365
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
66,
No.
2
/
Wednesday,
January
3,
2001
/
Notices
Directors,
and
CSO
communities
can
take
to
address
their
concerns.
The
objective
of
this
guidance
is
to
lay
a
strong
foundation
for
integrating
CSO
long­
term
control
planning
with
water
quality
standards
reviews.
Reaching
early
agreement
among
CSO
communities,
States,
EPA,
and
the
public
on
the
data
to
be
collected
and
the
analyses
to
be
conducted
to
support
the
long­
term
control
plan
development
and
water
quality
standards
reviews
can
facilitate
the
review
of
water
quality
standards
and
the
reconciliation
of
water
quality
standards
with
an
affordable,
well­
designed
and
operated
CSO
control
programs.
The
guidance
describes
the
process
for
integrating
LTCP
development
and
implementation
with
the
water
quality
standards
review.
This
process
is
the
centerpiece
of
EPA's
renewed
commitment
to
assure
that
both
communities
with
combined
sewer
systems
and
States
participate
in
implementing
the
water
quality­
based
provisions
in
the
CSO
Control
Policy.
The
CSO
Control
Policy
anticipates
the
``
review
and
revision,
as
appropriate,
of
water
quality
standards
and
their
implementation
procedures
when
developing
CSO
control
plans
to
reflect
site­
specific
impacts
of
CSOs.
''
Integrating
CSO
long­
term
control
planning
with
water
quality
standards
reviews
requires
extensive
coordination
among
CSO
communities,
States,
EPA,
and
the
public.
Although
this
coordination
is
an
intensive
iterative
process,
it
provides
greater
assurance
that
CSO
communities
will
implement
affordable
CSO
control
programs
that
support
the
attainment
of
appropriate
water
quality
standards.

Dated:
December
20,
2000.
J.
Charles
Fox,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Water.
[FR
Doc.
01±
113
Filed
1±
2±
01;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560±
50±
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL±
6928±
8]

Draft
Guidance
for
National
Hazardous
Waste
Ombudsman
and
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsmen
Program
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

ACTION:
Notice
of
available
draft
guidance
with
request
for
comment.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
has
developed
and
is
requesting
comment
on
the
``
Draft
Guidance
for
National
Hazardous
Waste
Ombudsman
and
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsmen
Program.
''
The
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(OSWER)
National
Hazardous
Waste
and
Superfund
Ombudsman
(National
Ombudsman)
and
the
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsmen
(Regional
Ombudsmen)
were
established
to
provide
help
to
the
public
in
resolving
issues
and
concerns
raised
about
the
solid
and
hazardous
waste
programs
administered
by
OSWER.
The
purpose
of
this
draft
guidance
is
to
explain
the
role
of
the
Ombudsmen,
their
scope
of
activity,
and
the
guidelines
under
which
they
coordinate
and
carry
out
their
responsibilities.
EPA
believes
this
draft
guidance
will
improve
the
effectiveness
of
this
program
by
giving
the
Ombudsmen
and
those
who
may
contact
them
a
clear
and
consistent
set
of
operating
policies
and
expectations.
DATES:
To
make
sure
we
consider
your
comments
we
must
receive
them
by
March
5,
2001.
Comments
received
after
that
date
will
be
considered
to
the
extent
feasible;
however,
EPA
will
not
delay
finalizing
the
guidance
to
accommodate
late
comments.
ADDRESSES:
You
may
request
copies
of
the
``
Draft
Guidance
for
National
Hazardous
Waste
Ombudsman
and
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsmen
Program''
by
any
of
the
following
ways:
Mail:
write
to:
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
EPA,
CERCLA
Docket
Office,
(Mail
Code
5201G),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Phone:
call:
(703)
603±
9232,
or
(800)
424±
9346.
Internet:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
swerrims/
whatsnew.
htm
If
you
wish
to
send
us
comments
on
the
guidance,
you
must
send
them
in
any
one
of
the
following
ways:
Mail:
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
EPA,
CERCLA
Docket
Office,
(Mail
Code
5201G),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Express
Mail
or
courier
(such
as
Federal
Express,
other
overnight
delivery,
or
courier):
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
EPA,
CERCLA
Docket
Office,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Crystal
Gateway
#1,
First
Floor,
Arlington,
Virginia,
22202.
E­
mail:
in
ASCII
format
only
to:
superfund.
docket@
epa.
gov.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Caroline
Previ,
phone
number
(202)
260±
2593,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(Mail
Code
5101),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
or
the
Superfund
Hotline,
phone
number
(800)
424±
9346
or
(703)
412±
9810
in
the
Washington,
D.
C.
metropolitan
area.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
Introduction
The
program
managers
and
staff
in
the
Regions
and
at
Headquarters
are
committed
to
implementing
the
federal
solid
waste
and
hazardous
waste
statutes
managed
by
EPA,
being
responsive
to
the
public,
and
resolving
issues
and
concerns
brought
to
their
attention.
In
some
cases,
the
individual
or
group
raising
a
given
concern
does
not
believe
the
official
problem
solving
channels
dealt
fairly
or
fully
with
their
situation.
In
such
cases,
the
individual
or
group
may
request
assistance
from
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(OSWER)
Ombudsman,
an
Agency
official
designated
to
receive
inquiries
and
complaints
about
the
administration
of
OSWER
programs.
The
National
and
Regional
Ombudsmen
receive
many
calls
for
assistance
each
yearÐ
ranging
from
routine
questions
about
hazardous
waste
laws
to
specific
complaints
about
allegedly
improper
activities
conducted
at
a
site
or
facility.
Today's
Federal
Register
notice
introduces
a
policy
entitled
``
Draft
Guidance
for
National
Hazardous
Waste
Ombudsman
and
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsmen
Program''
which
explains
the
role
and
conduct
of
the
OSWER
National
Ombudsman
and
the
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsmen,
scope
of
their
activity,
and
the
guidelines
under
which
they
coordinate
and
carry
out
their
responsibilities.
The
main
objective
in
issuing
this
guidance
is
to
improve
the
effectiveness
of
this
program
by
giving
the
Ombudsmen
and
those
who
may
contact
them
a
clear
and
consistent
set
of
operating
policies
and
expectations.
This
draft
guidance
would
cover
only
the
Ombudsmen
who
work
on
OSWER
related
issues,
and
staff
who
supply
primary
support
or
assistance
to
the
Ombudsmen.
This
guidance,
when
finalized,
is
not
intended
to
be,
and
should
not
be
construed
as
a
rule.
Use
of
the
guidance
would
not
be
legally
binding
on
EPA
managers
or
staff
or
on
other
parties.
EPA
is
seeking
public
comment
at
this
time
to
ensure
hearing
the
widest
range
of
views
and
obtaining
all
information
relevant
to
the
development
of
the
guidance.

II.
Background
The
hazardous
and
solid
waste
management
laws
passed
by
Congress
created
some
of
the
most
complex
programs
administered
by
EPA
and
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
17:
30
Jan
02,
2001
Jkt
194001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
03JAN1.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
03JAN1
366
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
66,
No.
2
/
Wednesday,
January
3,
2001
/
Notices
States.
Recognizing
this,
Congress
established
a
National
Ombudsman
function
in
1984
as
part
of
amendments
to
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
so
that
the
public
would
have
someone
to
come
to
with
questions
and
concerns
about
the
RCRA
program.
Soon
after,
we
issued
the
``
Hazardous
Waste
Ombudsman
Handbook''
to
help
the
newly
created
National
Ombudsman
administer,
and
the
public
understand
what
to
expect
from,
the
Ombudsman
program.
During
the
initial
years
of
the
National
Ombudsman
program,
most
of
the
assistance
sought
by
the
public
was
for
help
understanding
the
complex
RCRA
program.
The
Ombudsman
spent
most
of
his
time
responding
to
general
questions
and
directing
requests
to
the
appropriate
sources.
The
handbook
reflected
this
role.
When
the
statutory
authority
for
the
National
Ombudsman
program
expired
in
1989,
OSWER
retained
the
function
as
a
matter
of
policy.
In
1991,
OSWER
broadened
the
National
Ombudsman's
scope
of
activity
to
include
other
programs
administered
by
OSWER,
particularly
the
Superfund
program.
The
National
Ombudsman
is
located
in
the
EPA
Headquarters
office
in
Washington,
DC.
In
1995,
EPA
created
a
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsman
position
in
each
EPA
Regional
office
as
part
of
the
Superfund
Administrative
Reforms.
The
Regional
Ombudsmen
program,
at
a
minimum,
operates
in
support
of
the
Superfund
program,
butÐ
depending
on
the
RegionÐ
may
also
provide
support
to
other
programs,
including
RCRA,
Underground
Storage
Tanks
(UST),
and
chemical
emergency
prevention
and
preparedness.
Over
the
years,
the
public
gained
a
better
understanding
of
EPA's
hazardous
waste
programs.
Requests
for
answers
to
basic
questions
more
frequently
became
requests
for
resolution
of
complaints.
The
Ombudsman
function
evolved
to
reflect
these
changes.
The
existing
guidance
no
longer
reflects
the
Ombudsman
function
as
it
has
evolved.
In
the
Fall
of
1999,
the
EPA
established
an
internal
workgroup
to
update
the
``
Hazardous
Waste
Ombudsman
Handbook.
''
In
preparing
the
updated
guidance,
the
workgroup
met
with
representatives
of
the
U.
S.
Ombudsman
Association,
and
evaluated
and
considered
guidance
documents
from
this
organization,
as
well
as
other
organizations
with
Ombudsman
programs
and
the
American
Bar
Association's
draft
Standards
for
the
Establishment
and
Operation
of
Ombudsman
Offices.
To
the
extent
possible,
EPA
has
drafted
guidelines
which
reflect
key
aspects
of
various
external
models
in
a
manner
that
supports
the
Ombudsman's
independent
operation
within
the
context
of
a
civil
service
position
within
the
Federal
government
structure.
EPA
developed
these
procedures
to
meet
the
specific
needs
of
the
OSWER
Ombudsman
program
and
they
may
not
be
completely
consistent
with
Ombudsmen
principles
established
by
other
organizations.
The
draft
guidance
explains
to
the
public
the
role
of
the
National
Hazardous
Waste
and
Superfund
Ombudsman
and
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsmen
today,
their
scope
of
activity,
and
the
guidelines
under
which
they
coordinate
and
carry
out
their
responsibilities.
We
believe
the
draft
guidance
will
provide
for
effective
and
fair
implementation
of
OSWER's
Ombudsman
program.

III.
Summary
of
Draft
Guidance
The
draft
``
Guidance
for
the
National
Hazardous
Waste
and
Superfund
Ombudsman
and
Regional
Superfund
Ombudsmen
Program''
puts
forth
our
philosophy
concerning
the
basic
operating
principles
and
procedures
for
the
OSWER
Ombudsman
program.
Ombudsmen
functioning
under
this
guidance
are
authorized
to
provide
information
and
look
into
complaints
and
grievances
related
to
OSWER's
administration
of
the
programs
implemented
under
the
following
authorities:
·
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
(CERCLA)
or
Superfund
·
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA),
including
Underground
Storage
Tanks
(UST)
·
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
To­
Know
Act
(EPCRA)
or
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act,
Title
III
·
Oil
Pollution
Act
·
Clean
Air
Act,
Section
112r
The
Ombudsman
may
be
called
to
serve
in
a
number
of
capacities:
(1)
providing
information
and
facilitating
informal
contact
with
EPA
staff,
(2)
conducting
informal
inquiries
and
developing
recommendations
to
address
difficult
problems,
(3)
helping
to
mediate
disputes,
and
(4)
making
recommendations
to
Agency
senior
management
regarding
procedural
and
policy
changes
aimed
at
improving
the
program.
The
goal
of
the
Ombudsman
program
is
to
respond
to
requests
in
an
appropriate,
transparent
and
objective
manner
as
promptly,
informally
and
discretely
as
possible.
The
guidance
briefly
discusses
each
of
these
functions,
but
we
anticipate
that
a
significant
amount
of
the
Ombudsman's
time
will
be
dedicated
to
looking
into
issues
raised
by
the
public
concerning
decisions
that
EPA
has
made.
Because
of
this,
most
of
the
draft
guidance
is
devoted
to
outlining
the
Ombudsman's
responsibilities
in
carrying
out
this
activity.
Overall,
the
Ombudsman's
role
is
to
listen
to
all
sides
in
an
impartial,
objective
manner,
to
provide
assistance
in
trying
to
understand
and
resolve
the
problem,
and,
if
necessary,
to
recommend
possible
solutions
to
senior
Agency
managers.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
Ombudsman
does
not
have
authority
to
change
decisions
made
by
program
managers
or
staff.
Generally,
the
National
Ombudsman
handles
cases
of
national
significance.
The
Regional
Ombudsmen
handle
the
more
routine
requests
for
assistance
and
conducts
more
informal
inquiries
to
investigate
complaints.
The
guidance
explains
how
the
Ombudsman
will
evaluate
requests
for
assistance,
and
how
inquiries
will
be
conducted.
Whatever
capacity
the
Ombudsman
is
serving
in,
he
is
expected
to
act
with
independence,
impartiality
and
confidentialityÐ
the
basic
operating
principles
of
all
Ombudsmen.
The
guidance
provides
a
brief
description
of
how
the
Ombudsman
will
demonstrate
these
responsibilities
effectively
and
discusses
limitations
with
respect
to
confidentiality
imposed
by
existing
laws
and
regulations
that
the
OSWER
Ombudsman
must
abide
by
as
federal
civil
servant.
Our
goal
is
to
receive
feedback
on
the
draft
guidance
from
the
widest
range
of
interested
parties
possible.
We
welcome
comments
on
any
or
all
aspects
of
the
guidance.
Your
comments
will
help
us
improve
this
document.
We
invite
you
to
provide
your
comments
on
our
approach
and
your
ideas
on
alternative
approaches
we
have
not
considered.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible
and
provide
a
summary
of
the
reasoning
you
used
to
arrive
at
your
conclusions.
Tell
us
which
parts
of
the
guidance
you
support,
as
well
as
the
parts
with
which
you
disagree.
Your
comments
must
be
submitted
by
March
5,
2001.
EPA
will
review
the
public
comments
received
on
the
guidance
and
where
appropriate,
incorporate
changes
responsive
to
those
comments.
We
specifically
request
your
comments
on
the
following
three
topics
related
to
the
independence
of
the
Ombudsman.
These
issues
emerged
as
key
issues
during
the
development
of
this
guidance.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
17:
30
Jan
02,
2001
Jkt
194001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
03JAN1.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
03JAN1
367
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
66,
No.
2
/
Wednesday,
January
3,
2001
/
Notices
1.
Does
the
Organizational
Structure
of
the
Ombudsman
Program
Impact
the
Independence
of
the
Ombudsman?

One
of
the
main
principles
an
Ombudsman
operates
under
is
the
ability
to
work
independently
in
determining
which
complaints
to
investigate,
how
an
inquiry
should
proceed
and
what
are
the
findings
of
an
inquiry.
EPA
recognizes
the
importance
of
an
Ombudsman
being
and
appearing
to
be
independent
from
the
organization
he/
she
is
investigating.
EPA
believes
both
the
National
Ombudsman
and
the
Regional
Ombudsmen
are
able
to
look
independently
into
problems
and
facilitate
the
communication
that
can
lead
to
a
solution.
We
do
not
select
which
cases
the
Ombudsman
will
take,
nor
direct
how
the
Ombudsman
will
investigate
a
complaint.
We
do
not
interfere
with
or
attempt
to
influence
the
Ombudsman
as
he
formulates
his
findings
and
recommendations.
From
the
time
Congress
established
the
National
Ombudsman,
this
function
has
been
a
federal
government
employee
reporting
to
a
senior
Agency
official.
Because
the
Ombudsman
is
a
federal
employee,
he/
she
cannot
be
completely
independent
in
the
normal
course
of
relations
between
a
supervisor
and
his/
her
employee.
Currently,
the
National
Ombudsman
reports
directly
to
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER.
We
believe
this
is
the
appropriate
reporting
structure
for
the
National
Ombudsman.
The
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER
is
the
senior
presidential
appointee
responsible
for
the
programs
the
Ombudsman
is
looking
into
and
he/
she
is
in
the
best
position
to
use
the
advice
of
the
National
Ombudsman.
For
the
most
part,
each
Regional
Ombudsman
reports
to
the
appropriate
Regional
Superfund
division
director,
directly
or
through
an
intermediate
supervisor.
No
matter
what
capacity
an
Ombudsman
is
serving
in
at
any
given
time,
we
have
worked
to
ensure
the
Ombudsman's
ability
to
operate
with
maximum
independence.
The
organizational
location
and
operation
of
the
National
Ombudsman
and
the
Regional
Ombudsmen
is
a
matter
of
EPA
discretion.
We
agree
that
it
is
very
important
that
the
Ombudsman
be
and
appear
to
be
independent
from
the
organization
he
is
investigating.
Does
this
structure
ensure
the
appropriate
level
of
interaction
between
the
OSWER
Ombudsman
and
senior
EPA
officials
while
maintaining
enough
independence
for
the
Ombudsman
to
operate
effectively?
2.
Should
the
Ombudsman
Have
Sole
Discretion
To
Decide
How
Cases
Are
To
Be
Handled?

The
guidance
states
that
the
National
and
Regional
Ombudsmen
have
the
discretion
either
to
accept
a
request
for
assistance
or
decline
to
act.
While
the
National
Ombudsman
and
the
Regional
Ombudsmen
work
fairly
autonomously,
coordination
in
this
area
is
crucial.
Requests
for
assistance
may
come
directly
to
either
the
National
or
a
Regional
Ombudsman.
To
avoid
duplication
of
effort,
the
guidance
lays
out
general
procedures
for
evaluating
incoming
requests.
The
guidance
requires
that
before
conducting
an
inquiry
that
is
primarily
related
to
one
Region,
the
National
Ombudsman
will
consult
with
the
relevant
Regional
Ombudsman.
We
believe
this
consultation
will
help
the
National
Ombudsman
make
a
fully
informed
decision
about
whether
it
is
more
appropriate
for
him/
her
to
handle
the
matter,
to
refer
it
to
the
Regional
Ombudsman,
or
to
decline
to
investigate.
Similarly,
a
Regional
Ombudsman
is
expected
to
notify
the
National
Ombudsman
if
he/
she
has
been
requested
to
conduct
an
inquiry
that
may
be
nationally
significant.
The
Regional
Ombudsman
should
discuss
with
the
National
Ombudsman
how
he/
she
plans
to
proceed
with
the
inquiry,
including
the
level
of
involvement
that
the
National
Ombudsman
wishes
to
have
in
the
inquiry.
We
expect
that
a
Regional
Ombudsman
and
the
National
Ombudsman
almost
always
will
agree
on
who
should
handle
an
inquiry.
In
those
rare
situations
when
there
is
not
agreement
the
Assistant
Administrator
or
Deputy
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER
will
resolve
the
dispute.
The
guidance
requires
the
Regional
Ombudsman
(in
consultation
with
the
appropriate
Regional
Administrator
or
Deputy
Regional
Administrator)
and
the
National
Ombudsman
will
each
forward
a
memorandum
to
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER,
or
jointly
hold
a
conference
call
explaining
his/
her
perspective
on
the
disagreement.
The
Assistant
Administrator
or
Deputy
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER
will
then
make
the
decision
about
who
should
handle
the
inquiry.
Is
this
the
appropriate
way
to
resolve
such
disputes?

3.
Should
an
Ombudsman's
Scope
of
Inquiry
Be
Restricted
To
Protect
EPA's
Litigation
Position?

We
considered
three
alternative
approaches
to
this
question.
The
approach
we
selected
and
which
is
reflected
in
the
draft
guidance
generally
precludes
the
Ombudsmen
from
investigating
an
issue
or
dispute
which
is
in
litigation,
i.
e.,
pending
before
a
court.
The
presumption
is
that
Ombudsmen
should
not
take
action
on
an
issue
or
dispute
which
is
in
litigation
since
that
issue
is
in
the
hands
of
an
independent
tribunal
for
decision,
as
provided
for
by
the
relevant
statute.
In
addition,
the
public
has
access
to
that
tribunal
to
raise
serious
concerns.
For
example,
in
the
case
of
a
consent
decree
presented
to
a
court,
public
comment
will
be
solicited
on
the
decree,
and
the
court
will
consider
those
comments
and
then
determine
if
it
is
in
the
public
interest
to
enter
the
decree.
In
the
case
of
a
challenge
to
agency
action,
affected
members
of
the
public
can
intervene
and
present
argument
to
the
court,
and
the
court
will
decide
whether
we
demonstrated
an
adequate
basis
for
its
action
and
whether
we
acted
in
a
nonarbitrary
manner
and
in
accordance
with
law.
This
approach
also
avoids
creating
the
false
impression
that
the
Ombudsman's
office
is
an
alternative
forum
for
arguing
controversial
issues,
which
would
result
in
confusion,
inefficiency,
and
potentially
conflicting
statements
about
the
Agency's
position.
The
OSWER
Ombudsman
program
is
not
intended
or
authorized
to
circumvent
existing
channels
of
management
authority
or
established
formal
administrative
avenues
of
appeal.
However,
we
believe
that
there
may
be
situations
where
it
is
appropriate
for
the
Ombudsman
to
investigate
actions
EPA
has
taken,
even
where
those
actions
are
before
a
court
for
review.
For
instance,
the
Ombudsman
may
have
information
to
suggest
that
our
action
at
issue
in
the
legal
proceedings
is
infirm
or
erroneous.
Or
the
Ombudsman
may
bring
to
Agency
management
information
of
significant
public
concern
about
an
Agency
action
at
issue
in
the
courts.
In
either
case,
if
the
Ombudsman
believes
an
inquiry
is
necessary,
he/
she
should
communicate
that
information
to
the
appropriate
Agency
official
before
proceeding
with
his/
her
inquiry.
Such
an
investigation
would
proceed
only
after
concurrence
by
the
Assistant
Administrator
or
Deputy
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER
or
the
appropriate
Regional
Administrator
or
Deputy
Regional
Administrator,
in
consultation
with
EPA's
lead
litigation
office,
taking
into
account
its
potential
impact
on
pending
litigation.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
presumption
against
investigations
applies
to
an
``
issue
or
dispute''
that
is
before
a
court
for
consideration.
Thus,

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
17:
30
Jan
02,
2001
Jkt
194001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
03JAN1.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
03JAN1
368
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
66,
No.
2
/
Wednesday,
January
3,
2001
/
Notices
the
fact
that
a
site
or
facility
is
in
litigation
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
Ombudsman
should
refrain
from
conducting
an
investigation
of
all
issues
arising
at
that
site
or
facility.
For
instance,
if
the
issue
before
a
court
is
the
authority
of
the
Agency
to
get
access
to
a
piece
of
property,
that
would
not
create
a
presumption
against
an
investigation
of
alleged
deficiencies
regarding
remedy
selection.
For
your
information,
we
are
providing
details
of
the
two
alternative
approaches
to
this
matter
we
considered
but
did
not
select.
The
first
alternative
approach
removed
any
restrictions
on
the
Ombudsman's
ability
to
conduct
an
inquiry
concerning
an
issue
or
dispute
which
is
in
litigation.
The
Ombudsman
would
be
free
to
conduct
an
inquiry
regardless
of
whether
an
issue
or
dispute
was
in
litigation.
The
second
alternative
approach
would
restrain
the
Ombudsman
from
conducting
new
fact
gathering
concerning
decisions
made
based
on
the
administrative
record.
The
Ombudsman
would
remain
able
to
audit
the
existing
information
and
data
that
were
part
of
the
Agency's
factual
record.
Under
this
model,
if
the
Ombudsman
concluded
that
additional
fact
finding
and
data
gathering
were
necessary,
that
would
become
part
of
his
recommendation.
If
the
Agency
agreed
with
this
recommendation,
it
would
conduct
additional
information
gathering
by
utilizing
the
appropriate
program
staff
and
established
procedures.
The
Ombudsman
would
be
precluded
from
undertaking
separate
fact
finding
activities
such
as
public
meetings
and
formal
on­
the­
record
interviews.
This
approach
would
address
concerns
that
an
Ombudsman's
activities
may
create
a
second
record
outside
of
the
official
administrative
record,
which
could
confuse
and
potentially
mislead
the
public
and
could
damage
the
Agency's
position
during
litigation.
Is
the
chosen
approach
the
most
appropriate?

Dated:
December
27,
2000.
Michael
Shapiro,
Acting
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
[FR
Doc.
01±
112
Filed
1±
2±
01;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560±
50±
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL±
6928±
3]

Clean
Water
Act
Section
303(
d):
Availability
of
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(TMDLs)

AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).

ACTION:
Notice
of
availability.

SUMMARY:
This
notice
announces
the
availability
for
comment
of
the
administrative
record
file
for
88
TMDLs
prepared
by
EPA
Region
6
for
waters
listed
in
Louisiana's
Mermentau
and
Vermilion/
Teche
river
basins,
under
section
303(
d)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA).
EPA
prepared
these
TMDLs
in
response
to
a
Court
Order
dated
October
1,
1999,
in
the
lawsuit
Sierra
Club,
et
al.
v.
Clifford
et
al.,
No.
96±
0527,
(E.
D.
La.).
Under
this
court
order,
EPA
is
required
to
prepare
TMDLs
when
needed
for
waters
on
the
Louisiana
1998
section
303(
d)
list
by
December
31,
2007.
DATES:
Comments
on
the
88
TMDLs
must
be
submitted
in
writing
to
EPA
on
or
before
February
2,
2001.

ADDRESSES:
Comments
on
the
88
TMDLs
should
be
sent
to
Ellen
Caldwell,
Environmental
Protection
Specialist,
Water
Quality
Protection
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Region
6,
1445
Ross
Ave.,
Dallas,
TX
75202±
2733.
For
further
information,
contact
Ellen
Caldwell
at
(214)
665±
7513.
The
administrative
record
file
for
these
TMDLs
is
available
for
public
inspection
at
this
address
as
well.
Copies
of
the
TMDLs
and
their
respective
calculations
may
be
viewed
at
www.
epa.
gov/
region6/
water/
tmdl.
htm,
or
obtained
by
calling
or
writing
Ms.
Caldwell
at
the
above
address.
Please
contact
Ms.
Caldwell
to
schedule
an
inspection.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Ellen
Caldwell
at
(214)
665±
7513.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
In
1996,
two
Louisiana
environmental
groups,
the
Sierra
Club
and
Louisiana
Environmental
Action
Network
(plaintiffs),
filed
a
lawsuit
in
Federal
Court
against
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA),
styled
Sierra
Club,
et
al.
v.
Clifford
et
al.,
No.
96±
0527,
(E.
D.
La.).
Among
other
claims,
plaintiffs
alleged
that
EPA
failed
to
establish
Louisiana
TMDLs
in
a
timely
manner.
Discussion
of
the
court's
order
may
be
found
at
65
FR
54032
(September
6,
2000).

EPA
Seeks
Comments
on
88
TMDLs
By
this
notice
EPA
is
seeking
comment
on
the
following
88
TMDLs
for
waters
located
within
the
Mermentau
and
Vermilion/
Teche
basins:

Subsegment
Waterbody
name
Pollutant
060205
..........
Bayou
TecheÐ
Headwaters
At
Bayou
Courtableau
to
I±
10
................................
Salinity/
TDS.
060211
..........
West
Atchafalaya
Borrow
Pit
Canal
.....................................................................
Salinity/
TDS.
060301
..........
Bayou
TecheÐ
I±
10
to
Keystone
Locks
and
Dam
...............................................
Salinity/
TDS.
Chlorides.
050201
..........
Bayou
Plaquemine
BruleÐ
Head­
Waters
to
Bayou
Descannes
..........................
Ammonia.
050401
..........
Mermentau
RiverÐ
Origin
to
Lake
Arthur
............................................................
Ammonia.
060102
..........
Cocodrie
Lake
......................................................................................................
Noxious
Aquatic.
Plants
&
Ammonia.
Chlorides.
Sulfate.
060204
..........
Bayou
CourtableauÐ
Origin
to
West
Atchafalaya
Borrow
Pit
Canal
...................
Ammonia.
Salinity/
TDS.
060203
..........
Chicot
Lake
..........................................................................................................
Noxious
Aquatic.
Plants
&
Nutrients.
050101
..........
Bayou
Des
CannesÐ
Headwaters
to
Mermentau
River
......................................
Nutrients.
050301
..........
Bayou
NezpiqueÐ
Headwaters
to
Mermentau
River
...........................................
Nutrients.
060202
..........
Bayou
Cocodrie
....................................................................................................
Nutrients.
060208
..........
Bayou
BoeufÐ
Headwaters
To
Bayou
Courtableau
............................................
Nutrients.
060211
..........
West
Atchafalaya
Borrow
Pit
Canal
.....................................................................
Sulfates.
060301
..........
Bayou
TecheÐ
I±
10
to
Keystone
Locks
and
Dam
...............................................
Sulfates.
050101
..........
Bayou
Des
CannesÐ
Headwaters
to
Mermentau
River
......................................
Total
Suspended
Solids
(TSS).
050102
..........
Bayou
Joe
Marcel
................................................................................................
TSS.
050103
..........
Bayou
Mallet
.........................................................................................................
TSS.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
17:
30
Jan
02,
2001
Jkt
194001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
03JAN1.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
03JAN1
