that making 
stringency determinations could be difficult, time-consuming, or open 
to abuse.
    Response: The preamble to the proposed rule implicitly assumed that 
section 510 effectively waived the requirement that State and Tribal 
water quality standards be approved before they were used as CWA 
standards as long as they were ``not less stringent.'' Section 510 is a 
savings provision. However, as some commenters pointed out, section 510 
starts with the words, ``Except as expressly provided in this Act.'' 
Since section 303(c)(3) expressly specifies that new or revised 
standards do not become the effective standards until approved by EPA, 
it is reasonable to read section 510 as meaning that EPA cannot 
disapprove a standard simply for being overly stringent, rather than 
that more stringent standards are effective whether or not approved by 
EPA. If section 510 is read this way, the reference in section 
301(b)(1)(C) to standards ``established under State law under authority 
preserved under section 510'' is to approved standards which are more 
stringent than required, not--as in the proposal--to unapproved ``not 
less stringent'' standards. EPA agrees that this is a reasonable 
construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, and one that better 
serves the purposes of the Act.
    Under this reading, one avoids the problems associated with 
determining whether a new or revised standard is ``not less stringent'' 
(under the proposal, unapproved ``not less stringent'' standards had to 
be reflected in a permit). If standards are not required to be used for 
CWA purposes until approved, there is no need to make comparative 
judgments of stringency. At the time of approval, the test is whether 
the new or revised standards meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's 
implementing regulations, not whether they are more or less stringent 
than predecessor standards. Once such standards are approved, they are 
the applicable water quality standards for CWA purposes regardless of 
relative stringency.
    Comment: Some commenters argued that ``more stringent'' standards 
should never need EPA review and approval.
    Response: EPA does not believe that it is reasonable to interpret 
section 510 to dispense altogether with EPA review of such standards. 
Section 303(c) clearly requires States and authorized Tribes to submit 
all new or revised standards to EPA for review and approval or 
disapproval. Since section 510 begins ``Except as expressly provided in 
this Act,'' the authority preserved under section 510 is limited by, 
and does not override, the requirements for EPA review set out in 
section 303(c).
    Comment: Many commenters argued that the proposal would lead to 
confusion and be difficult to implement since it would not always be 
obvious whether a new or revised standard was more stringent. Some of 
these commenters suggested that this confusion could be eliminated by 
having EPA review and approve or disapprove all new or revised 
standards regardless of stringency.
    Response: EPA agrees that it is not always easy to determine 
whether a new or revised standard is more stringent than its 
predecessor, and that under the proposal there could have been a need 
to decide the relative stringency of a new or revised, but not yet 
approved, WQS. Because the proposal regarded unapproved ``not less 
stringent'' standards as standards adopted under authority preserved by 
section 510 standards, such standards would have been required to be 
implemented in NPDES permits under section 301(b)(1)(C) prior to 
approval. Accordingly, States, authorized Tribes, and the regulated 
public would have been forced to determine the relative stringency of 
as-yet-unapproved standards in pending NPDES permit proceedings to know 
whether permits had to assure compliance with such standards. As 
discussed previously in response to the first comment, the final rule 
addresses this issue.
    Comment: Under the proposal, stringency comparisons were to be made 
between the new or revised standard and the previous ``applicable water 
quality standard'' (i.e., approved or ``grandfathered'' standard). The 
final rule should also allow new or revised standards to be used prior 
to approval if they are at least as stringent as EPA's corresponding 
section 304(a) ambient water quality criteria, or whenever there are no 
corresponding section 304(a) criteria, even if the new or revised 
standards are less protective than the previous applicable standard in 
the CWA docket.
    Response: As discussed above, the final rule requires that all new 
or revised standards be approved by EPA, regardless of stringency, 
before they are required to be used under the CWA. Therefore, the issue 
of how to make stringency comparisons is moot.
3. Final rule
    The final rule deletes proposed 131.21(f). As discussed in response 
to previous comments, the proposal was based on an overly broad reading 
of CWA section 510 and would have led to substantial confusion.
    However, EPA does not want to leave the impression that States and 
authorized Tribes will have no means to achieve the objectives of more 
stringent criteria while awaiting EPA approval. In the case of a 
proposed State or Tribal NPDES permit, as long as the permit assures 
compliance with approved water quality standards, EPA would not object 
to it as not meeting the requirements of the Act (e.g., section 
301(b)(1)(C)) merely because the State or authorized Tribe included 
effluent limitations which also meet an as-yet unapproved but more 
stringent State or Tribal standard. (Similarly, EPA would not 
disapprove a TMDL on the grounds that it was more stringent than needed 
to meet the applicable water quality standard.) In the case of a 
federally issued NPDES permit, EPA's obligation would be to include 
permit conditions which assured compliance with approved standards and 
with any conditions in a State or Tribal section 401 certification. As 
part of a section 401 certification, if a State or authorized Tribe 
includes not only water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) required 
under section 301(b)(1)(C) but also conditions needed to meet ``other 
appropriate requirement[s] under State law'' under section 401(d), EPA 
would also include those supplemental conditions in the permit. 
Finally, as

[[Page 24645]]

EPA improves the timeliness of its water quality standards actions 
(i.e., approval and/or disapproval), more stringent standards will 
become the applicable standards sooner after adoption.

C. EPA Transition Strategy

1. Proposed Rule
    Under the proposal, State and Tribal standards in effect (under 
EPA's 1983 rule) before the effective date of this new final rule would 
remain in effect until superseded by a standard approved or promulgated 
by EPA. Under the proposal, this transitional provision (referred to as 
``grandfathering'' in the proposal) applied to all such pre-existing 
standards, whether or not they had been submitted to EPA, and, if 
submitted, whether or not they had been disapproved or were merely 
awaiting EPA approval/disapproval. This reflected the fact that under 
the 1983 rule such distinctions did not affect the effectiveness of 
State and Tribal standards.
2. Major Comments and Responses
    Comment: Such a transition provision is necessary if EPA proceeds 
with the general approach, given EPA's backlog and the difficulty in 
``resurrecting'' the previous approved standards.
    Response: EPA agrees. After reviewing all the comments, EPA 
believes that its original conclusion--that, given the previous 
implementation of section 303(c), identifying and resurrecting the 
previous approved standards would often be difficult and in some cases 
impossible--is still correct. Furthermore, if no such previous standard 
could be identified, there could be a gap in standards to apply. None 
of the commenters seriously disputed those conclusions. Given the 
current backlog in unapproved and disapproved standards and the state 
of previous record keeping (e.g., no CWA WQS docketing system), the 
only practicable way to put the new rule into effect at this time 
without causing serious disruption is to provide a transition 
provision. Moreover, some commenters mentioned their reliance on the 
old rule. Furthermore, the effort that would be expended in identifying 
previously approved water quality standards would likely detract from 
EPA's ability to promptly review new and revised standards submissions 
and to promulgate Federal water quality standards where needed.
    Comment: The transition provision is inconsistent with CWA section 
303(c)(3) as interpreted by the court.
    Response: EPA now accepts the court's interpretation of section 
303(c)(3), and also does not take the position that section 303(c)(3) 
itself establishes a transition provision. However, logically, that 
does not foreclose the use of a limited transition provision when 
implementing a new or revised regulation. Today's rule is not written 
on a blank slate. EPA believes that in revising its regulation to 
reflect the court's interpretation of section 303(c)(3), EPA has some 
discretion in constructing a transition from its longstanding previous 
approach. Significantly, many of the commenters who objected to the 
transition provision as proposed, citing its inconsistency with section 
303(c)(3), nonetheless recognized the need for some transition and were 
accepting of, as one put it, ``a limited accommodation in light of past 
practices,'' e.g., a grandfather or transition provision with a defined 
end date. However, by making such alternative suggestions, these 
commenters are implicitly acknowledging that having a transition 
provision is not per se illegal. For the reasons discussed in the 
preambles to the proposed and final rules, EPA believes that such a 
transition provision is needed here and that the transition provision 
in the final rule is a reasonable exercise of such discretion.
    The water quality standards being grandfathered or transitioned are 
a small fraction of all State and Tribal standards currently in effect 
(i.e., most existing standards have been approved). Further, the 
absolute numbers will decrease over time as EPA completes its review 
and takes action on (i.e., approves/disapproves) backlogged submissions 
or, in the case of backlogged disapprovals, obtains satisfactory 
revisions from the State or promulgates superseding Federal standards. 
Most States and Territories have had their base program in place and 
approved by EPA for many years now. EPA is current in its review and 
approval of standards revisions for 19 States, 14 Tribes, 4 
Territories, and the District of Columbia. EPA's backlog of unapproved 
standards in the remaining States consist primarily of recent 
refinements made by States to keep up with the latest science (e.g., 
site-specific criteria, changes to designated uses for specific 
waterbodies) and to tailor standards to specific watersheds. 
Accordingly, EPA believes that in practice the transition provision 
will be fairly narrow in scope relative to approved State and Tribal 
standards, and that it will expire over time as EPA completes its 
review of the outstanding standards.
    Comment: The grandfather provision should be more limited, e.g., 
should not apply to disapproved standards or to standards which have 
never been submitted to EPA, should apply only to standards which were 
submitted more than 3 years ago, or should expire 6 months after the 
effective date of the rule.
    Response: EPA considered ways to narrow the transition provision. 
EPA agrees with the suggestion that the grandfather provision be 
limited to standards which have been submitted to EPA as of the 
effective date of the final rule, and has modified the rule 
accordingly. As revised, the transition provision will eliminate any 
incentive for States and authorized Tribes not to submit pre-existing 
standards to EPA for review. 40 CFR 131.20(c) currently requires States 
and authorized Tribes to submit standards containing new or revised 
provisions within 30 days of adoption. If States or authorized Tribes 
do not comply with this requirement, EPA's review of those standards 
may be delayed. EPA believes it is inappropriate for States and 
authorized Tribes to have those standards covered by the transition 
policy because of their failure to submit the standards to EPA. States 
or authorized Tribes who have made timely submissions will not be 
affected by this change from the proposal.
    EPA also considered whether to exclude disapproved standards from 
the transition provision. However, the practical difficulties in 
resurrecting the previous approved standard are just as likely to arise 
in the case of a disapproved standard as in the case of a standard for 
which EPA review is incomplete. In addition, because of evolving 
science, the previous approved standard--even if identical--may not 
necessarily be significantly more protective than the recently 
disapproved standard. Moreover, it is EPA's judgment that in the long 
run its resources would be better spent resolving disapprovals (either 
by helping the State remedy the problem or by promulgating a Federal 
standard) than by a time-consuming and perhaps fruitless search for the 
previous approved standard. It is EPA's expectation that the number of 
disapproved standards covered by the grandfather provision will 
diminish and ultimately disappear as States make acceptable revisions 
to the disapproved standards or EPA promulgates superseding Federal 
standards. While EPA acknowledges that this approach leaves inadequate 
standards in place temporarily, EPA believes that, on balance and 
considering all the factors

[[Page 24646]]

discussed above, this approach is the one best calculated to obtain the 
ultimate goal--timely approval or replacement of all new and revised 
water quality standards.
    EPA also considered whether to provide a sunset for the transition 
provision. Commenters suggested times ranging from 60 days to 2 years. 
One commenter said EPA has not demonstrated the need for an unlimited 
grandfather provision for submitted but not-yet-reviewed standards, 
arguing that there are only 60 or so submissions awaiting EPA action, 
and for about half of those EPA has completed its review and is waiting 
for ESA consultation to conclude, and that EPA has not shown that it 
cannot muster the resources to complete the job in a relatively short 
time, such as 60 days. EPA agrees that the standards which will be 
covered by the transition provision are limited and believes that fact 
helps make the provision reasonable. However, it does not follow that a 
60-day limit should be placed in the provision. EPA hopes to have a 
substantial part of the backlog of pending submissions dealt with by 
the effective date of this rule. For this reason, EPA expects the 
practical effect of the grandfather provision to be limited. However, 
it is unrealistic to expect the backlog to be eliminated entirely 
within the 60 days suggested by the comment. The remaining items are 
more complicated, e.g., situations where more information is needed 
from the State or authorized Tribe to evaluate the adequacy of the 
standard or where the standard in question raises novel and unique 
National issues that EPA has not spoken to before (i.e., precedent 
setting). Moreover, the 60 submissions referred to by the commenter are 
simply those on which EPA action is overdue; EPA staff are also engaged 
in reviewing more recent submissions, as well as working on resolution 
of previously disapproved items, where rulemaking procedures take 
longer than 60 days. Under the circumstances, it is impractical to 
specify a date certain by which all the backlogs will be completely 
resolved.
    Comment: If the final rule contains a transition provision, it 
should not apply to pending water quality standards that create 
exceptions, variances, or exemptions from other standards. In this 
situation, there is no problem identifying what would be in place in 
lieu of the pending standard.
    Response: While in theory this suggestion has some appeal, in 
practice implementing it would not be so simple. Water quality 
standards changes are not always as clear-cut or obvious as the comment 
suggests. Variances and other exceptions from standards are not always 
labeled as such. In addition, some standards submissions which create 
variances and exceptions from standards also modify the underlying 
standard (e.g., add a variance process as quid pro quo for making a 
standard more stringent). If the applicability of the transition 
provision depends on subjective judgments--as opposed to an objective 
comparison of dates--then resources which should be spent reviewing 
standards would be diverted into resolving the applicability of the 
transition provision and suggested exception to the transition 
provision would be counterproductive. It is EPA's judgment that a 
relatively simple transition provision will in the long run result in 
the most expeditious and efficient elimination of the backlog.
3. Final Rule
    The final rule retains a transition provision for standards adopted 
prior to the effective date of today's rule, but modifies it by 
requiring that standards must have also been submitted to EPA, that is, 
submitted to EPA pursuant to and consistent with the submission 
requirements of 40 CFR Part 131.6, by May 30, 2000 in order to qualify. 
A State or Tribal standard must be (1) Duly adopted, (2) in effect 
under State or Tribal law, and (3) submitted to EPA by May 30, 2000 in 
order to be in effect for CWA purposes prior to EPA approval. All three 
eligibility criteria must be met in order to be covered by the 
transition provision contained in today's rule at 131.21(c).

D. Delay Related Comments

1. Default Approval/Disapproval
    A number of commenters suggested that EPA modify the final rule to 
specify that State and Tribal water quality standards submissions be 
deemed approved if EPA does not act within the 60 or 90 days required 
by the CWA. There were variations on the suggested default time period, 
and some commenters suggested a ``conditionally approved'' or ``interim 
approval'' label, but the general approach advocated in several of the 
comments was a ``default approval'' if EPA fails to take timely action. 
In such instances, it was suggested that the State submittal could 
serve as the record of decision for EPA's ``approval.'' Commenters were 
concerned about having to comply with outdated standards while EPA was 
in a prolonged review. Several commenters suggested that the 
``conditionally approved'' status would allow new and revised State and 
Tribal standards to be used for CWA purposes unless and until 
subsequently disapproved by EPA. Alternatively, some commenters 
suggested that EPA could use its discretionary authority later on to 
remedy standards that it would have disapproved if it had had the 
resources to review and approve them on time. Conversely, a few 
commenters suggested that if EPA fails to act within 90 days, the WQS 
should be ``constructively disapproved.''
    EPA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the timeliness 
of EPA's approval action. However, the concept of a default approval of 
State and Tribal WQS submissions is not consistent with section 303 of 
the CWA. Section 303(c)(3) requires EPA to make an affirmative finding 
that standards revisions submitted to EPA are consistent with the CWA. 
EPA has responsibility to determine that State and Tribal standards 
revisions are protective of human health and the environment. EPA must 
explain its approval actions; such actions are judicially reviewable. 
Any type of default approval approach would result in approval actions 
that EPA could not justify or explain. Similarly, EPA rejects any type 
of default disapproval approach. Disapprovals trigger other CWA 
requirements for the State or authorized Tribe to rectify the 
disapproval and for EPA to act if the State or authorized Tribe takes 
no action to revise the disapproved standards. Triggering these actions 
by a ``default'' disapproval would cause much more confusion than any 
type of potential delay on EPA's part. EPA believes that section 303(c) 
of the CWA requires it to make an affirmative finding on whether or not 
a State or Tribal standard is consistent with the CWA.
    The commenters advocating default approaches did so out of concern 
about EPA's ability to make timely WQS approvals. As explained in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (see 64 FR 37078), EPA has initiated a 
number of activities to improve the timeliness of its review and 
approval actions. EPA will be working closely with States and 
authorized Tribes over the next year to develop guidance for improving 
coordination between EPA and States and Tribes. Such coordination will 
also involve the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service (collectively, the Services). As explained in 
III.D.2., the Services have a key role in assisting EPA in timely WQS 
approval actions. In addition, as suggested by some commenters, EPA can 
always partition State or Tribal submissions and approve the 
unquestionable portions while continuing to address any contested or 
difficult issues. EPA also agrees with

[[Page 24647]]

comments that encouraged EPA to work with states during their 
promulgation process and to speak with one voice. One commenter noted 
that feedback on what is ``approvable'' varies depending on which EPA 
office is contacted. EPA is evaluating its internal coordination 
process as part of its overall efforts to streamline EPA review and 
approval of Standards submissions. EPA will work to ensure that its 
feedback is both timely and coordinated.
2. Integration With the Endangered Species Act
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA's approval 
of new and revised State and Tribal water quality standards is a 
Federal action subject to the consultation requirements of section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (see 64 FR 37078 for further 
discussion). Commenters were particularly concerned with EPA's ability 
to make timely WQS approval/disapproval decisions in light of its ESA 
obligations. Several commenters suggested that in instances where the 
delay is attributable to the ESA consultation, EPA approve the WQS 
submission ``subject to'' successful completion of ESA consultation. 
Another commenter encouraged EPA to streamline the ESA consultation 
process.
    EPA agrees with commenters that, in many instances, ESA 
consultation delays EPA's CWA approval of water quality standards 
revisions. EPA and the Services (NMFS & FWS) are engaged in discussions 
to finalize the draft Memorandum of Agreement between the Agencies to 
establish a clear set of guidelines for conducting ESA consultations. 
EPA also agrees with the comments suggesting that EPA consider 
utilizing ``subject to ESA'' approvals where ESA concerns cannot be 
resolved in a timely manner. EPA is committed to fulfilling its 
obligations under the ESA, and, as articulated in the draft MOA, will 
work with the Services early in the State and Tribal standards adoption 
process to ensure that the needs of threatened and endangered species 
are addressed when new or revised standards are being contemplated. 
This early coordination should help streamline the review and approval/
disapproval process once the standards revisions are officially 
submitted to EPA for review and approval/disapproval under the CWA.

E. Other Issues

1. Integration With TMDL/NPDES Program
    EPA advocates that States and authorized Tribes refine their water 
quality standards to more precisely reflect site-specific conditions 
and local species (see 63 FR 36741). Sometimes such refinements take 
place concurrently with the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load 
(TMDL) for a specific water body or when issuing a National Pollution 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for a discharge to a 
specific water body. In these instances the regulatory authority may 
obtain information that can be used to more precisely define the 
appropriate standard. For example, a State may be establishing a TMDL 
for a water body with a fish advisory and after reviewing ambient water 
quality data realize that a site-specific criterion is necessary to 
address accelerated bio-magnification occurring at the site. In this 
example, the regulatory authority could revise the standard 
concurrently with establishment of the TMDL. By law, TMDLs must be 
reviewed and approved by EPA. The CWA specifies 30 days for EPA to 
review and approve TMDLs and 60 days for EPA to review and approve 
standards revisions. When EPA receives a WQS revision to review and 
approve/disapprove in conjunction with its review and approval of a 
TMDL, EPA expects to complete both reviews within 30 days which will 
satisfy the CWA requirements for both actions. In these situations, it 
will be particularly important for the State or authorized Tribe to 
coordinate with EPA early in the development process to ensure approval 
of the revised water quality standard because the TMDL must be 
established for the ``applicable'' water quality standard, which is the 
approved water quality standard. Similarly, in the context of drafting 
an NPDES permit, a regulatory authority may obtain information that 
shows a particular aquatic life species protected by the current 
criteria is absent, and as a result, adopt site-specific criteria that 
better reflect the indigenous aquatic life. In such instances, the 
regulatory authority could adopt the site-specific criteria 
concurrently with public notice of the draft NPDES permit. In such a 
case, EPA should review the site-specific criteria during the same time 
frame in which it reviews the draft permit. If EPA disapproves the 
criteria, it could also object to the permit. During the 90 day period 
allowed by CWA Sec. 402(d), the State or authorized Tribe could then 
modify the permit to reflect the previously approved WQS, or fix the 
criteria to address the disapproval and modify the permit to reflect 
the newly revised criteria. If a State or authorized Tribe submits a 
draft permit based on site-specific criteria, but does not submit the 
criteria itself, EPA may object to the permit. Again, early 
coordination with EPA will expedite review and approval when the final 
standard is officially submitted to EPA.
    Today's rule applies to the Great Lake States as well as to the 
rest of the nation. In 1995, EPA promulgated the Great Lakes Water 
Quality Guidance at 40 CFR Part 132. In that rulemaking, EPA, among 
other things, indicated that States and authorized Tribes may adopt 
variances concurrently with development of an NPDES permit and have the 
permit reflect the variance. Under today's rule, such variances, like 
other standards revisions, must be approved by EPA before they are 
relied on in final NPDES permits or other CWA purposes, in the Great 
Lakes basin as well as anywhere else.
2. Coordination Between Federal and State and Tribal Processes
    EPA acknowledges the concerns expressed by some States and 
authorized Tribes regarding EPA's ability to make approval/disapproval 
decisions in the CWA time frames. However, in addition to EPA's efforts 
to expedite its review, States and authorized Tribes can also 
facilitate more timely action by EPA. For example, States and 
authorized Tribes are encouraged to submit advance copies of new or 
revised water quality standards as soon as they are considered final, 
even though the State or Tribe may still need time to complete certain 
administrative requirements (e.g., Attorney General certification). 
These advance copies of revised standards should be sent directly to 
the Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators (see table in section 
III.E.4). Submission of advance copies will not trigger the CWA 
timeframes for EPA action; however, it will allow EPA to initiate its 
substantive review of the new or revised standard before the complete 
package is officially submitted. States and authorized Tribes should 
also consider adopting new or revised standards with delayed effective 
dates, or with an effective date keyed off of EPA approval or the CWA 
60 day timeframe for EPA approval. All these measures will allow closer 
synchronization between the transition from one standard to another 
under State or Tribal law and under the CWA.
    As a general matter, States and authorized Tribes should also 
examine their administrative and rulemaking

[[Page 24648]]

procedures to identify opportunities by which their adoption of 
criteria, as well as EPA's approval, can be streamlined. One way to do 
this is through State or Tribal adoption of a ``performance-based'' 
approach. A performance-based approach relies on adoption of a process 
(i.e., a criterion derivation methodology) rather than a specific 
outcome (i.e., concentration limit for a pollutant) consistent with 40 
CFR 131.11 & 131.13. When such a ``performance-based'' approach is 
sufficiently detailed and has suitable safeguards to ensure 
predictable, repeatable outcomes, EPA approval of such an approach can 
also serve as approval of the outcomes as well. If a particular State 
or Tribe's approach is not sufficiently detailed or lacks appropriate 
safeguards, then EPA review of a specific outcome is still necessary. 
However, even a more general performance-based approach would still 
help guide EPA review of specific outcomes.
    The ``performance-based'' approach is particularly well suited to 
the derivation of site-specific numeric criteria and for interpreting 
narrative criteria into quantifiable measures. Proper construction and 
implementation of such an approach can result in consistent application 
of State and Tribal narrative water quality criteria and defensible 
site-specific adjustments to numeric ambient water quality criteria. 
Changes to a designated use (including temporary changes, e.g., 
variances) do not lend themselves to a ``performance-based'' approach. 
Designated use changes and variances differ from criteria changes in 
that they modify the intended level of protection. In contrast, site 
specific translations of narrative water quality criteria and site-
specific adjustments to numeric ambient water quality criteria take 
additional information into account while protecting the designated 
use. As such the intended level of protection is no way modified. In 
addition, making use changes and issuing variances must include an 
evaluation of ``attainability'' of a designated use, taking into 
account factors such as natural conditions or economic and social 
impacts. See 40 CFR 131.10(g).
    A ``performance-based'' approach relies on the State or authorized 
Tribe specifying implementation procedures (methodologies, minimum data 
requirements, and decision thresh holds) in its water quality standards 
regulation. Adopting implementation procedures into State and Tribal 
regulations establishes a structure or decision-making framework that 
is binding, clear, predictable, and transparent. During the adoption of 
the detailed procedures, all stakeholders and EPA have an opportunity 
to make sure that important technical issues or concerns are adequately 
addressed in the procedures. The State or Tribal implementation 
procedures must also consider any special needs of federally listed 
threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. Under 
section 7 of the ESA, EPA would have to consult with the Services on 
the detailed implementation procedures as part of its approval process 
if EPA's approval may affect a listed species. State and authorized 
Tribal water quality standards programs which include appropriate 
performance-based approaches for water quality criteria could benefit 
the authorized Tribe or State by better positioning them to tailor 
standards to specific watersheds and ecosystems by streamlining 
administrative processes associated with refining criteria necessary to 
protect designated uses. This approach is particularly useful for 
criteria which are heavily influenced by site-specific factors such as 
nutrient criteria or sediment guidelines. Such procedures must include 
a public participation step to provide all stake-holders and the public 
an opportunity to review the data and calculations supporting the site-
specific application of the implementation procedures. The State or 
Tribe would need to maintain a publically available, comprehensive list 
of all site-by-site decisions made using the procedures; however, such 
decisions would not, as a Federal matter, have to be codified in State 
or Tribal regulation. Although the State or authorized Tribe would not 
need to obtain separate EPA approval for criteria derived through an 
approved performance-based approach, such criteria would nonetheless 
need to be provided to EPA for inclusion in the CWA WQS Docket. When 
EPA reviews the results of a State or authorized Tribes' triennial 
review, EPA expects to evaluate a representative subset of the site-
specific decisions to ensure that the State or authorized Tribe is 
adhering to the EPA approved procedure.
    Since the procedures would be adopted into State or Tribal 
regulation, the State or authorized Tribe would be bound by the 
decision-making framework contained therein. Any water quality criteria 
which were not derived in accordance with the approved implementation 
procedures would need separate approval from EPA to be the applicable 
CWA standard. If a State or authorized Tribe failed to follow those 
procedures and did not obtain separate EPA approval of the criteria, 
EPA would have a basis for disapproving a TMDL or objecting to an NPDES 
permit for not deriving from or complying with applicable standards 
(see 40 CFR 122.44(d)). Both TMDL development and NPDES permit issuance 
have mandatory public participation, which provides further safeguards 
over implementation of a performance-based approach.
    EPA used this approach to ensure consistency in future ambient 
water quality criteria development among the eight Great Lakes States 
in the Great Lakes Initiative (see 40 CFR Part 132). EPA, the eight 
Great Lake States, and stakeholders (e.g., regulated community, general 
public, environmental groups) developed detailed criteria methodologies 
that States and authorized Tribes in the Great Lakes basin are required 
to adopt and utilize for criteria derivation. These methodologies 
ensure scientific integrity and transparency in decision-making among 
the Great Lakes States as new or revised criteria are derived. EPA also 
authorized this approach in the National Toxics Rule (see 57 FR 60848). 
States in the NTR are allowed to modify the Federal criteria site-
specifically using EPA's Water Effects Ratio (WER) methodology. EPA's 
WER methodology is sufficiently detailed so that its site-specific 
application is formulaic and predictable.
    In sum, the key to a ``performance-based'' WQS program is adoption 
of implementation procedures of sufficient detail, and with suitable 
safeguards, so that additional oversight by EPA would be redundant. EPA 
will be developing more detailed guidance on ``performance-based'' 
water quality standards programs in the near future.
3. Standards Subject to Today's Rule
    The preamble to the proposed rule stated that State and Tribal 
implementation policies and procedures are subject to EPA review and 
approval/disapproval and should be included in the CWA WQS docket. Many 
commenters claimed this exceeded EPA's statutory authority. Commenters 
asserted that this was a change and not appropriate because it would 
capture guidance that was never intended to be regulatory under State 
law. Some commenters did acknowledge that implementation procedures 
help determine the effectiveness of the standards.
    EPA's reference to including policies and procedures in the CWA 
docket was intended only to reflect the existing requirements at 40 CFR 
131.11 and 131.13, which have been in EPA's regulations since 1983. 
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(2)

[[Page 24649]]

provide that where a State adopts narrative criteria for toxic 
pollutants to protect designated areas, the State must provide 
information identifying the method by which the State intends to 
regulate point source discharges based on such narrative. Section 
131.13 provides that, if States or authorized Tribes include in their 
standards policies generally affecting the application and 
implementation of standards (such as policies on mixing zones, low 
flows, and variances), those policies are subject to EPA review. EPA's 
intent is not to assert that all State and Tribal guidance is 
regulatory, but rather to lock in policies and procedures that were 
approved as part of a standards submission. EPA will coordinate with 
State and authorized Tribes individually to determine which 
implementation policies and procedures should be included in the CWA 
WQS docket. EPA's approval practice will determine what is or is not 
``locked in'' as a WQS, and the CWA WQS docket will reflect that.
    Some commenters were concerned that including mixing zone 
procedures in the docket would mean that site-specific application of 
the mixing zone procedure would be considered a form of site-specific 
standard subject to EPA review and approval. This is not EPA's intent. 
Mixing zone procedures must be included in the standards because 
otherwise a permit with a mixing zone would not assure compliance with 
the standards. However, once mixing zones are authorized through such 
an approved procedure, the calculation of permit limits consistent with 
such procedures does not change the water quality standard and does not 
need approval under CWA section 303(c). Individual mixing zones are 
reviewable under the NPDES process to ensure, among other things, that 
all applicable standards, including any procedures, have been followed.
    It should be noted that in the case of variances both a State or 
Tribe's variance policy and its adoption of specific variances are 
subject to EPA review and will be included in the CWA WQS docket. A 
variance is a short term, facility-specific modification of the 
underlying standard and must be supported by a facility-specific 
analysis demonstrating that one of the six reasons at 40 CFR Part 
131.10(g) apply. Hence, each variance is a change to standards (see 48 
FR 51400).
    EPA will be developing more detailed guidance with States and 
authorized Tribes on the types of modifications that require specific 
approval by EPA and the level of detail necessary to incorporate into 
State and Tribal standards. However, the bottom line is that today's 
rule does not change which State and Tribal policies and procedures 
need to be submitted for review and approval under 40 CFR 131.11 and 
131.13.
4. CWA WQS Docket

a. Proposed Rule

    Under the proposal, EPA proposed discontinuing its annual Federal 
Register publication of approval actions by deleting the annual 
reporting requirement at 40 CFR 131.21(d). EPA explained that the 
formation of a CWA WQS docket would eliminate the need for the annual 
Federal Register notice. (See 64 FR 37077 for further discussion.)

b. Major Comments and Responses

    In general, most commenters supported the establishment of a CWA 
docket. Most supported the eventual transfer to the Internet. Comments 
were mixed with respect to EPA's proposed deletion of its annual 
Federal Register notice, with some comments supporting that and others 
advocating that EPA maintain FR notices.
    Comment: Keeping a paper docket is the most effective way to make 
the information available in the short term; however, commenter 
supports effort to move towards putting the information on the 
Internet. There is no reason to continue EPA's annual Federal Register 
notice of approved State and Tribal water quality standards.
    Response: EPA agrees with the comment, and will have a paper CWA 
docket available as of the effective date of this rule. EPA recognizes 
that paper CWA WQS dockets in the Region require some effort to access 
(e.g., phone calls, mailings), though such effort is not any more 
burdensome than what would be required to obtain a copy from the State 
or authorized Tribe. Actually, it would be more efficient because the 
CWA WQS docket also contains any applicable Federal standards (e.g., 
Federal criteria contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Part 
131.36) whereas the State or authorized Tribe may or may not supply 
applicable Federal standards. EPA agrees with the comment that the 
annual Federal Register notice of approved State and Tribal water 
quality standards is unnecessary in light of the CWA WQS docket. The 
CWA WQS docket is far more informative than a listing of EPA approval 
actions. In addition, the CWA WQS docket will be updated on a continual 
basis as opposed to annually EPA also agrees with the commenter that 
publication on the Internet would increase access to the CWA WQS 
docket. EPA has begun work on an electronic version of the CWA WQS 
docket and is designing a website for easy public access. EPA is 
designing the electronic CWA WQS docket to be user friendly. For 
example, users will be able to perform basic text searches to locate 
specific provisions. Over time, as EPA receives feedback from users of 
the electronic CWA WQS docket, EPA will revise the system to support 
increased search capabilities and a higher degree of organization and 
automation. EPA expects to publish the first version of the electronic 
docket on the Internet in the Spring of 2001. EPA will announce the 
availability of the electronic docket in the Federal Register at that 
time. The paper docket will be available in the meanwhile.
    Comment: EPA's CWA WQS docket should warn people there may be other 
applicable standards (CWA section 510 or groundwater) which need to be 
addressed and direct them to the State or authorized Tribe.
    Response: EPA agrees. The CWA WQS docket is intended to capture 
applicable water quality standards adopted pursuant to CWA section 
303(c). EPA recognizes that there may be other requirements applicable 
to a waterbody under State or Tribal law. EPA's CWA WQS docket will 
identify the scope of the docket and include instructions for 
contacting the appropriate State or Tribal official for information 
regarding the applicability of additional State or Tribal requirements.
    Comment: EPA should publish the initial CWA WQS docket in the 
Federal Register to facilitate public comment and scrutiny.
    Response: EPA disagrees. EPA assembled a draft CWA WQS docket and 
solicited public comments on its content as part of the proposal for 
today's final rule (see 64 FR 37077). In addition, EPA consulted with 
States and authorized Tribes individually to confirm the contents of 
EPA's draft CWA WQS docket. As part of finalizing the draft CWA WQS 
docket, EPA is working with States and authorized Tribes to include any 
State or Tribal revisions that have occurred since the proposal. EPA 
believes that the current CWA WQS docket contains all applicable 
standards that have been adopted, are in effect, and have been 
submitted to EPA for review and approval/disapproval. Maintaining the 
docket will be an ongoing process for EPA because States and authorized 
Tribes will continue to revise their standards as part of the triennial 
review process, and in order to keep up with

[[Page 24650]]

scientific advances. The public is encouraged to provide comments or 
questions on the contents of the docket at any time. The utility of the 
docket depends on its completeness and accuracy. Additional comments or 
questions regarding the contents of the CWA WQS docket should be 
directed to the appropriate Regional contact listed in section 
III.E.4.c. below.
    Comment: EPA should wait until the electronic CWA WQS docket is up 
and running before discontinuing the annual Federal Register notice of 
approvals.
    Response: EPA disagrees. EPA believes its Federal Register notice 
of approvals is redundant with the paper CWA WQS docket. The CWA WQS is 
more informative and comprehensive than the Federal Register notice of 
approvals. However, there will be one additional Federal Register 
notice reporting all of the approval actions that occurred up to May 
30, 2000. EPA expects to publish this last report later this summer.
c. Final Rule
    Today's final rule deletes EPA's annual reporting requirement of 
approval actions. As explained above, EPA believes that the formation 
of a CWA WQS docket eliminates the need for the annual Federal Register 
notice. Anyone interested in viewing the docket for a particular State 
or authorized Tribe should contact one of the EPA Regional offices 
listed below to make arrangements.
    EPA is in the process of converting this hardcopy docket into an 
electronic format so that it can be published on the Internet. EPA is 
designing the electronic CWA WQS docket to be user friendly. For 
example, users will be able to perform basic text searches to locate 
specific provisions. Over time, as EPA receives feedback from users of 
the electronic CWA WQS docket, EPA will revise the system to support 
increased search capabilities and a higher degree of organization and 
automation. EPA expects to publish the first version of the electronic 
docket on the Internet in the Spring of 2001. EPA will announce the 
availability of the electronic docket in the Federal Register at that 
time. In the meantime, hardcopy CWA WQS dockets for local State and 
Tribal standards are available in the following EPA Regional offices 
during normal business hours.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                   EPA regional office                         EPA contact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut, Maine,                EPA Region 1, 1 Congress   Bill Beckwith, 617-918-1544.
 Massachusetts, New Hampshire,      Street, Suite 1100, CWQ,
 Rhode Island, and Vermont.         Boston, MA 02114-2023.
New Jersey, New York, Puerto       EPA Region 2, 290          Wayne Jackson, 212-637-3807.
 Rico, Virgin Islands.              Broadway, New York, NY
                                    10007.
Delaware, District of Columbia,    EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch    Denise Hakowski, 215-814-5726.
 Maryland, Pennsylvania,            Street, Philadelphia, PA
 Virginia, West Virginia.           19103-2029.
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,         EPA Region 4, Water        Fritz Wagener, 404-562-9267.
 Kentucky, Mississippi, North       Division--15th Floor,
 Carolina, South Carolina,          Atlanta Federal Center,
 Tennessee.                         61 Forsyth Street SW,
                                    Atlanta, GA 30303.
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,       EPA Region 5, Water        David Pfeifer, 312-353-9024.
 Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin.        Division, 77 West
                                    Jackson Boulevard,
                                    Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,   EPA Region 6, Water        Russell Nelson, 214-665-6646.
 Oklahoma, Texas.                   Division, 1445 Ross
                                    Avenue, First Interstate
                                    Bank Tower, Dallas, TX
                                    75202.
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska.  EPA Region 7, 726          Ann Jacobs, 913-551-7930.
                                    Minnesota Avenue, Kansas
                                    City, KS 66101.
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,   EPA Region 8, 999 18th     Bill Wuerthele, 303-312-6943.
 South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming.       Street, Suite 500,
                                    Denver, CO 80202-2466.
Arizona, California, Hawaii,       EPA Region 9, Water        Phil Woods, 415-744-1997.
 Nevada, American Samoa, Guam.      Division, 75 Hawthorne
                                    Street, San Francisco,
                                    CA 94105.
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington  EPA Region 10, Water       Lisa Macchio, 206-553-1834.
                                    Division, 1200 Sixth
                                    Avenue, Seattle, WA
                                    98101.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The 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 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 according to 
RFA default definitions for small business (based on SBA size 
standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdication that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of 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 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 rule 
will not impose any requirements on small entities.
    Under the CWA water quality standards program, States (and Tribes) 
must adopt water quality standards for their waters that must be 
submitted to EPA for approval. These State or Tribal standards (or EPA-
promulgated standards) are implemented through various water quality 
control programs, including the NPDES program which limits discharges 
to navigable waters in compliance with an EPA permit or permit issued 
under an approved State or Tribal NPDES program. The CWA requires that 
all NPDES permits include any limits on discharges that are necessary 
to meet State or Tribal water quality standards. A State or Tribe has 
discretion in deciding how to achieve compliance with its water quality 
standards and in developing discharge limits as needed to meet the 
standards. For example, in circumstances where there is more than one 
discharger to a water body that is subject to a water quality standard, 
a State or Tribe has discretion in deciding which dischargers will be 
subject to permit discharge limits necessary to meet the revised 
standards.
    As explained earlier, this rule merely defers the effectiveness of 
State or Tribal

[[Page 24651]]

water quality standards pending EPA approval. Under existing NPDES 
regulations, where a State or Tribe has, as a matter of State or Tribal 
law, modified an existing water quality standard, a State or Tribal 
Authority may not modify existing NPDES permit limits to take account 
of the revised standard until EPA has approved the standard. As a 
result, until EPA approves the revised standard and a State or Tribe 
has decided how it will implement the revised standard among the 
dischargers on that water body, each discharger must continue to comply 
with its permit limits that were designed to meet the more stringent 
standard. Moreover, just as under the previous rule, there is no 
certainty that, even after EPA approval of the revised standard, the 
permitting agency will necessarily amend a particular discharger's 
permit to modify its limitation. Instead, a State or Tribe may choose 
to allocate the loading associated with the less stringent standard to 
a new or different discharger. Given these circumstances, the impact of 
today's rule on individual dischargers will depend on State or Tribal 
actions that EPA neither controls nor can predict.
    Courts have consistently held that the RFA imposes no obligation on 
an agency to prepare a small entity analysis of effects on entities it 
does not regulate. Motor & Equip. Mrfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 
449, 467 & n.18 (D.C. Cir. 1998)(quoting United States Distribution 
Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also 
American Trucking Association, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 
1999). This final rule will have a direct effect only on States and 
authorized Tribes which are not small entities under the RFA. The rule 
establishes requirements that are applicable to water quality standards 
submitted by States and authorized Tribes to EPA for approval. The rule 
defers the effective date for CWA purposes of any new or less-
stringent, revised water quality standard until EPA has approved the 
standard. Individual dischargers, including small entities, are not 
directly subject to the requirements of the rule. Moreover, because of 
State and Tribal discretion in adopting and implementing their water 
quality standards, EPA cannot assess the extent to which the 
promulgation of this rule may subsequently affect any dischargers, 
including small entities. Consequently, certification under section 
605(b) is appropriate. State of Michigan, et al. v. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, No. 98-1497 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 3, 2000), slip op. at 
41-42.

V. 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 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.
    Today's final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or 
Tribal governments or the private sector. The final rule does not 
affect the process by which State or Tribal water quality standards are 
adopted under State or Tribal law, but simply specifies when a State or 
Tribal adoption will be recognized as the applicable water quality 
standard for general CWA purposes. The rule imposes no enforceable duty 
on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. EPA's final rule will only address a single administrative 
aspect of the water quality standards approval process (i.e., the 
timing of the ``effectiveness'' of State or Tribal standards under the 
CWA). There will be no revisions to existing submission requirements 
and no revisions to EPA's standards for review. Thus, this final rule 
is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

VI. Regulatory Planning and Review, 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 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 rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

VII. Federalism, Executive Order 13132

    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.''

[[Page 24652]]

    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance 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 
the Agency 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. This rule merely specifies when 
new or revised State or Tribal-adopted standards will be recognized as 
the applicable WQS for CWA purposes, as mandated by section 303(c)(3) 
of the CWA. It does not address the process by which States and Tribes 
adopt standards, nor does it alter the grounds for approving or 
disapproving such new or revised standards. States and Tribes continue 
to have the primary responsibility for deciding when and in what way to 
revise their standards. If a State or Tribe fails to promulgate a 
needed standard or to revise a standard which has been disapproved by 
EPA, EPA will, as under the previous rule, exercise its authority to 
promulgate a Federal standard. This rule will not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on State or local government, nor will it 
preempt state law. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive 
Order do not apply to this rule.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule, EPA did consult with representatives of State and local 
governments early in the process of developing the proposed regulation 
to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its 
development. Since the court's ruling in 1997, EPA has met with State 
government representatives on several occasions in various forums and 
discussed implications for State programs. From those discussions, EPA 
learned that States are primarily concerned with EPA streamlining its 
review and approval process to avoid delays after this rule goes final. 
EPA believes that today's rule is necessary to conform Part 131 to the 
court's opinion and to section 303(c)(3), but agrees that streamlining 
the review and approval process will facilitate implementation of the 
rule. EPA has already taken steps to reduce the backlog pending at the 
time of proposal. In addition, EPA is considering modifying its 
regulations to clarify Federal WQS requirements in greater detail (see 
63 FR 36742), and at a minimum will be jointly developing with State 
representatives guidance to improve the current State and Tribal 
adoption and EPA review and approval process. EPA believes that, once 
completed, this guidance will inform EPA Regional offices and States on 
how to get concerns identified and resolved early in the process so 
that, when revised State WQS are submitted to EPA, there are no 
unexpected issues and EPA can act in a timely fashion.

VIII. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, 
Executive Order 13084

    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 the Office of Management and Budget, 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 officials 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. Today's final rule only 
addresses a single administrative aspect of the WQS approval process 
(i.e., the timing of the ``effectiveness'' of State and Tribal WQS 
under the CWA). There will be no revisions to existing submission 
requirements and no revisions to EPA's standards for review. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this rule.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action requires no new information collection activities. 
Thus, this rule is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

X. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks, Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62FR19885, 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 final 
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866. 
Further, it does not concern an environmental health or safety risks 
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. This rule merely defers the effectiveness of State or Tribal 
water quality standards pending EPA approval.

XI. 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 technical standards. Therefore, 
EPA did

[[Page 24653]]

not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

XII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended 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 May 30, 2000.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

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

    Dated: March 30, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 131 is 
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 C--[Amended]

    2. Existing 131.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) 
and by adding paragraphs (e), and (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 131.21  EPA review and approval of water quality standards.

* * * * *
    (c) How do I determine which water quality standards are applicable 
for purposes of the Act? You may determine which water quality 
standards are applicable water quality standards for purposes of the 
Act from the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               If--                          Then--               Unless or until--          In which case--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A State or authorized Tribe    . . . the State or         . . . EPA has             . . . the EPA-
 has adopted a water quality        Tribe's water quality      promulgated a more        promulgated water
 standard that is effective under   standard is the            stringent water quality   quality standard is the
 State or Tribal law and has been   applicable water quality   standard for the State    applicable water
 submitted to EPA before May 30,    standard for purposes of   or Tribe that is in       quality standard for
 2000 . . .                         the Act . . .              effect . . .              purposes of the Act
                                                                                         until EPA withdraws the
                                                                                         Federal water quality
                                                                                         standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A State or authorized Tribe    . . . once EPA approves     . . . EPA has            . . . the EPA
 adopts a water quality standard    that water quality         promulgated a more        promulgated water
 that goes into effect under        standard, it becomes the   stringent water quality   quality standard is the
 State or Tribal law on or after    applicable water quality   standard for the State    applicable water
 May 30, 2000 . . .                 standard for purposes of   or Tribe that is in       quality standard for
                                    the Act . . .              effect . . .              purposes of the Act
                                                                                         until EPA withdraws the
                                                                                         Federal water quality
                                                                                         standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) When do I use the applicable water quality standards identified 
in paragraph (c) above?
    Applicable water quality standards for purposes of the Act are the 
minimum standards which must be used when the CWA and regulations 
implementing the CWA refer to water quality standards, for example, in 
identifying impaired waters and calculating TMDLs under section 303(d), 
developing NPDES permit limitations under section 301(b)(1)(C), 
evaluating proposed discharges of dredged or fill material under 
section 404, and in issuing certifications under section 401 of the 
Act.
    (e) For how long does an applicable water quality standard for 
purposes of the Act remain the applicable water quality standard for 
purposes of the Act?
    A State or authorized Tribe's applicable water quality standard for 
purposes of the Act remains the applicable standard until EPA approves 
a change, deletion, or addition to that water quality standard, or 
until EPA promulgates a more stringent water quality standard.
    (f) How can I find out what the applicable standards are for 
purposes of the Act?
    In each Regional office, EPA maintains a docket system for the 
States and authorized Tribes in that Region, available to the public, 
identifying the applicable water quality standards for purposes of the 
Act.

[FR Doc. 00-8536 Filed 4-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U