2000 Federal Register

[Federal Register: March 31, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 63)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17166-17170]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31mr00-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 130

[FRL-6569-7]

Revision to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation
Listing Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 2000.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Clean Water Act Section 303.

I. Potentially Regulated Entities

[[Page 17167]]

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
you are regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 130.1 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to you, please consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

A. Existing Requirement

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

B. Proposed Rule

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

C. Comments Sought

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

III. Summary of Final Rule

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

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

[[Page 17168]]

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

B. Other Comments

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

C. Effective Date of the Final Rule

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

IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

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

RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act

[[Page 17169]]

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

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that attains the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and
tribal governments or the private sector. The final rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. The final rule is deregulatory because it eliminates
the current regulatory requirement that States, Territories, and
authorized Tribes submit lists of impaired waterbodies in 2000. Thus,
today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202
and 205 of UMRA.
For the same reasons discussed in the section on the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, EPA has determined that this final rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance

[[Page 17170]]

costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. As discussed above, the final
rule that removes the obligation that States, Territories, and
authorized Tribes submit a section 303(d) list is deregulatory because
it eliminates a current requirement. Thus, the requirements of section
6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this final rule.

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

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

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

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

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This final rule does not involve any technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

I. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective March 31, 2000, for reasons
discussed previously in this preamble.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 130

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

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

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

PART 130--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

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

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

Water | Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds | Watershed Protection

2000 Federal Register

Local Navigation