Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices 37783

the NPL, and on April 25, 1995, with

the support of the Governor of the State

of Washington and the Tulalip Tribes of

Washington, EPA published the final

rule adding the Site to the NPL.

EPA performed a Remedial

Investigation (‘‘RI’’) and Feasibility

Study (‘‘FS’’) in two parts pursuant to

an Administrative Order on Consent

with several potentially responsible

parties. The first part evaluated various

containment alternatives for the landfill

source area, which includes

approximately 147 acres in which waste

was deposited. The second part

evaluated the off-source areas, which

include the wetlands and tidal channels

that surround the landfill source area.

On March 1, 1996, EPA issued a

Record of Decision that selected an

interim remedial action for the source

area. The selected interim remedy

requires installation of an engineered,

low-permeability cover over the source

area of the landfill, at an estimated cost

of $25.1 million. On September 29,

1998, EPA issued a Record of Decision

that selected the final remedial action

for the source and off-source areas. The

selected final remedy requires

completion of the cover over the source

area and placement of signs in the offsource area. The estimated cost of the

signs is approximately $15,000.

The proposed settlement requires the

settling party to pay a fixed sum of

money based on its volumetric share.

The total amount to be recovered from

the proposed settlement is $110,698,

paid in five equal annual installments,

plus interest at 5% per annum. The

amount paid will be deposited in the

Tulalip Landfill Special Account within

the EPA Hazardous Substances

Superfund to be used for the cover over

the source area at the landfill. Upon full

payment, the settling party will receive

a release from further civil or

administrative liabilities for the Site and

statutory contribution protection under

Section 122(g)(5) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

9622(g)(5).

EPA will receive written comments

relating to this proposed settlement for

a period of thirty (30) days from the date

of this publication.

The proposed agreement may be

obtained from Cindy Colgate, Office of

Environmental Cleanup (ECL–113),

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–1815. The

Administrative Record for this

settlement may be examined at the

EPA’s Region 10 office located at 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, by contacting Bob Phillips,

Superfund Records Manager, Office of

Environmental Cleanup (ECL–110),

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–6699.

Authority: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act, as amended, 41 U.S.C. Sections

9601–9675.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 00–14491 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6717–5 ]

RIN 2040–AC20

Effluent Guidelines Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Effluent

Guidelines Plan.

SUMMARY: Section 304(m) of the Clean

Water Act requires EPA to publish an

Effluent Guidelines Plan every two

years. Today’s notice describes the

Agency’s ongoing effluent guidelines

development efforts and proposes EPA’s

plans for developing new and revised

effluent guidelines, which regulate

industrial discharges to surface waters

and to publicly owned treatment works.

The Agency requests comment on the

proposal and will publish a final plan

after the comment period ends.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public record for this

notice is located in the EPA Water

Docket, Room EB 57 East Tower, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Lund, Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), telephone 202–260–

7811.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments and Record

Please send an original and 3 copies

of your comments and enclosures

(including references) to Comment

Clerk, Docket Number W–00–14, Water

Docket (MC4101), USEPA, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460. Comments must be received

or post-marked by midnight July 17,

2000.

Commenters who want EPA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

should enclose a self-addressed,

stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes)

will be accepted. Comments may also be

submitted electronically to owdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII, WP5.1, WP6.1 or WP8 file that

does not contain special characters or

encryption. Electronic comments must

be identified by the docket number W–

00–14. You may also submit comments

and data on disks in WP 5.1, 6.1, 8 or

ASCII file format, or electronically at

many online Federal Depository

Libraries.

The public record for this notice has

been established under docket number

W–00–14 and is available for review in

the EPA Water Docket, East Tower

Basement, Room EB 57, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, D.C. from 9 to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. Please call 202/260–3027 to

schedule an appointment to see docket

materials. The EPA public information

regulation (40 CFR Part 2) provides that

a reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

Outline

I. Regulated Entities

II. Legal Authority

III. Introduction

IV. Effluent Guidelines Program Background

A. Legal Framework

B. Components of an Effluent Guideline

Regulation

C. Effluent Guideline Regulations

Promulgated Since the Last 304(m) Plan

1. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

2. Industrial Laundries

3. Landfills and Commercial Hazardous

Waste Combustors

V. Recent Improvements in the Development

of Effluent Guideline Regulations

VI. Today’s Proposed Effluent Guidelines

Plan

A. Rulemaking Activities Started in 1999

1. Meat Products

2. Aquaculture

B. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under

Development

VII. Future Direction of the Effluent

Guidelines Program

A. Targeting the Most Significant

Environmental Problems

B. Targeting Industry Sectors That May Be

Candidates for Pollution Prevention and

Multi-Media Rulemaking

C. Targeting Sources That are Difficult to

Permit

D. Involving Stakeholders in the Year 2002

Section 304(m) Plan

VIII. Request for Comments

IX. Economic Impact Assessment; E.O.

128866

I. Regulated Entities

Today’s proposed plan does not

contain regulatory requirements. Rather,

it identifies industrial categories that

EPA has already chosen for new or

revised effluent guidelines regulation

and sets forth the schedules for those

rulemaking efforts. Entities that could

be affected by the forthcoming effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

identified in this proposed plan are:

37784 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices

Category of Entity Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry/Commercial/Agriculture ......................... Pulp, Paper and Paperboard; Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids (oil and gas production); Centralized Waste Treatment; Metal Products and Machinery (including electroplating, metal finishing); Transportation Equipment Cleaning (truck tanks, railroad tank cars, barge tanks);

Iron and Steel Manufacturing; Coal Mining; builders and developers engaged in construction, development, and redevelopment; Feedlots (swine, poultry, dairy and beef cattle);

Aquaculture (fish hatcheries and farms); Meat Products (slaughtering, rendering, packing,

and processing of red meat and poultry).

Federal Government ........................................... Metal Products and Machinery (including electroplating, metal finishing); builders and developers engaged in construction, development, and redevelopment.

State Government ............................................... Metal Products and Machinery (including electroplating, metal finishing); builders and developers engaged in construction, development, and redevelopment.

Local Government .............................................. Metal Products and Machinery (including electroplating, metal finishing); builders and developers engaged in construction, development and redevelopment.

II. Legal Authority

Today’s notice is published under the

authority of section 304(m) of the Clean

Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(m).

III. Introduction

Today’s notice announces the

Agency’s proposed section 304(m) plan

for 2000, including the two new effluent

guidelines regulations that EPA started

in 1999 (Meat Products and

Aquaculture). Today’s notice also

outlines a preliminary framework by

which EPA, working with its State

partners, the regulated community, and

concerned citizens, can build upon the

successes of its effluent guidelines

program for the next decade and

beyond. EPA invites the public to

comment on all aspects of today’s notice

and particularly welcomes comments

regarding the ways in which EPA can

use its effluent guidelines program to

achieve sustained environmental

improvements.

With the 1972 passage of the

landmark Clean Water Act, EPA was

charged with developing effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

that would provide a minimum,

technology-based threshold for ongoing

improvements in effluent quality. The

legislative history of CWA section

304(b), which is the heart of the effluent

guidelines program, describes the need

to press toward higher levels of control

through research and development of

new processes, modifications,

replacement of obsolete plans and

processes, and other improvements in

technology, taking into account the cost

of controls. See Statement of Senator

Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in

Legislative History of the Clean Water

Act of 1972, at 170.

To date, EPA has promulgated

effluent limitations guidelines for more

than 50 industrial categories affecting

approximately 30,000 facilities that

discharge directly to the Nation’s

waters. If EPA includes pretreatment

controls for sources that discharge into

publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs), EPA’s effluent limitations

guidelines and standards regulate the

effluent from approximately 45,000

facilities. These technology-based

regulations are responsible for

preventing the discharge of more than a

billion pounds of priority toxic

pollutants each year. These toxic

pollutants include chemicals known to

cause or contribute to cancer, hinder

mental and motor development in

children, impact the central nervous

system, and damage major organs, such

as the kidney and liver.

These regulations have helped to

reverse the degradation of water quality

that accompanied industrialization in

this country by reducing the discharge

of pollutants that kill or impair aquatic

organisms, degrade aquatic ecosystems,

or cause human health problems

through ingestion of contaminated

water, fish, or shellfish. Rivers that once

were impaired now sustain thriving

ecosystems. Waterways once suitable for

little more than transportation are now

valued recreational resources, often

leading to expanded tourism and

increased value of waterfront property.

These regulations have accomplished

water quality improvements through

cost-effective control of pollutants. This

in turn has allowed growth and

expansion of industry concurrent with

an improved quality of life for

generations to come.

While EPA is very proud of these

accomplishments, we recognize that

water quality problems have not been

eliminated. Despite successes in

reducing water pollution, approximately

40 percent of the Nation’s waters

assessed by the States and Tribes do not

meet State or Tribal water quality

standards. In 1998, States identified

more than 20,000 such waters in their

section 303(d) lists of impaired waters,

comprising approximately 300,000

miles of impaired rivers and streams

and 7.9 million acres of lakes. The

overwhelming majority of Americans

live within ten miles of a polluted

waterbody. The pollutants most

frequently identified as causing water

impairment are siltation, excess

nutrients, and harmful pathogens.

Toxics pollutants (including metals,

mercury and pesticides) also contribute

to water quality impairments. As EPA

establishes new or revised effluent

limitations guidelines for pollutants

discharged by categories or classes of

sources, we expect that fewer waters

will need additional water qualityrelated controls to meet water quality

standards.

As discussed in greater detail in

Section VII below, EPA intends to

continue to use the effluent guidelines

program to provide even greater

protection of human health and the

environment. EPA expects that, from

1995 to 2005, the effluent guidelines

program will prevent an additional nine

million pounds of priority toxic

pollutants and 1.5 billion pounds of

conventional and nonconventional

pollutants from entering the Nation’s

waters each year. EPA believes that

most stakeholders recognize the

continuing role of effluent guidelines in

helping achieve the objectives of the

Clean Water Act, although EPA also

recognizes that there are many paths.

For this reason, EPA believes it is

critical to engage in an ongoing dialogue

with the interested public about the

future role of the program. EPA intends

today’s notice to start that dialogue.

IV. Effluent Guidelines Program

Background

A. Legal Framework

The Clean Water Act directs EPA to

promulgate effluent limitations

guidelines and standards that, for most

pollutants, reflect the level of pollutant

control achievable by the best available

technologies economically achievable

for categories or subcategories of

industrial point sources. See CWA

sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b)

and 307(c). For point sources that

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices 37785

introduce pollutants directly into the

Nation’s waters (i.e., direct dischargers),

the limitations and standards

promulgated by EPA are implemented

in National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b) and

402. For sources that discharge to

POTWs (i.e., indirect dischargers), EPA

promulgates pretreatment standards that

apply directly to those sources and are

enforced by POTWs backed by State and

Federal authorities. See CWA sections

307(b) and (c).

Section 304(m) requires EPA to

publish a plan every two years that

consists of three elements. First, under

section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is required to

establish a schedule for the annual

review and revision of existing effluent

guidelines in accordance with section

304(b). Section 304(b) applies to effluent

limitations guidelines for direct

dischargers and requires EPA to revise

such regulations as appropriate. Second,

under section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA must

identify categories of sources

discharging toxic or nonconventional

pollutants for which EPA has not

published effluent limitations

guidelines under 304(b)(2) or new

source performance standards (NSPS)

under section 306. Finally, under

304(m)(1)(C), EPA must establish a

schedule for the promulgation of

effluent limitations guidelines under

304(b)(2) and NSPS for the categories

identified under subparagraph (B) not

later than three years after being

identified in the 304(m) plan. Section

304(m) does not apply to pretreatment

standards for indirect dischargers,

which EPA promulgates pursuant to

sections 307(b) and 307(c) of the Clean

Water Act.

On October 30, 1989, Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., and

Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action

against EPA in which they alleged,

among other things, that EPA had failed

to comply with CWA section 304(m).

Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a

settlement of that action in a consent

decree entered on January 31, 1992. The

consent decree, which has been

modified several times, established a

schedule by which EPA is to propose

and take final action for eleven point

source categories identified by name in

the decree, see Consent Decree, pars.

2(a) and 4(a), and for eight other point

source categories identified only as new

or revised rules, numbered 5 through

12, see Consent Decree par. 5(a).

The schedule has been modified

several times since 1992. The last date

for EPA action under the decree, as

modified, is June 2004. The decree also

established deadlines for EPA to

complete studies of eight identified and

three unidentified point source

categories. See Consent Decree, par.

3(a). The decree further provides that

the foregoing requirements shall be set

forth in EPA’s section 304(m) plans. See

Consent Decree, pars. 3(a), 4(a), 5(a).

Under the decree, EPA is directed to use

the studies as well as other available

information to select the eight point

source categories for which EPA has

agreed to issue new or revised rules

under paragraph 5(a). Finally, the

consent decree provides that section

304(m) plans issued subsequent to the

decree that are consistent with its terms

shall satisfy EPA’s obligations under

section 304(m) with respect to the

publication of such plans. See Consent

Decree, par. 7(b).

The decree also required EPA to

establish an Effluent Guidelines Task

Force to make recommendations for

improvements to the effluent guidelines

program. See Consent Decree, par. 8.

EPA did so in 1992. The Task Force,

which was created to offer advice to the

EPA Administrator on a process for

expediting the promulgation of effluent

guidelines, among other topics, consists

of members appointed by the Agency

from industry, citizen groups, state and

local governments, the academic and

scientific communities, and EPA’s

Office of Research and Development.

The Task Force has held several public

meetings each year since 1992 and has

submitted recommendations to the EPA

Administrator.

B. Components of an Effluent Guideline

Regulation

The principal components of most

effluent guideline regulations are

numerical wastewater discharge

limitations controlling specified

pollutants for a given industrial point

source category or subcategory. These

are typically concentration-based limits

(specified in units such as milligrams of

pollutant per liter of water) or

production-based mass limits (specified

in units such as milligrams of pollutant

per unit of production). Numerical

limits also cover parameters such as pH

and temperature.

When developing an effluent

guideline regulation, EPA often

subcategorizes an industrial category

based on differences in raw materials,

manufacturing processes, characteristics

of the wastewaters, or type of product

manufactured. Sometimes, EPA

establishes subcategories based on

economic impacts, non-water quality

environmental impacts or other

appropriate factors that justify the

imposition of specialized requirements

on facilities in segments of an industry.

Typically, EPA develops a set of effluent

limitations for each category,

subcategory or segment.

In some cases, a regulation may

prescribe Best Management Practices

(BMPs) in addition to or in lieu of

numerical limits. BMPs may include, for

example, requirements addressing the

minimization or prevention of storm

water runoff, plant maintenance

schedules, and requirements addressing

the training of plant personnel. See, e.g.,

40 CFR 430.03 (BMPs for portions of the

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard category).

C. Effluent Guideline Regulations

Promulgated Since the Last 304(m) Plan

In addition to the Airport Deicing

Preliminary Study, which EPA

completed in December 1999, EPA

completed the following regulatory

efforts since the last 304(m) plan:

1. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

The Administrator published a final

rule for the Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing Category in the Federal

Register on September 21, 1998 (63 FR

50387).

2. Industrial Laundries

The Administrator published a final

decision in the Federal Register on

August 18, 1999 (64 FR 45071) with

respect to the proposed industrial

laundries industry effluent guideline. In

that notice, the Administrator

announced the Agency’s decision not to

promulgate effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for that

industrial category.

3. Landfills and Commercial Hazardous

Waste Combustors

The Administrator published final

rules for the Landfills industry in the

Federal Register on January 19, 2000

(65 FR 3007), and for the Commercial

Hazardous Waste Combustors industry

on January 24, 2000 (65 FR 4360).

V. Recent Improvements in the

Development of Effluent Guideline

Regulations

EPA has accumulated a great deal of

experience and expertise in the course

of preparing more than 50 effluent

guidelines. Since the last 304(m) Plan

was announced in 1998, EPA has made

significant progress in expediting

effluent guideline development. For

many of the effluent guidelines

underway, EPA is in the process of

revising existing regulations to address

specific environmental issues. In many

of these instances, EPA is focusing on

the segments of the industry most

pertinent to those environmental issues

37786 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices

and is collecting data on pollutants of

greatest concern.

In turn, these focused efforts make it

possible for EPA, in several cases, to use

existing data instead of requiring

regulated entities to respond to detailed

questionnaires. Greater involvement of

other government agencies, other offices

within EPA, industry, equipment

vendors, and environmental interest

groups is crucial to the success of this

approach. For several rules, including

the effluent guidelines for the SyntheticBased Drilling Fluids (Oil and Gas

Production) category and the Metal

Products and Machinery category,

stakeholders expressed an interest in

submitting sampling data for EPA’s

consideration. The Office of Water

worked with these stakeholders in order

to ensure that the information they

submitted met EPA’s data quality needs.

The Office of Water also adopted an

approach that has been successfully

used in many instances by the Office of

Air and Radiation. This approach,

sometimes called the ‘‘presumptive’’

approach, involves the early

identification of one technology option

through a combination of stakeholder

involvement and early analysis of

available information. This approach is

particularly useful for those industry

sectors for which relatively few

technologies have been identified or

implemented.

As a result, EPA is significantly

expediting the proposal of regulations.

On average, this means that EPA now

issues its proposed regulations

approximately 30 months from the start

of the process, compared to the

traditional 60 month schedule that was

common in earlier years of the program.

VI. Today’s Proposed Effluent

Guidelines Plan

A. Rulemaking Activities Started in

1999

EPA has learned that States and

Regions have a strong interest in EPA

promulgating new or revised regulations

to address nutrient loadings. The new

selections reflect the Agency’s desire to

reduce nutrient loadings and improve

the quality of our Nation’s waters.

1. Meat Products

This industry includes approximately

1,300 packing plants, 1,100 plants that

perform ‘‘further processing’’ of meats,

270 rendering facilities, and 370 poultry

processing facilities. Although

guidelines for the control of water

pollution from these facilities were

established in the mid-1970’s, those

regulations do not include controls on

nutrients. Moreover, no guidelines of

any kind were promulgated for the

poultry sector. Some of these facilities

contribute nutrient loadings in

environmentally sensitive areas.

Improvements in waste treatment to

control nutrients and pathogens are

available, but changes in industry

practices to increase food safety, health,

and sanitation concerns may affect the

design and cost of those controls.

2. Aquaculture

The Aquaculture category includes

close to 5,000 facilities (both land-based

and marine-based) with locations in

every state and in Puerto Rico. It is

currently the fastest growing segment of

U.S. agriculture. EPA produced a

guidance document for the control of

wastewater from fish hatcheries and

farms in 1977, but no national effluent

limitations guidelines have ever been

promulgated for this industry.

Some aquaculture facilities contribute

nutrients and pathogens to

environmentally sensitive areas such as

the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay,

and other estuaries, rivers, lakes, and

streams throughout the country.

Improvements in wastewater treatment

within the Aquaculture category have

been used by some facilities to reduce

the pollutant load. EPA’s regulatory

development will consider the

availability and affordability of effluent

limits based on these wastewater

treatment technologies. EPA will

develop regulatory options that apply to

the following types of aquatic animal

production: ponds, net pens (including

pens in open waters), raceways, and

recirculating systems. EPA will consider

establishing limitations to control

nutrients, total suspended solids,

human and non-human pathogens,

antibiotics, pesticides, and biological

impairments due to the introduction of

non-native species.

B. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under

Development

The status of the regulations for new

or revised effluent guidelines are set

forth in Table 1.

Category Federal Register Cite/Proposal Date Final action date

Transportation Equipment Cleaning .............................................. 63 FR 34685 (June 25, 1998) ...................................................... 6/15/00

Centralized Waste Treatment ........................................................ 60 FR 5464 (January 27, 1995); ..................................................

64 FR 2279 (January 13, 1999) ...................................................

8/31/00

Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids (Oil and Gas Production) ............. 64 FR 5487 (February 3, 1999) .................................................... 12/00

Coal Mining .................................................................................... 65 FR 19439 (April 11, 2000) ....................................................... 12/01

Iron and Steel Manufacturing ........................................................ 10/00 ............................................................................................. 4/02

Metal Products and Machinery, Phases I and II ........................... 60 FR 28209 (May 30, 1995)—Phase I only; 10/00 (Phase I and

II).

12/02

Construction and Development ..................................................... * 12/00 ........................................................................................... * 12/02

Feedlots (Poultry, Swine, Beef, and Dairy Subcategories) ........... 12/15/00 ........................................................................................ 12/15/02

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard, Phases 2 & 3 ................................ 58 FR 66078 (December 17, 1993) .............................................. 2000–2002

Meat Products ................................................................................ 12/01 ............................................................................................. 12/03

Aquaculture .................................................................................... 6/30/02 .......................................................................................... 6/30/04

* EPA is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC

VII. Future Direction of the Effluent

Guidelines Program

The effluent guidelines program is

one of EPA’s most successful

environmental protection programs.

EPA develops performance standards

based on demonstrated technologies

that are affordable for industry as a

whole. Supported by sound data and

analysis, the effluent guidelines

program strives for the greatest pollutant

reductions that can be economically

achieved within the regulated

community. In setting performance

standards, EPA considers pollution

prevention approaches in addition to

more traditional treatment technologies,

with the result that the air and soil also

benefit from wastewater regulations.

Moreover, this program gives the

regulated community considerable

flexibility in achieving the performance

standards. Thus, dischargers are

encouraged to develop less expensive

alternatives to comply with the

performance standards than those

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices 37787

identified by the Agency. Invariably, the

more cost-effective technologies and

processes often become the industry

norm—in this way yielding even greater

environmental results at lower cost than

contemplated by the regulation itself.

In the future, the effluent guidelines

program will evolve to face new

challenges. New or revised effluent

guidelines can help solve the serious

water quality problems still remaining

in the Nation’s waterways, which are

most frequently caused by excess

nutrients, sedimentation, pathogens,

metals, and toxic pollutants. Also, more

stringent levels of pollution reduction

are now economically achievable in

some industrial categories or

subcategories due to the emergence of

new or innovative pollution control

technologies. To help plan for the

future, EPA intends to use the section

304(m) planning process established by

the Clean Water Act to expand its

dialogue with the interested public

regarding how to use the effluent

guidelines program to achieve the

greatest environmental benefits.

As discussed above, section 304(m)(1)

requires EPA every two years to identify

industry categories for new or revised

regulations and to establish a schedule

for final action on those rules.

Consistent with the consent decree

pertaining to section 304(m), EPA

discharged this duty in December 1999

when it identified Aquaculture and

Meat Products as categories for new

effluent guidelines and established

schedules for those rules. The 2000

section 304(m) plan will report that

action. Now, EPA is beginning the

process for developing its section

304(m) plan for the year 2002.

As EPA looks forward to the 2002

section 304(m) plan, selection criteria

will be critical. Based on

recommendations of the Effluent

Guidelines Task Force, EPA has

identified criteria for selecting

categories for new or revised effluent

guidelines. These include categories

with potential multi-media impacts that

may be candidates for coordinated

rulemakings and categories that cause

environmental impacts.

In order to apply these selection

criteria, EPA needs to assemble

information for numerous industrial

categories. Possible information sources

are discussed below.

A. Targeting the Most Significant

Environmental Problems

EPA identified three currently

available sources of information to help

determine the most significant

environmental problems. First, EPA’s

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics has developed a risk model

called ‘‘Risk Screening Environmental

Indicators’’ (RSEI). This model can be

used to perform screening-level analyses

of the potential risk-related impacts

associated with releases reported in the

Toxic Release Inventory. Many of the

sources modeled to have the highest risk

to water are in one of the metals

industries, such as the Iron and Steel

industry or the Metal Products and

Machinery industry, for which effluent

limitations guidelines development or

revision is already underway. Second,

pursuant to section 303(d) of the Clean

Water Act and EPA’s implementing

regulations, States must list waters that

do not meet applicable water quality

standards after application of

technology-based and other controls.

These section 303(d) lists identify the

pollutants and the source categories that

may be responsible for the water quality

impairments. Third, pursuant to section

305(b) of the Clean Water Act, States

report the quality of their waters every

two years. The source categories

reported as the cause of impairment in

these reports are consistent with those

listed under section 303(d).

EPA notes that there is no overlap

between the categories ranking highest

using the RSEI risk model and the

categories listed by the States as

contributing to siltation, nutrients, and

pathogens. This finding is not

particularly surprising because the

assessment factors differ, e.g., chronic

human health impacts in the case of the

RSEI risk model, in contrast to

emphases on aquatic ecosystem health

as well as other designated use

impairments, in the case of the section

303(d) lists and 305(b) reports.

B. Targeting Industry Sectors That May

Be Candidates for Pollution Prevention

and Multi-Media Rulemaking

Through its sector-based activities,

such as the Common Sense Initiative,

EPA recognizes that addressing all

environmental concerns from an

industry sector concurrently can

improve pollution prevention, resulting

in better environmental results at lower

cost than addressing the environmental

releases one media at a time. EPA’s Task

Force on Coordinated Rulemaking,

which was created to identify and

initiate sector-based rulemakings that

would benefit from a cross-Agency,

multi-program coordinated effort, is one

attempt to capitalize on this concept.

The Task Force on Coordinated

Rulemaking is one potential source of

information on possible sectors for

future effluent guideline development.

Another potential source is EPA’s

Integrated Urban Strategy of the

National Air Toxics Program. Although

this strategy presents a framework for

reducing air toxics (i.e., hazardous air

pollutants) in urban areas, many of the

sources that have been identified

contribute pollutants to the water

environment as well. The link between

wastewater treatment and air emissions,

like the link between air emission

treatment and wastewater, may point to

a coordinated approach for addressing

the highest risk sources.

C. Targeting Sources That are Difficult

to Permit

Effluent limitations guidelines

establish nationally applicable

standards that are implemented through

NPDES discharge permits issued by

authorized States and Tribes or EPA. In

the absence of these regulations, permit

writers must determine technologybased limitations using their best

professional judgment. Our State and

Tribal regulatory partners are some of

the best sources of information about

the adequacy and coverage of existing

effluent limitations guidelines. States

and Tribes have helped to identify many

of the sectors for which effluent

guidelines are currently being

developed or revised.

D. Involving Stakeholders in the Year

2002 Section 304(m) Plan

To help prepare the year 2002 section

304(m) plan, EPA plans to engage all

interested parties in a dialogue about

how to make the section 304(m)

planning process succeed—and how to

define success. The Agency has already

launched the dialogue through

discussions with the Effluent Guidelines

Task Force, whose membership reflect a

variety of stakeholder viewpoints. Based

on those discussions, EPA proposes and

solicits public comment regarding the

following planning strategy.

First, EPA intends to seek the views

of as many interested persons as

possible, with particular emphasis on

individuals and organizations

associated with industry, environmental

interest groups, and State, Tribal and

local governments. EPA expects to

explore issues associated with the future

and objectives of the effluent guidelines

program and criteria EPA should

employ in selecting among industry

categories for possible new or revised

effluent guidelines regulations. EPA also

hopes to gather specific information

regarding pollution problems and

possible sources that will allow EPA to

make its selection decisions for the

coming years.

EPA intends to reach out to interested

stakeholders primarily by attending and

where possible participating in meetings

37788 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices

and conferences sponsored by members

of these communities, as well as

through its website (http://

www.epa.gov/ost) and less formal

meetings. Members of the Effluent

Guidelines Task Force have also agreed

to assist EPA in this outreach effort. At

this point, EPA envisions that this

outreach will culminate in a one or two

day highly focused national meeting of

interested stakeholders in early

December 2000 for the purpose of

discussing how EPA can best use the

effluent guidelines program to advance

the Nation’s most important water

pollution problems, including a

discussion of selection criteria and

information sources. EPA also intends

to discuss whether EPA’s procedures for

implementing the requirements of CWA

section 304(m), including the process

for selecting industrial categories for

new or revised effluent guidelines,

should be codified in federal

regulations. The Effluent Guidelines

Task Force has expressed preliminary

support for such a regulation.

Next, assuming that there is support

for EPA to develop a regulation to

implement section 304(m), EPA would

hope to propose such a regulation for

public comment in May 2001. EPA

expects that the content of the

regulation would be greatly influenced

by the discussions at the national

stakeholders meeting. The Effluent

Guidelines Task Force has indicated its

willingness to work with EPA in

developing any such proposed section

304(m) regulation. If EPA proposes a

section 304(m) regulation, EPA also

envisions proposing for public comment

at the same time its section 304(m) plan

for 2002. In this scenario, EPA expects

that the proposed plan would apply the

principles set forth in the accompanying

proposed section 304(m) regulation,

thereby giving the public an opportunity

to evaluate the proposed regulation in

terms of how EPA would apply it.

Finally, EPA intends to issue a final

section 304(m) plan in February 2002.

Again assuming that EPA proceeds with

the regulation, EPA hopes to promulgate

at the same time a final regulation to

guide EPA in implementing section

304(m) for the future.

VIII. Request for Comments

EPA invites public comment on

today’s proposed plan and most

particularly on the section 304(m)

planning strategy described

immediately above. The Agency will

accept comments until July 17, 2000. In

particular, the Agency wants to learn

about other sources of data that would

help it compare wastestream

characteristics, treatment practices, and

effects on water quality among different

discharger categories. EPA also requests

comments on methodologies by which

the Agency, together with our regulatory

partners, technology experts, and other

stakeholders, can annually review the

applicability and potential economic

impacts of technological advances on

industries regulated by effluent

guidelines. EPA also requests comment

on potential methodologies for

identifying categories of sources

discharging toxic or nonconventional

pollutants for which effluent limitations

guidelines under 304(b)(2) and NSPS

have not been published.

IX. Economic Impact Assessment;

Executive Order 12866

Today’s notice proposes a plan for the

review and revision of existing effluent

guidelines and for the selection of

priority industries for new regulations.

This notice is not a ‘‘rule’’ subject to 5

U.S.C. 553 and does not establish any

requirements; therefore, EPA has not

prepared an economic impact

assessment. EPA will provide economic

impact analyses, regulatory flexibility

analyses or regulatory impact

assessments, as appropriate, for all of

the future effluent guideline

rulemakings developed by the Agency.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

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 plan

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Dana D. Minerva,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 00–15298 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6715–8]

Massachusetts Marine Sanitation

Device Standard; Receipt of Petition;

Buzzards Bay

Notice is hereby given that a petition

has been received from the State of

Massachusetts requesting a

determination from the Regional

Administrator, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, pursuant to Section

312(f)(3) of Public Law 92–500 as

amended by Public Law 95–217 and

Public Law 100–4, that adequate

facilities for the safe and sanitary

removal and treatment of sewage from

all vessels are reasonably available for

Buzzards Bay, surrounded by the towns

Acushnet, Bourne, Dartmouth,

Fairhaven, Falmouth, Gosnold, Marion,

Mattapoisett, New Bedford, Rochester,

and Wareham, in the State of

Massachusetts, to qualify as a ‘‘No

Discharge Area’’ (NDA). The proposed

area encompasses approximately 210

square miles. The areas covered under

this petition include:

Longitude Latitude

71°07′12.80′′ ............. 41°29′48.48′′

71°05′45.60′′ ............. 41°25′05.52′′

71°03′32.04′′ ............. 41°25′24.96′′

71°59′51.72′′ ............. 41°22′30.00′′

70°56′57.12′′ ............. 41°24′33.12′′

70°54′29.88′′ ............. 41°25′17.04′′

70°54′11.52′′ ............. 41°25′17.04

70°51′19.80′′ ............. 41°26′24.00′′

70°50′22.92′′ ............. 41°26′44.88′′

70°48′28.80′′ ............. 41°26′56.76′′

70°48′18.00′′ ............. 41°26′59.28′′

70°42′06.12′′ ............. 41°30′34.92′′

10°41′58.20′′ ............. 41°30′37.80′′

10°40′51.60′′ ............. 41°30′55.44′′

70°40′58.44′′ ............. 41°31′14.16′′

70°37′27.48′′ 41°44′14.64′′—Canal

Entrance West

70°37′21.36′′ 41°44′10.68′′—Canal

Entrance East

The State of Massachusetts has

certified that there are thirty disposal

facilities available to service vessels

operating in the waters of Buzzards Bay.

A list of the facilities, phone numbers,

locations, and hours of operation is

appended at the end of this petition. An

additional seven facilities are pending

or under construction. Of the thirty

current facilities, sixteen are fixed shore