TMDL Rule Delay

Federal Register Notice to Delay Effective Date of TMDL Rule to April 30, 2003 and 303(d) List Submittal Date to October 1, 2002

USEPA is proposing to delay the effective date of the June 2000 TMDL rule for 18 months to April 30, 2003, to provide for its reconsideration. USEPA intends to use this time to "fully analyze the findings and recommendations of the National Research Council report" that identified problems with the quality of the science used to list waters and prepare TMDLs. USEPA also intends to revise the rule through a notice and comment process to better address stakeholder comments and challenges. USEPA intends to use this time to "issue guidance incorporating some of the NRC's recommendations regarding the methodology used to develop the list and the content of the list."

Written or electronic comments on this proposed rule must be submitted by September 10, 2001.

ACWA member agencies are encouraged to send comment letters supporting this proposal. For further information contact:

David Bolland
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
Association of California Water Agencies
910 K Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814-3577
Telephone: (916) 441-4545
Fax: (916) 325-2306
e-mail: daveb@acwa.com

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 130

[WH-FRL-7024-6]
RIN 2040-AD22

Delay of Effective Date 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 Regulations; and Revision
of the Date for State Submission of the 2002 List of Impaired Waters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Today's action proposes to delay by 18 months the effective
date of a rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2000. The
July 2000 rule amends and clarifies existing regulations implementing
section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires States to
identify waters that are not meeting State water quality standards and
to establish pollutant budgets, called Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs), to restore the quality of those waters. The rule also lays out
specific time frames under which EPA will assure that lists of waters
not meeting water quality standards (the 303(d) lists) and TMDLs are
completed as scheduled, and necessary National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits are issued to implement TMDLs.
The July 2000 rule generated considerable controversy, as expressed
in letters, testimony, public meetings, Congressional action, and
litigation. Congress prohibited EPA from implementing the final rule
through a spending prohibition attached to the

[[Page 41818]]

Military Construction Appropriations Act: FY 2000 Supplemental
Appropriations. This provision prohibited EPA from using funds made
available for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 ``to make a final
determination on or implement'' the July 2000 TMDL rule. The spending
prohibition is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2001 and, barring
further action by Congress or EPA, the rule will go into effect 30 days
later on October 30, 2001.
Based on the concerns expressed by many interested organizations
and in light of a recent report from the National Research Council
(NRC), entitled ``Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality
Management,'' which recommends changes to the TMDL program, EPA
believes that it is important at this time to re-consider some of the
choices made in the July 2000 rule. While continuing to operate the
program under the 1985 TMDL regulations, as amended in 1992. A delay of
the effective date would allow the Agency to solicit and carefully
consider suggestions on how to structure the TMDL program to be
effective and flexible and to ensure that it leads to workable
solutions that will meet the Clean Water Act goals of restoring
impaired waters. In addition, EPA believes that its decision
voluntarily to reconsider the July 2000 rule may result in revisions to
the rule that would resolve at least some of the issues raised in
pending litigation in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Instead of
expending resources in lengthy litigation, EPA believes it can speed up
the process of putting in place a more workable program, while building
a foundation of trust among stakeholders in the basic process for
restoring impaired waters. Once this foundation is soundly built, it is
far more likely that diverse stakeholders will be able to agree on
plans for restoring water quality and far more likely that these
important plans will be implemented.
In addition, in response to the NRC report, today's action proposes
to revise the date on which States are required to submit the next list
of impaired waters. EPA is proposing to revise the date from April 1,
2002 to October 1, 2002. This delay is intended to provide time for EPA
to issue guidance incorporating some of the NRC's recommendations
regarding the methodology used to develop the list and the content of
the list.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule should be submitted by
September 10, 2001. Comments provided electronically will be considered
timely if they are submitted by 11:59 P.M. September 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may send written comments on this proposed rule to the
W-98-31-III TMDL Comments Clerk, Water Docket (MC-4101); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460. Comments may be hand-delivered to the Water
Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; EB-57;
Washington, DC 20460; (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays. Comments
may be submitted electronically to <A HREF="mailto:ow-docket@epa.gov">ow-docket@epa.gov</A>. The proposed rule
and supporting documents are available for review in the Water Docket
at the above address. An electronic version of this proposal will be
available via the Internet at: <A HREF="http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/delay">http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/delay</A>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about today's
proposal, contact: Francoise M. Brasier, U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds (4503F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, phone (202) 401-
4078.

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 Proposed Rule

Table of Potentially Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governments............................ States, Territories and Tribes
with CWA responsibilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 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 by this action. To
determine whether you may be regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 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. Additional Information for Commenters

Please submit an original and three copies of your comments and
enclosures (including references). To ensure that EPA can read,
understand, and therefore properly respond to comments, the Agency
would prefer that commenters discuss the proposed delay of the
effective date of the July 2000 rule and the proposed delay of the due
date for the 2002 list of impaired waters separately. Electronic
comments must be submitted as a WordPerfect 5.1, WP6.1 or WP8 file or
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters. Comments and
data will also be accepted on disks in WP 5.1, WP6.1 or WP8, or ASCII
file format. Electronic comments on this action may be filed online at
many Federal Depository Libraries. Commenters who want EPA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments should include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) or submissions in other
electronic formats (e.g., Word, pdf, Excel) will be accepted.
The docket for this rulemaking has been established under number W-
98-31-III. The docket is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the
Water Docket; EB 57; U.S. EPA; 401 M Street, SW; Washington, D.C. For
access to docket materials, please call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an
appointment. Every user is entitled to xerox 100 free pages before
incurring a charge. Above this quantity, the Docket may charge 15 cents
a page.

I. Basis for Today's Action and Request for Comment

A. Why Did EPA Publish the July 13, 2000 Rule?

EPA published a final rule on July 13, 2000 (65 FR 43586) amending
the Agency's existing regulations implementing the CWA's TMDL and NPDES
programs. The final regulations were intended to:
a. Provide for a complete national accounting of impaired
waterbodies and tracking of progress towards restoration and clean-up;
b. clarify and provide more specificity regarding the required
elements of a comprehensive TMDL program;
c. achieve national consistency in all elements of the TMDL
program;

[[Page 41819]]

d. require implementation plans as a specific element of a TMDL
under 303(d)
e. require documentation of reasonable assurance that reliable
nonpoint source controls would be implemented in order to share load
reductions between point and nonpoint sources;
f. require that TMDLs be established at an even pace in the 10 to
15 years following the time a waterbody is first listed;
g. prescribe when EPA would step in to do lists and TMDLs for
States, Territories or authorized Tribes;
h. require EPA to issue NPDES permits implementing TMDL wasteload
allocations within two years of TMDL establishment, when it is the
permitting authority; and
i. require EPA to use its authority to step-in when States fail to
revise and re-issue permits needed to implement TMDL wasteload
allocations.

B. Why Does EPA Want To Undertake a Further Review of the TMDL
Regulations?

As EPA was developing the final rule, many organizations and
individuals expressed reservations about the proposed requirements of
the rule. The proposal had generated significant concerns and EPA had
received more than 34,000 comments on the proposed rule. Because of the
controversy, Congress enacted an amendment to the Military Construction
Appropriations Act: FY 2000 Supplemental Appropriations (Pub. L. 106-
426). This provision prohibited EPA from using funds made available for
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 ``to make a final determination on or
implement'' the July 2000 TMDL rule. This Act was signed by the
President on July 14, 2000 effectively prohibiting EPA from
implementing the final regulations which had been signed by the
Administrator on July 11, 2000. Anticipating that the amendment would
go into effect, EPA provided that the effective date of the regulations
would be 30 days after the date that Congress allowed EPA to implement
the regulations.
EPA's decision to promulgate the July 2000 regulations and the
content of the final regulations have generated concerns expressed in
letters, testimony, public meetings, Congressional action, and
litigation. States, business and industry groups, agriculture and
forestry organizations, and local governments have questioned the
scope, complexity, cost, and inflexibility of some of the new
requirements and have challenged the basis for and appropriateness of
some of the new requirements. EPA is listing below some examples of
concerns that have been identified to date. State officials and their
representatives have expressed concerns about the capacity of State
governments to carry out the many new requirements in the final rule
and assert that the rule interferes with State authority. Other State
objections include criticism that specific load and wasteload
allocations in TMDLs, together with the time frames to complete TMDLs
and implement them, will limit opportunity for stakeholder involvement
in defining equitable point and nonpoint source controls. States have
also indicated their concern about the role of EPA in administration of
authorized NPDES programs, particularly the rule provisions regarding
EPA objection to state-issued expired and administratively-continued
permits in order to implement wasteload allocations.
Local government officials have objected to TMDL allocation
approaches that could result in municipal point sources bearing an
inequitable share of the pollutant load reductions needed to attain
water quality standards. Agriculture, forestry, cattle and poultry
groups have expressed their concern that the new implementation plan
requirement places EPA in an inappropriate position for dealing with
nonpoint source controls and that the rule does not allow for adaptive
management. Some assert that there is not enough data to support TMDLs,
that some pollutants are not suitable for TMDL calculation, that the
section 303(d) lists are not based on scientifically-defensible data,
or that the delisting criteria are too inflexible.
Environmental groups have expressed their concern that the rule
does not do enough to address water quality impairments from nonpoint
sources, and have argued that the new schedules in the rule unlawfully
extend Clean Water Act deadlines. They also object to EPA's
interpretation of what constitutes lack of substantial progress in
developing TMDLs, and believe that the rule should specify that EPA
immediately act upon a State, Territory or authorized Tribe's failure
to meet a deadline.
Many of these concerns are reflected in recent lawsuits challenging
the July 2000 rule. Currently ten petitions have been filed by States,
industrial and agricultural groups, and environmental organizations
asserting that EPA's July 2000 rule exceeds the Agency's authority
under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. In addition, several
groups have intervened in these lawsuits. The issues raised by the
petitioners include the scope and content of the section 303(d) list,
the elements of an approvable TMDL, scheduling and backstopping of
TMDLs, and the change to the NPDES regulations addressing
administrative continuance of permits.
Finally, in the FY 2001 Appropriations Bill, Congress directed EPA
to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the
adequacy of scientific methods and approaches currently available to
support development and implementation of TMDLs. The report is
available from the National Academy Press. In general, the report is
supportive of the TMDL program. However, it includes several
recommendations which EPA needs to analyze carefully to determine
whether these recommendations can be implemented in the context of the
July 2000 rule. Particularly, EPA is examining how the July 2000 rule
would need to be revised in order to respond to the NRC's
recommendations, including its findings that ``many waters now on State
303(d) lists were placed there without the benefit of adequate water
quality standards, data or waterbody assessment'' and the NRC's
recommendation that ``adaptive implementation is needed to ensure that
the TMDL program is not halted because of a lack of data and
information, but rather progresses while better data are collected and
analyzed with the intent of improving upon initial TMDL plans.''
While no one rule will satisfy all of these concerns, taken
together, the concerns expressed by States and other interested parties
raise a significant question as to whether the rule sets out a workable
and effective approach to meeting Clean Water Act goals.

C. What Is EPA Proposing Today?

1. Delay of the Effective Date of the July 2000 Rule
Today, EPA is proposing to delay the effective date of the TMDL
rule until April 30, 2003, to allow time for reconsideration of
specific aspects of the rule. EPA intends to use this time to:
Fully analyze the findings and recommendations of the NRC
report;
Discuss better ways to construct the TMDL program with a
broad array of interested parties; and
Revise the TMDL rules through a notice and comment
process.
EPA believes that an 18-month delay of the effective date is the
minimum necessary for the Agency to be able to go through a meaningful
consultation process, analyze and reconcile the

[[Page 41820]]

recommendations of the various stakeholders and implement program
changes. During that delay the program will continue to operate under
the 1985 TMDL regulations as amended in 1992 at 40 CFR Part 130. Under
these regulations, the States and EPA will continue to make significant
progress in restoring impaired waters. EPA expects to approve more than
1,500 TMDLs in FY 2001 and is working with the States to improve the
technical underpinnings of the program through a series of State/EPA
regional forums sponsored by EPA and the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators and development of
technical guidance such as the recently released protocol for
developing pathogen TMDLs.
2. Revision of the Due Date on Which States Are Required To Submit the
2002 List of Impaired Waters
Section 130.7 (d)(1) requires that States submit a list of water
quality limited segments still requiring TMDLs on April 1 of every
even-numbered year. Under this requirement the next list would be due
on April 1, 2002. However, EPA has been unable to issue guidance to the
States, Territories or authorized Tribes regarding the development of
that list because of the uncertainty regarding which set of regulations
would control the listing process in 2002, and the Congress's
prohibition on spending funds to implement the July 2000 rule. In
addition the NRC report provides a number of recommendations for
improving the listing process which EPA is considering implementing to
the extent they are consistent with the Clean Water Act and the
existing regulations. In order to do this, EPA believes that it would
have to develop and issue guidance regarding development of the States'
2002 lists that takes into account the various recommendations of the
NRC. However, EPA does not believe there is enough time to allow
States, Territories and authorized Tribes to be able to participate in
the development of that guidance and to use it to develop lists by
April 1, 2002, EPA, therefore, believes that it would be appropriate to
revise the date for submission of the 2002 lists to be October 1, 2002.
A delay of six months will afford EPA the time to develop such guidance
and make it available to the States for use in compiling their 2002
lists. Moreover, EPA does not believe that this brief delay of the due
date for these lists will in any way pose a risk to public health or
jeopardize the clean-up of the Nations's impaired waters. EPA and the
States will continue to develop TMDLs based on the 1998 lists. EPA is
not aware of any State where postponing the 2002 list will affect the
number of TMDLs to be developed in 2002.
The proposed rule includes a limited exception that would retain
the existing requirement for a State to submit a 2002 list by April 1,
2002, if a court order or consent decree or commitment in a settlement
agreement expressly requires EPA to take an action related to the
State's 2002 list prior to October 1, 2002. In recent years, litigation
under Section 303(d) has resulted in court orders, consent decrees, and
settlement agreements in a number of States related to EPA obligations
in implementing Section 303(d). In order to enable EPA to meet a
commitment embodied in a court order, consent decree, or settlement
agreement, today's proposed rule would retain the existing requirement
for a State to submit a list by April 1, 2002 if a court order or
consent decree or commitment in a settlement agreement expressly
requires EPA to take an action related to the State's 2002 list prior
to October 1, 2002. The Act grants EPA the discretionary authority to
interpret the requirement that States submit lists ``from time to
time.'' In the exercise of this authority EPA believes that it is
appropriate to continue to require a list by April 1, 2002 in those
States in which the absence of a list on that date would unsettle an
existing court order, consent decree or commitment in a settlement
agreement. EPA has reviewed the consent decrees, court orders, and
settlement agreements in cases involving the TMDL program and believes
the only order, consent decree, or settlement agreement with a
requirement for EPA to take an action expressly related to the 2000
list before October 1, 2001, is a consent decree for Georgia.
3. Request for Comment
EPA will consider comments received during the comment period for
this notice that address the proposed delay of the July 2000 TMDL
rule's effective date, and EPA will decide whether to issue a final
delay of the effective date by September 30, 2001. The effect of this
delay would be that the TMDL program would continue to operate under
the rules promulgated in 1985, as amended in 1992, at 40 CFR Part 130.
EPA will also consider comments that address the proposed revision of
the due date of the next section 303(d) list to October 1, 2002 and
decide whether to promulgate this amendment by September 30, 2001. In
addition, EPA will consider comments on its proposal to retain the
existing April 1, 2002, due date if a court order, consent decree, or
commitment in a settlement agreement expressly requires EPA to take an
action related to the State's 2002 list prior to October 1, 2002. EPA
also solicits public comment on whether there are any such orders,
consent decrees, or settlement agreements other than a consent decree
in Georgia, as noted above. If there are, and if EPA revises the due
date to October 1, 2002, as proposed, EPA will notify those States and
will identify those States in the notice of final rulemaking as States,
subject to the exception, in which submission of a year 2002 list by
April 1, 2002, would be required. EPA solicits comments whether to
include this exception in the final rule.

II. Administrative Requirements

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 not a ``significant regulatory action''
and as such, has not been submitted to OMB for review.

B. 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

[[Page 41821]]

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 EPA. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.

C. 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 cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
Tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed 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 anyone. Thus, there are no costs
associated with this action . Therefore, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. This proposed action does not impose any requirements on anyone
and does not voluntarily request information.
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.
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.

E. 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 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. After considering the economic impacts of
today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed action does not impose any requirements
on anyone, including small entities.

F. 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 proposed rulemaking does not impose any new technical
standards.

G. 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 proposal 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 would merely delay the effective
date of the July 2000 rule and the due date of the April 2002 lists.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and in accordance with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this

[[Page 41822]]

proposed rule from State and local officials.

H. 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 proposed rule would merely delay the effective date of the
July 2000 TMDL Rule and delay the due date of the April 1, 2002 lists.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and in accordance with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and Tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
Tribal officials.

I. Plain Language Considerations

The agency is required to write all rules in plain language. EPA
invites public comment on how to make this proposed rule easier to
understand. Comments may address the following questions and other
factors as well:

A. Has EPA organized the material to suit your needs?
B. Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
C. Does the rule contain technical wording or jargon that is not
clear?
D. Would a different format (grouping or order of sections, use
of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
E. Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
F. Could EPA improve clarity by using additional tables, lists
or diagrams?
G. What else could EPA do to make the rule easier to understand?

J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'', 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

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, Hazardous substances, Indians-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 124

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Hazardous substances, Indians-lands, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 130

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

Dated: July 31, 2001.
Christine T. Whitman,
Administrator.

PARTS 9, 122, 123, 124 AND 130--PROPOSED DELAY OF EFFECTIVE DATE
AND REVISIONS

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes:
1. To delay the effective date of the amendments to 40 CFR part 9,
122, 123, 124 and 130 published July 13, 2000 (65 FR 43586) until April
30, 2003.
2. To amend 40 CFR part 130 to read as follows:

PART 130--WATER QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

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

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

b. Section 130.7 is amended by adding a new sentence after the
fourth sentence in paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
(d) * * * (1) * * * For the year 2002 submission, States must
submit a list required under paragraph (b) of this section by October
1, 2002, unless a court order, consent decree or commitment in a
settlement agreement expressly requires EPA to take an action related
to the State's 2002 list prior to October 1, 2002, in which case, the
State must submit a list by April 1, 2002. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-20017 Filed 8-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P