Wednesday,

March
19,
2003
Part
VI
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
9,
et
al.
Withdrawal
of
Revisions
to
the
Water
Quality
Planning
and
Management
Regulation
and
Revisions
to
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Program
in
Support
of
Revisions
to
the
Water
Quality
Planning
and
Management
Regulation;
Final
Rule
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
23:
56
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRR5.
SGM
19MRR5
13608
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
9,
122,
123,
124,
and
130
[
WH
 
FRL
 
7470
 
2]

RIN
2040
 
AD84
Withdrawal
of
Revisions
to
the
Water
Quality
Planning
and
Management
Regulation
and
Revisions
to
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Program
in
Support
of
Revisions
to
the
Water
Quality
Planning
and
Management
Regulation
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
Today's
action
withdraws
the
final
rule
entitled
``
Revisions
to
the
Water
Quality
Planning
and
Management
Regulation
and
Revisions
to
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Program
in
Support
of
Revisions
to
the
Water
Quality
Planning
and
Management
Regulation
(``
the
July
2000
rule'')
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
13,
2000.
The
July
2000
rule
amended
and
clarified
existing
regulations
implementing
a
section
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
that
requires
States
to
identify
waters
that
are
not
meeting
applicable
water
quality
standards
and
to
establish
pollutant
budgets,
called
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs),
to
restore
the
quality
of
those
waters.
The
July
2000
rule
also
amended
EPA's
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(``
NPDES'')
regulations
to
include
provisions
addressing
implementation
of
TMDLs
through
NPDES
permits.
The
July
2000
rule
has
never
become
effective;
it
is
currently
scheduled
to
take
effect
on
April
30,
2003.
Today,
EPA
is
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule,
rather
than
allow
it
to
go
into
effect,
because
EPA
believes
that
significant
changes
would
need
to
be
made
to
the
July
2000
rule
before
it
could
represent
a
workable
framework
for
an
efficient
and
effective
TMDL
program.
Furthermore,
EPA
needs
additional
time
beyond
April
30,
2003,
to
decide
whether
and
how
to
revise
the
currently­
effective
regulations
implementing
the
TMDL
program
in
a
way
that
will
best
achieve
the
goals
of
the
CWA.
The
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule
will
not
impede
ongoing
implementation
of
the
existing
TMDL
program.
Regulations
that
EPA
promulgated
in
1985
and
amended
in
1992
remain
in
effect
for
the
TMDL
program.
EPA
has
been
working
steadily
to
identify
regulatory
and
nonregulatory
options
to
improve
the
TMDL
program
and
is
reviewing
its
ongoing
implementation
of
the
existing
program
with
a
view
toward
continuous
improvement
and
possible
regulatory
changes
in
light
of
stakeholder
input
and
recommendations.
DATES:
The
July
2000
rule
amending
40
CFR
parts
9,
122,
123,
124
and
130,
published
on
July
13,
2000,
at
65
FR
43586,
is
withdrawn
as
of
April
18,
2003.
This
rule
is
considered
final
for
purposes
of
judicial
review
as
of
1
p.
m.
eastern
time,
on
April
2,
2003,
as
provided
in
40
CFR
23.2.
ADDRESSES:
The
complete
record
for
the
final
rule,
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0037,
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B
 
102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
information
about
today's
final
rule,
contact:
Francoise
M.
Brasier,
U.
S.
EPA
Office
of
Wetlands,
Oceans
and
Watersheds
(
4503T),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
phone
(
202)
566
 
2385.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

A.
Authority
Clean
Water
Act
sections
106,
205(
g),
205(
j),
208,
301,
302,
303,
305,
308,
319,
402,
501,
502,
and
603;
33
U.
S.
C.
1256,
1285(
g),
1285(
j),
1288,
1311,
1312,
1313,
1315,
1318,
1329,
1342,
1361,
1362,
and
1373.

B.
Entities
Potentially
Regulated
by
the
Final
Rule
TABLE
OF
POTENTIALLY
REGULATED
ENTITIES
Category
Examples
of
potentially
regulated
entities
Governments
States,
Territories
and
Tribes
with
CWA
responsibilites
This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
This
table
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
this
table
could
also
be
regulated.
To
determine
whether
you
may
be
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
130.20
of
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
you,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

C.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0037.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
EPA
West,
Room
B
 
102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
2426.
For
access
to
docket
materials,
please
call
ahead
to
schedule
an
appointment.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
previously
mentioned.
Once
in
the
electronic
system,
select
``
search''
and
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.

D.
Explanation
of
Today's
Action
I.
Background
On
December
27,
2002,
EPA
proposed
to
withdraw
final
regulations
affecting
the
TMDL
program
(
67
FR
79020)
that
were
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
13,
2000
(
65
FR
43586).
Among
other
things,
the
July
2000
rule
was
intended
to
resolve
issues
concerning
the
identification
of
impaired
waterbodies
by
promoting
more
comprehensive
inventories
of
impaired
waters.
The
rule
was
also
intended
to
improve
implementation
of
TMDLs
by
requiring
EPA
to
approve,
as
part
of
the
TMDL,
implementation
plans
containing
lists
of
actions
and
expeditious
schedules
to
reduce
pollutant
loadings.
Finally,
the
rule
included
changes
to
the
NPDES
program
to
assist
in
implementing
TMDLs
and
to
better
address
point
source
discharges
to
waters
not
meeting
water
quality
standards
prior
to
establishment
of
a
TMDL.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
24
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRR5.
SGM
19MRR5
13609
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
The
July
2000
rule
was
controversial
from
the
outset.
Both
the
proposed
and
final
rules
generated
considerable
controversy,
as
expressed
in
Congressional
action,
letters,
testimony
and
public
meetings.
Even
before
it
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
13,
2000,
Congress
prohibited
EPA
from
implementing
the
final
rule
through
a
spending
prohibition
attached
to
an
FY2000
appropriations
bill
that
prohibited
EPA
from
using
funds
``
to
make
a
final
determination
on
or
implement''
the
July
2000
rule.
This
spending
prohibition
was
scheduled
to
expire
on
September
30,
2001,
and,
barring
further
action
by
Congress
or
EPA,
the
rule
would
have
gone
into
effect
30
days
later
on
October
30,
2001.
Because
of
the
continuing
controversy
regarding
the
July
2000
rule,
EPA
proposed
on
August
9,
2001
(
66
FR
41817),
and
promulgated
on
October
18,
2001
(
66
FR
53044),
a
new
effective
date
of
April
30,
2003,
for
the
July
2000
rule,
to
allow
time
for
reconsideration
of
the
rule.
Stakeholder
concerns
were
also
reflected
in
legal
challenges
to
the
July
2000
rule
by
a
broad
array
of
litigants.
Ten
petitions
for
review
were
filed
by
States,
industrial
and
agricultural
groups,
and
environmental
organizations
asserting
that
many
of
EPA's
revisions
to
the
TMDL
regulations
were
either
unlawful
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
exceeded
the
Agency's
authority
under
the
CWA.
These
petitions,
which
identified
more
than
50
alleged
legal
defects
in
the
July
2000
rule,
were
ultimately
consolidated
in
American
Farm
Bureau
Federation
et
al.
v.
Whitman
(
No.
00
 
1320)
in
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit.
In
addition,
several
other
stakeholders
have
intervened
in
these
lawsuits.
The
litigation
over
the
July
2000
rule
is
currently
stayed
pending
EPA's
determination
regarding
whether,
and
to
what
extent,
that
rule
should
be
revised.
In
the
December
27,
2002,
preamble
to
the
proposed
withdrawal
rule,
EPA
explained
why
it
had
decided
to
withdraw
the
July
2000
rule.
EPA
said
that
by
continuing
to
examine
the
regulatory
needs
of
the
TMDL
and
NPDES
programs
against
the
impending
April
30,
2003,
effective
date
for
the
July
2000
rule,
the
Agency
was
sending
confusing
signals
to
the
States
and
other
interested
parties
about
which
set
of
rules
they
should
be
prepared
to
implement.
Further,
because
of
the
significant
controversy,
pending
litigation
and
lack
of
stakeholder
consensus
on
key
aspects
of
the
July
2000
rule,
the
Agency
said
that
the
July
2000
rule
could
not
function
as
the
blueprint
for
an
efficient
and
effective
TMDL
program
without
significant
revisions.
Moreover,
the
Agency
said
it
needed
more
time
to
consider
whether
and
how
to
revise
the
currently­
effective
TMDL
rules
without
concern
that
those
efforts
would
be
adversely
affected
and
distracted
by
the
July
2000
rule's
impending
effective
date.
In
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
also
explained
why
it
believes
that,
given
the
significant
progress
States
have
made
during
the
past
four
years
in
developing
TMDLs,
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule
will
not
compromise
continuing
efforts
to
implement
section
303(
d)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
EPA's
rationale
for
proposing
the
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule
is
more
fully
explained
in
the
preamble
accompanying
the
proposal
(
67
FR
79020).

II.
Response
to
Comments
and
Final
Decisions
EPA
received
approximately
90
separate
written
comments
regarding
its
proposal
to
withdraw
the
July
2000
rule.
These
comments
came
from
a
broad
cross­
section
of
stakeholders,
including
agricultural
and
forestry
groups,
business
and
industry
entities
and
trade
associations,
State
agencies,
environmental
organizations,
professional
associations,
academic
groups
and
private
citizens.
An
overwhelming
majority
of
the
commenters
(
more
than
90
percent)
supported
EPA's
proposed
action
to
withdraw
the
July
2000
rule.
These
commenters
generally
agreed
with
the
Agency's
rationale
for
withdrawing
the
rule
as
discussed
in
the
December
27,
2002,
preamble.
Commenters
reiterated
EPA's
concerns
about
the
potential
distraction
and
confusion
caused
by
the
July
2000
rule's
impending
deadline,
as
well
as
the
controversy
surrounding
various
provisions
of
the
rule
and
uncertainty
caused
by
the
pending
DC
Circuit
Court
litigation.
Others
stated
that
the
July
2000
rule
was
no
longer
needed
because
of
the
increased
technical
guidance
that
EPA
has
provided
to
States
to
improve
the
quality
of
their
lists
of
impaired
waters,
and
the
increased
funding
provided
by
EPA
for
developing
TMDLs.
Many
commenters
said
that
States
have
made
significant
strides
in
developing
TMDLs
since
the
rule
was
originally
proposed
and
promulgated
and,
therefore,
the
July
2000
rule
was
not
needed.
Several
commenters
stated
that
allowing
the
July
2000
rule
to
go
into
effect
would
be
disruptive
to
ongoing
TMDL
development
efforts,
and
that
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
would
give
the
Agency
additional
time
to
evaluate
the
need
for
new
TMDL
regulations.
Some
commenters
offered
additional
reasons
for
supporting
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule.
Although
most
of
these
reasons
are
consistent
with
EPA's
rationale
for
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule,
some
are
not.
For
example,
some
commenters,
though
supporting
EPA's
decision
to
withdraw
the
July
2000
rule,
also
questioned
the
legal
soundness
of
certain
provisions
of
that
rule.
EPA
does
not
necessarily
agree
with
those
comments,
and
its
decision
today
to
withdraw
the
July
2000
rule
should
not
be
understood
as
an
implicit
endorsement
of
those
views
and
comments.
A
small
minority
of
commenters
(
four)
disagreed
with
EPA's
proposal
to
withdraw
the
July
2000
rule.
One
commenter
asserted
that
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
would
``
postpone
the
TMDL
program
for
several
more
years''
and,
by
removing
incentives
to
reduce
pollution,
would
hinder
progress
``
to
implement
the
TMDL
program''
and
``
only
make
the
problem
worse.''
Another
commenter
said
that
not
going
forward
with
the
July
2000
rule
would
``
undermine
the
momentum
of
State
programs''
that
have
been
``
waiting
to
see
Federal
guidelines
to
develop
programs
of
their
own.''
EPA
does
not
agree
with
these
comments.
Indeed,
one
State
in
its
comments
supporting
withdrawal
said
that
the
July
2000
rule
``
would
undo
much
of
the
momentum
and
success''
of
the
State's
ongoing
and
successful
TMDL
program.
As
described
in
more
detail
in
the
December
27,
2002,
preamble,
in
recent
years,
EPA
and
the
States
have
made
great
strides
in
implementing
the
existing
303(
d)
program
to
list
impaired
waters
and
develop
and
implement
TMDLs
to
restore
impaired
waters.
States
have
substantially
improved
their
TMDL
programs
while
the
Agency
has
provided
the
States
with
significant
increases
in
technical
and
financial
support
to
expand
and
strengthen
all
elements
of
their
programs.
From
FY
1999
to
2002,
EPA
has
provided
the
States
almost
$
30
million
for
TMDLspecific
activities
and
allowed
States
to
use
a
portion
of
State
grants
for
water
program
administration
(
CWA
section
106
grants)
and
nonpoint
source
programs
(
CWA
sections
319
grants)
for
developing
and
implementing
TMDLs.
In
addition,
since
1998,
EPA
has
spent
more
than
$
11
million
to
support
development
of
technical
guidance
for
developing
TMDLs
and
identifying
the
most
appropriate
and
efficient
best
management
practices
for
nonpoint
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
24
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRR5.
SGM
19MRR5
13610
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
sources.
A
complete
list
of
these
guidance
documents
can
be
found
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Helped
by
these
programmatic
initiatives,
States
have
made
considerable
progress
in
developing
TMDLs
despite
the
fact
that
the
July
2000
rule
never
became
effective.
As
stated
in
the
December
27,
2002,
proposal,
between
1996
and
1999,
EPA
and
the
States
established
approximately
800
TMDLs.
Since
then,
and
despite
the
fact
that
the
July
2000
rule
never
became
effective,
EPA
and
the
States
have
established
more
than
an
additional
7,000
TMDLs;
and
States
continue
to
improve
the
pace
at
which
TMDLs
are
established.
Given
this
progress
and
the
States'
adoption
since
1998
of
schedules
for
TMDL
development,
EPA
anticipates
no
reduction
in
the
pace
of
TMDLs
being
developed
and
the
associated
improvement
in
water
quality,
even
if
the
July
2000
rule
does
not
take
effect.
One
commenter
objected
to
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
because
of
provisions
contained
in
the
rule
for
expanded
public
involvement
in
the
listing
and
TMDL
development
process.
By
not
implementing
the
July
2000
rule,
the
commenter
asserted
that
the
public
remains
``
shut
out''
of
the
listing
and
TMDL
development
process,
which
allows
the
States
to
develop
impaired
waters
lists
and
establish
TMDLs
``
without
adequate
public
scrutiny.''
EPA
disagrees
with
this
comment.
While
it
is
true
that
the
July
2000
rule
would
have
clarified,
and,
in
some
measure
strengthened,
the
public
participation
components
of
EPA's
currently­
effective
TMDL
regulations,
the
current
statutory
and
regulatory
provisions
(
as
supplemented
by
EPA
guidance
to
the
States
and
its
Regional
Offices)
already
allow
for
public
scrutiny
and
participation
in
the
listing
and
TMDL
development
process.
EPA's
existing
regulations
require
that
the
process
for
involving
the
public
in
a
State's
listing
and
TMDL
program
``
shall
be
clearly
described
in
the
State
Continuing
Planning
Process
(
CPP)''
(
40
CFR
130.7(
a)),
and
§
130.7(
c)(
1)(
ii)
requires
that
a
State's
calculations
to
establish
TMDLs
be
subject
to
public
review,
as
defined
in
the
State
CPP.
Additionally,
EPA
regulations
require
that
when
EPA
disapproves
and
establishes
a
list
or
a
TMDL,
EPA
must
seek
public
comment
(
40
CFR
130.7(
d)).
EPA's
policy
has
always
been
that
there
should
be
full
and
meaningful
public
participation
in
both
the
listing
and
TMDL
development
process,
and
EPA
has
issued
guidance
in
addition
to
the
regulations
to
support
this
effort.
In
EPA's
``
Guidelines
for
Reviewing
TMDLs
Under
Existing
Regulations
Issued
in
1992''
(
May
20,
2002),
EPA
states
that,
in
addition
to
the
TMDL
regulatory
requirements,
``
final
TMDLs
submitted
to
EPA
for
review
and
approval
should
describe
the
State's/
tribe's
public
participation
process,
including
a
summary
of
significant
comments
and
the
State's/
tribe's
responses
to
those
comments.''
The
guidance
also
states
that
``
provision
of
inadequate
public
participation
may
be
a
basis
for
disapproving
a
TMDL.
If
EPA
determines
that
a
State/
tribe
has
not
provided
adequate
public
participation,
EPA
may
defer
its
approval
action
until
adequate
public
participation
has
been
provided
for,
either
by
the
State/
tribe
or
by
EPA.''
EPA's
``
Integrated
Report''
guidance
to
States,
tribes
and
EPA
Regions
(
Integrated
Water
Quality
Monitoring
and
Assessment
Report
(
November
19,
2001))
states
that
``
States
and
territories
should
provide
for
full
public
participation
in
the
development
of
their
Integrated
Report
prior
to
its
submission
to
EPA.
EPA
believes
that
public
understanding
of
how
standard
attainment
determinations
are
made
for
all
A[
sessement]
U[
nits]
s
is
crucial
to
the
success
of
water
quality
programs
and
encourages
active
stakeholder
participation
in
the
assessment
and
listing
process....
EPA
will
consider
how
the
State
or
territory
addressed
the
comments...
when
approving
or
disapproving
the
303(
d)
list
of
AUs
(
Category
5).''
Most
recently,
in
May
2002,
EPA
issued
guidance
to
its
Regional
Offices
stating
that
when
reviewing
State
303(
d)
lists,
EPA
Regions
should
review
how
States
provided
for
public
participation
to
ensure
that
each
State
carried
out
its
public
participation
process
consistent
with
the
State's
public
participation
requirements
(``
Recommended
Framework
for
EPA
Approval
Decisions
on
2002
State
Section
303(
d)
List
Submission.'')
If
the
Region
believes
a
State
has
not
provided
adequate
public
participation,
the
guidance
provides
steps
the
Region
should
take
in
working
with
a
State
to
provide
for
additional
public
participation,
and
how
the
State
or,
if
necessary,
the
Region,
should
consider
and
address
public
comments
prior
to
EPA's
approval
or
disapproval
of
the
list.
Finally,
it
is
important
to
note
that
nearly
all
of
the
States
already
have
public
participation
requirements
under
their
own
State
laws
for
the
listing
and
TMDL
development
processes,
and
also
provide
for
public
notice.
For
all
of
these
reasons,
EPA
believes
that
adequate
public
participation
opportunities
exist
under
the
currentlyeffective
regulations
and
that
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
will
not
limit
meaningful
public
participation
in
the
listing
and
TMDL
development
process.
One
commenter
stated
that,
by
not
implementing
the
July
2000
rule,
States
would
continue
to
have
inadequate
monitoring
programs
and
continue
to
develop
lists
of
impaired
waters
based
on
inadequate
data.
EPA
disagrees.
EPA
recognizes
that
no
State
has
a
perfect
monitoring
and
listing
program.
Monitoring
and
assessment
programs
are
expensive
to
assemble
and
implement.
While
the
July
2000
rule
would
have
clarified
certain
aspects
of
the
existing
TMDL
regulations
regarding
listing
methodologies,
that
rule,
by
itself,
would
not
have
provided
the
additional
funding
needed
by
many
States
to
expand
their
monitoring
and
assessment
programs.
Moreover,
many
of
the
important
listing
clarifications
and
improvements
contained
in
the
July
2000
rule
have
already
been
provided
to,
and
are
currently
being
implemented
by,
States,
even
without
the
July
2000
rule
having
gone
into
effect.
To
assist
in
implementation
of
the
currently­
effective
TMDL
rules,
EPA
issued
the
``
2002
Integrated
Water
Quality
Monitoring
and
Assessment
Report
Guidance''
(
November
19,
2001)
to
promote
a
more
integrated
and
comprehensive
system
of
accounting
for
the
nation's
impaired
waters.
The
guidance
recommends
that
States
submit
an
``
Integrated
Report''
that
will
satisfy
CWA
requirements
for
both
section
305(
b)
water
quality
reports
and
section
303(
d)
lists.
The
objectives
of
this
guidance
are
to
strengthen
State
monitoring
programs,
encourage
timely
monitoring
to
support
decision
making,
increase
numbers
of
waters
monitored,
and
provide
a
full
accounting
of
all
waters
and
uses.
The
guidance
encourages
a
rotating
basin
approach
and
strengthened
State
assessment
methodologies,
and
is
intended
to
improve
public
confidence
in
water
quality
assessments
and
303(
d)
lists.
EPA
extended
the
date
for
submission
of
2002
lists
by
six
months
(
66
FR
53044)
to
allow
States
and
Territories
time
to
incorporate
some
or
all
of
the
recommendations
suggested
by
EPA
in
this
guidance.
Approximately
half
of
the
States
and
Territories
have
submitted
a
2002
report
which
incorporates
some
or
all
of
the
elements
of
this
guidance.
In
addition,
EPA
also
held
five
stakeholder
meetings
in
2001
and
2002
to
review
and
comment
on
a
best
practices
guide
that
EPA
was
developing
for
States
on
consolidated
assessment
and
listing
methodologies.
This
guidance
(``
Consolidated
Listing
and
Assessment
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
24
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRR5.
SGM
19MRR5
13611
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Methodology
 
Toward
a
Compendium
of
Best
Practices'')
was
released
in
July
2002.
EPA
is
continuing
to
work
with
States
to
clarify
and
strengthen
their
monitoring
programs
and
to
help
improve
the
quality
and
credibility
of
their
lists
of
waters
that
require
a
TMDL.
One
commenter
stated
that
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
would
continue
``
to
make
EPA
and
the
States
the
target
of
numerous
lawsuits
 
resulting
in
the
courts
driving
environmental
policy,
rather
than
EPA
and
the
States.''
EPA
does
not
agree
with
this
comment.
EPA
does
not
agree
that
there
are,
in
the
commenter's
words,
``
weaknesses''
with
the
currently­
effective
TMDL
regulations
that
make
the
Agency
any
more
vulnerable
to
litigation
than
if
it
did
not
withdraw
the
July
2000
rule.
Indeed,
we
believe
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
will
render
moot
the
pending
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
challenge
to
that
rule.
Before
July
2000,
EPA
was
named
as
defendant
in
over
30
lawsuits
challenging
State
lists
and
the
pace
of
State
TMDL
development.
Since
July
2000,
only
a
few
such
lawsuits
have
been
filed,
even
though
the
July
2000
rule
never
became
effective.
Clearly,
the
number
of
such
suits
has
declined
as
the
States
and
EPA
have
done
a
better
job
under
the
1985/
1992
TMDL
rules
to
establish
lists
and
TMDLs.
In
addition,
to
date
only
a
handful
of
lawsuits
have
been
filed
challenging
any
of
the
more
than
7,000
TMDLs
that
the
States
or
EPA
have
established.
Given
these
numbers,
the
Agency
does
not
believe
there
is
anything
inherently
litigationprovoking
in
the
currently­
effective
TMDL
rules
and,
based
on
this
record,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
will
result
in
increased
TMDL
litigation.
One
commenter
objected
to
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
because
of
concerns
regarding
the
inconsistent
implementation
of
the
program
under
the
currently­
effective
regulations
and
EPA
guidance.
EPA
does
not
agree
that
inconsistent
implementation
of
the
TMDL
program
is
a
significant
problem.
Nor,
for
that
matter,
would
implementation
of
the
July
2000
rule
remove
all
potential
for
divergent
implementation
approaches
by
the
different
States
and
EPA
Regions.
As
discussed
previously,
since
publication
of
the
July
2000
rule,
EPA
has
issued
numerous
detailed
policy
memoranda,
national
guidance
documents,
technical
protocol
documents,
and
information
on
best
management
practices
so
that
States
can
improve
their
methods
to
monitor
and
list
impaired
waters,
and
develop
and
implement
TMDLs
in
a
consistent,
yet
flexible
way.
A
complete
list
of
these
guidance
documents
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
As
noted
previously,
EPA
has
issued
detailed
national
guidance
to
EPA
Regions
on
reviewing
and
approving
lists
and
TMDLs,
(``
EPA
Review
of
2002
Section
303(
d)
Lists
and
Guidelines
for
Reviewing
TMDLs
Under
Existing
Regulations
Issued
in
1992''
(
May
20,
2002))
and
is
working
closely
with
all
the
EPA
Regional
Offices
to
ensure
that
their
regional
review
and
approval
of
lists
and
TMDLs
correspond
with
this
national
policy.
In
addition,
EPA
has
recently
released
a
guidance
on
``
Establishing
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
Wasteload
Allocations
(
WLAs)
for
Storm
Water
Sources
and
NPDES
Permit
Requirements
Based
on
Those
WLAs''
(
November
22,
2002).
This
memorandum
clarifies
EPA's
policy
on
wasteload
allocations,
specifically
that
NPDES­
regulated
storm
water
discharges
must
be
included
in
the
wasteload
allocation
component
of
the
TMDL
(
see
40
CFR
130.2(
h))
and
affirms
EPA's
view
that
an
iterative,
adaptive
management
BMP
approach
is
appropriate
for
permitting
such
discharges.
EPA
has
also
sponsored
numerous
TMDL
and
TMDL­
related
training
sessions
and
meetings
to
clarify
and
provide
detailed
technical
support
to
the
States
and
Regions
to
help
ensure
consistency
in
listing
and
TMDL
development
(
see
EPA's
website
for
a
complete
list
of
recent
activities:
http:/
/
www.
epa.
gov/
owow/
tmdl/
training.)
EPA
also
has
made
available
to
the
public
the
``
National
TMDL
Tracking
System''
(
NTTS),
which
includes
all
State­
specific
data
on
approved
303(
d)
lists
and
approved
TMDLs
as
well
as
a
national
summary
of
impaired
waters
and
TMDLs
that
have
been
approved
for
these
waters
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
owow/
tmdl/.)
In
addition,
since
the
Spring
of
2001,
EPA
has
held
regular
conference
calls
with
EPA
Regions
and
the
States
to
discuss
and
answer
any
questions
regarding
the
TMDL
program,
including
technical
and
policy
questions.
EPA
believes
that
these
guidance
documents,
the
National
TMDL
Tracking
System,
training,
workshops,
and
close
communication
with
States
and
EPA
Regional
Offices
have
improved
the
national
consistency
in
how
the
TMDL
program
is
implemented
at
both
the
Federal
and
State
level,
while
accommodating
the
inherent
variability
in
States'
water
quality
standards,
land
and
water
characteristics,
and
available
resources.
As
to
the
commenter's
point
that
``
there
are
significant
differences
between
the
July
2000
rule
and
the
1985,
1992
rule
*
*
*
[
that]
cannot
adequately
be
addressed
through
EPA
guidance,''
EPA
notes
that
its
review
of
the
currently­
effective
TMDL
regulations
in
light
of
the
July
2000
rule
is
ongoing.
EPA
has
not
yet
decided
what,
if
any,
changes
to
propose
to
those
regulations.
As
it
continues
to
consider
the
need
for
regulatory
changes,
EPA
will
consider
the
commenter's
suggestions
regarding
which
elements
belong
in
regulation
and
which
may
be
appropriately
left
to
guidance.
EPA
will
also
consider
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
the
Agency
should
allow
the
public
to
participate
in
the
development
of
future
program
guidance.
One
commenter
said
EPA
had
not
provided
enough
information
to
allow
it
to
make
a
``
well­
reasoned
decision
or
provide
meaningful
comment
on
EPA's
proposal
to
withdraw
the
July
2000
rule.''
Nevertheless,
that
commenter
did
oppose
EPA's
proposed
action.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
claim
that
it
did
not
provide
enough
information
for
the
public
to
provide
meaningful
comment,
and
given
the
number
of
other
comments
to
the
proposal
addressing
EPA's
rationale,
EPA
believes
that
it
adequately
discussed
its
justification
for
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
in
the
December
27,
2002,
preamble.
One
commenter
opposed
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule
because
it
believed
that
the
rule
was
``
necessary''
to
``
aid
in
the
control
of
nonpoint
source
pollution.''
EPA
disagrees
with
this
comment.
EPA
notes
that
there
are
numerous
existing
Clean
Water
Act
authorities
and
programs,
supplemented
by
other
Federal
and
State
programs
and
initiatives,
that
address
nonpoint
source
pollution.
One
commenter
opposed
withdrawal
of
the
``
TMDL
program''
because
it
believed
``
much
time
went
into
the
planning
of
this
program
to
protect
waterways
*
*
*
[
and]
it
needs
to
be
tied
into
the
NPDES
permit
program
and
should
be
customized
to
fit
individual
permits.''
EPA
is
not
sure
it
fully
understands
this
comment.
To
the
extent
the
commenter
is
opposed
to
withdrawal
of
the
``
TMDL
program,''
EPA
notes
that
it
is
only
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule,
which
has
never
become
effective,
and
not
the
TMDL
program
itself.
EPA
agrees
that
it
took
much
planning
to
develop
the
July
2000
rule,
but,
for
the
reasons
already
discussed
in
this
preamble
and
in
the
December
27,
2002,
preamble,
EPA
has
decided
to
withdraw
that
rule,
regardless
of
the
effort
that
went
into
its
development.
EPA
also
notes
that
the
currently­
effective
TMDL
program
is
``
tied
into
the
NPDES
permit
program''
in
that,
among
other
things,
permit
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
24
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRR5.
SGM
19MRR5
13612
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
effluent
limits
must
be
consistent
with
the
assumptions
and
requirements
of
any
available
wasteload
allocation
for
the
discharge
prepared
by
the
State
and
approved
by
EPA
pursuant
to
40
CFR
130.7.
See
40
CFR
122.44(
d)(
1)(
vii)(
B).
Similarly,
40
CFR
122.4(
i)
addresses
what
requirements
must
be
met
for
a
permit
to
be
issued
to
a
new
source
or
new
discharger
who
proposes
to
discharge
a
pollutant
for
which
a
TMDL
has
been
prepared.
One
State
commenter,
while
supporting
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule,
recommended
that
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
EPA
immediately
modify
40
CFR
130.7
to
require
State
303(
d)
lists
every
four
(
instead
of
every
two)
years.
As
EPA
continues
to
consider
whether
and
how
to
revise
the
TMDL
program,
EPA
will
consider
the
commenter's
suggestion.
One
commenter
asked
for
``
an
evaluation
of
potential
changes
from
rule
making,
implementation
and
funding
of
Clean
Water
Act
programs
and
enforcement
relative
to
the
Russian
River
[
California]
*
*
*
[
and
an]
assurance
that
this
regulatory
shift
will
not
result
in
degradation
of
either
the
quality
or
quantity
of
our
local
resources.''
The
commenter
did
not
appear
to
take
a
position
on
the
proposed
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule,
and
EPA
believes
this
comment
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
proposal
and
does
not
require
a
response.
One
electronic
comment
merely
stated
as
follows:
``
We
strongly
oppose
any
reduction
of
restrictions
on
wetland
maintenance.''
Again,
the
commenter
did
not
appear
to
take
a
position
on
the
proposed
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule,
and
EPA
believes
this
comment
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
proposal
and
does
not
require
a
response.
More
than
half
the
commenters
requested
or
encouraged
EPA
to
pursue
further
rulemaking
once
the
July
2000
rule
was
withdrawn.
Many
of
these
commenters
submitted
specific
recommendations
regarding
how
EPA
should
structure
a
new
TMDL
rule.
Some
commenters
requested
that
this
new
rulemaking
occur
as
quickly
as
possible.
One
commenter
said
it
``
supports
EPA's
proposed
withdrawal
of
the
2000
rule,
assuming
that
EPA
intends
to
replace
that
rule
in
a
timely
manner
with
an
improved
rule
now
known
as
the
Watershed
Rule.''
Another
commenter
said
it
``
will
only
support
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule
if
EPA
moves
quickly
to
propose
and
promulgate
a
Watershed
Rule
that
provides
a
comprehensive
framework
for
the
evolving
TMDL
program.''
Three
commenters
who
supported
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule
advised
against
a
new
rulemaking
saying
that
it
``
would
be
disruptive
and
would
only
derail
State
momentum
to
clean
up
our
waterways.''
Two
other
commenters
cautioned
that
a
new
regulatory
proposal
``
could
slow
needed
progress''
and
strongly
urged
the
Agency
``
not
to
propose
any
regulatory
or
other
changes
that
would
cripple
this
vitally
important
water
clean
up
program.''
In
response
to
these
comments
regarding
the
future
direction
of
the
TMDL
program,
EPA
restates
that
it
has
not
yet
completed
its
evaluation
regarding
whether
and
how
to
revise
the
currently­
effective
TMDL
rules.
Nor
can
EPA
commit
to
how
long
it
will
take
to
complete
that
process.
EPA
is
committed
to
structuring
a
flexible,
effective
TMDL
program
that
States,
territories
and
authorized
tribes
can
support
and
implement.
EPA
will
carefully
consider
all
of
the
past
and
recently­
provided
commenters'
recommendations
as
it
continues
to
evaluate
whether
and
how
to
revise
the
currently­
effective
TMDL
regulations
using
new
regulatory
or
non­
regulatory
approaches.
EPA,
to
the
best
of
its
ability,
will
continue
to
meet
and
share
information
with
stakeholders
regarding
this
effort,
and
will
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
in
a
separate
Federal
Register
notice
if
the
Agency
decides
to
move
forward
with
a
new
rulemaking.
After
carefully
considering
all
the
comments
received
in
response
to
its
December
27,
2002,
proposal,
EPA
is
today
promulgating
a
final
rule
that
withdraws
the
July
2000
rule.
EPA
is
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule,
rather
than
allowing
it
to
go
into
effect,
because
EPA
believes
that
significant
changes
would
need
to
be
made
to
the
July
2000
rule
before
it
could
represent
a
workable
framework
for
an
effective
TMDL
program.
EPA
needs
additional
time
beyond
April
2003
to
decide
whether
and
how
to
revise
the
currently­
effective
regulations
implementing
the
TMDL
program
in
a
way
that
will
best
achieve
the
goals
of
the
CWA,
and
EPA
is
not
sure
how
long
that
effort
will
take.
In
light
of
the
significant
progress
States
have
made
in
the
past
three
years
establishing
TMDLs
under
the
currently­
effective
rules,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
withdrawing
the
July
2000
rule
will
impede
States'
efforts
to
implement
section
303(
d)
to
work
towards
cleaning
up
the
nation's
waters
and
meeting
water
quality
standards.
Today's
final
rule
does
not
change
any
part
of
the
currently
effective
TMDL
regulations
promulgated
in
1985,
as
amended
in
1992,
at
40
CFR
part
130
or
the
NPDES
regulations
at
parts
122
 
124.

III.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
(
October
4,
1993)),
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
a
``
significant
regulatory
action.''
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
This
action
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
24
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRR5.
SGM
19MRR5
13613
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
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
based
on
SBA
size
standards;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
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,
which
withdraws
the
July
2000
rule
that
has
not
taken
effect,
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Like
the
July
2000
rule,
this
final
rule
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities.
This
action
withdraws
the
July
2000
rule,
which
has
never
taken
effect.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)
of
1995
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,
tribal
and
local
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
costeffective
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.
Like
the
July
2000
rule,
today's
final
rule,
which
withdraws
the
July
2000
rule
that
has
not
taken
effect,
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
imposes
no
enforceable
duty
on
any
State,
local
or
Tribal
government
or
the
private
sector.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
UMRA.
For
the
same
reason,
EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
This
action
does
not
impose
any
requirement
on
any
entity.
There
are
no
costs
associated
with
this
action.
Therefore,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
action
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.
It
finalizes
the
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule,
which
has
never
taken
effect.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.''
This
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
It
withdraws
the
July
2000
rule,
which
has
never
taken
effect.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
EPA.
This
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
24
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRR5.
SGM
19MRR5
13614
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Energy
Effects
This
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use,''
(
66
FR
28355;
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
This
rule
simply
finalizes
the
withdrawal
of
the
July
2000
rule
which
has
never
taken
effect.
We
have
concluded
that
this
rule
is
not
likely
to
have
any
adverse
energy
effects.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(``
NTTAA''),
Public
Law
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
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
rulemaking
does
not
impose
any
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

J.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
This
rule
will
be
effective
on
April
18,
2003.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
9
Environmental
protection,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
122
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
substances,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control.
40
CFR
Part
123
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Indians­
lands,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Penalties,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control.

40
CFR
Part
124
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Indians­
lands,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.

40
CFR
Part
130
Environmental
protection,
Grant
programs
 
environmental
protection,
Indians­
lands,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.
The
authority
citation
for
part
130
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
EPA
withdraws
the
final
rule
amending
40
CFR
parts
9,
122,
123,
124
and
130
published
July
13,
2000
(
65
FR
43586).

Dated:
March
13,
2003.
Christine
T.
Whitman,
Administrator.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
6574
Filed
3
 
18
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
24
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRR5.
SGM
19MRR5
