364 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on standard computer

disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII

file format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number OEI-100005.

Electronic comments on this proposal

may also be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI

Information that I Want to Submit to the

Agency?

You may claim information that you

submit in response to this proposal as

CBI by marking any part or all of that

information as CBI. Information so

marked will not be disclosed except in

accordance with procedures set forth in

40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment

that does not contain CBI must be

submitted for inclusion in the public

record. Information not marked

confidential will be included in the

public docket by EPA without prior

notice. If you have any questions about

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,

please consult with the technical person

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

The purpose of the meeting is to work

with a small group of stakeholders to

solicit input on the types of information

that EPA can provide to help users

better understand the Toxics Release

Inventory data. One goal in particular is

to identify ways that EPA can help users

of the data understand the different

factors to consider when using the TRI

data. To achieve this goal, EPA is

interested in identifying documents

and/or tools that the Agency can

develop to assist a variety of data users

in understanding and using the TRI

data. In the past there have been issues

raised with regard to the definition of

‘‘release,’’ particularly with respect to

Class I underground injection wells and

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) Subtitle C landfills. Some

stakeholders believe that the way EPA

provides the data to the public leads to

an erroneous perception that a reported

EPCRA section 313 ‘‘release’’

necessarily results in an actual exposure

of people or the environment to a toxic

chemical. EPA is interested in obtaining

ideas from stakeholders on documents

and/or tools needed to assist data users

in understanding the context of all types

of toxic chemical releases reported

under EPCRA section 313.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Community right-to-know, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Toxic

chemicals.

Dated: December 20, 2000.

Elaine G. Stanley, Director

Office of Information Analysis and Access.

[FR Doc. 01–118 File 1–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6928–1]

Notice of Availability: Draft Guidance

on Implementing the Water QualityBased Provisions in the Combined

Sewer Overflow Control Policy

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; availability of draft

guidance.

SUMMARY: This document announces

that the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is publishing Draft

Guidance On Implementing The Water

Quality-Based Provisions in the

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)

Control Policy. The guidance is

designed to address questions raised

since the publication of the CSO Control

Policy in 1994 on integrating the longterm control plan (LTCP) development

process with the water quality standards

review. As outlined in the guidance,

EPA will continue to implement the

CSO Control Policy through its existing

statutory and regulatory authorities. The

guidance cannot impose legally binding

requirements on EPA, States, Tribes, or

the regulated community. It cannot

substitute for Clean Water Act (CWA)

requirements, EPA’s regulations, or the

obligations imposed by consent decrees

or enforcement orders.

DATES: Public Comments: All public

comments on the draft guidance must be

received on or before March 5, 2001. All

comments should be submitted in

writing to the address listed below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Timothy Dwyer, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, ICC

Building (MC 4203M), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Commenters are

also requested to submit an original and

3 copies of their written comments as

well as an original and 3 copies of any

attachments, enclosures, or other

documents referenced in the comments.

EPA will also accept comments

electronically. Comments should be

addressed to the following e-mail

address: dwyer.tim@epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/8 format file

and avoid the use of special characters

or any form of encryption.

Interested persons may obtain a copy

of the guidance from the Office of

Wastewater Management’s website

(http://www.epa.gov/owm/cso.htm) or

by contacting the Office of Water

Resources Center at 202–260–7786 (email: center.water-resource@epa.gov);

mailing address is: Office of Water

Resources Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, RC–4100, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460. Please request, ‘‘Draft

Guidance on Implementing the Water

Quality-Based Provisions in the

Combined Sewer Overflow Control

Policy’’ (EPA Number 833-D–00–002;

December 2000).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy Dwyer, Office of Wastewater

Management, Water Permits Division,

MC 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:

202–564–0717.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued the Combined Sewer Overflow

(CSO) Control Policy in April 1994 (59

FR 18688). To date, EPA has released

seven guidance documents and worked

with stakeholders to foster

implementation of the Policy. The CSO

Control Policy calls for the development

of a long-term control plan (LTCP),

which includes measures that provide

for compliance with the Clean Water

Act including attainment of water

quality standards. The CSO Control

Policy provides that the LTCP should be

coordinated with the review and

revision, as appropriate, of water quality

standards and implementation

procedures on CSO-impacted receiving

waters. This process is intended to

ensure that the long-term controls will

be sufficient to meet water quality

standards (59 FR 18694).

As part of EPA’s FY 1999

Appropriation, Congress directed EPA

to develop guidance on the conduct of

water quality standards and designated

use reviews for CSO-receiving waters,

and urged EPA to provide technical and

financial assistance to States and EPA

Regions to conduct these reviews. In

response, EPA hosted three stakeholder

listening sessions in the Spring of 1999

and an experts workshop on September

24, 1999. The purpose of these meetings

was to obtain participants’ views on the

impediments to implementing the water

quality-based provisions in the CSO

Control Policy. The guidance addresses

many of the stakeholders’ concerns, and

recommends actions that EPA, State and

Interstate Water Pollution Control

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices 365

Directors, and CSO communities can

take to address their concerns.

The objective of this guidance is to lay

a strong foundation for integrating CSO

long-term control planning with water

quality standards reviews. Reaching

early agreement among CSO

communities, States, EPA, and the

public on the data to be collected and

the analyses to be conducted to support

the long-term control plan development

and water quality standards reviews can

facilitate the review of water quality

standards and the reconciliation of

water quality standards with an

affordable, well-designed and operated

CSO control programs.

The guidance describes the process

for integrating LTCP development and

implementation with the water quality

standards review. This process is the

centerpiece of EPA’s renewed

commitment to assure that both

communities with combined sewer

systems and States participate in

implementing the water quality-based

provisions in the CSO Control Policy.

The CSO Control Policy anticipates the

‘‘review and revision, as appropriate, of

water quality standards and their

implementation procedures when

developing CSO control plans to reflect

site-specific impacts of CSOs.’’

Integrating CSO long-term control

planning with water quality standards

reviews requires extensive coordination

among CSO communities, States, EPA,

and the public. Although this

coordination is an intensive iterative

process, it provides greater assurance

that CSO communities will implement

affordable CSO control programs that

support the attainment of appropriate

water quality standards.

Dated: December 20, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 01–113 Filed 1–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6928–8]

Draft Guidance for National Hazardous

Waste Ombudsman and Regional

Superfund Ombudsmen Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of available draft

guidance with request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has developed and is

requesting comment on the ‘‘Draft

Guidance for National Hazardous Waste

Ombudsman and Regional Superfund

Ombudsmen Program.’’ The Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER) National Hazardous Waste

and Superfund Ombudsman (National

Ombudsman) and the Regional

Superfund Ombudsmen (Regional

Ombudsmen) were established to

provide help to the public in resolving

issues and concerns raised about the

solid and hazardous waste programs

administered by OSWER.

The purpose of this draft guidance is

to explain the role of the Ombudsmen,

their scope of activity, and the

guidelines under which they coordinate

and carry out their responsibilities. EPA

believes this draft guidance will

improve the effectiveness of this

program by giving the Ombudsmen and

those who may contact them a clear and

consistent set of operating policies and

expectations.

DATES: To make sure we consider your

comments we must receive them by

March 5, 2001. Comments received after

that date will be considered to the

extent feasible; however, EPA will not

delay finalizing the guidance to

accommodate late comments.

ADDRESSES: You may request copies of

the ‘‘Draft Guidance for National

Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and

Regional Superfund Ombudsmen

Program’’ by any of the following ways:

Mail: write to: Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters, U.S. EPA, CERCLA

Docket Office, (Mail Code 5201G), Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Phone: call: (703) 603–9232, or (800)

424–9346.

Internet: http://www.epa.gov/

swerrims/whatsnew.htm 

If you wish to send us comments on

the guidance, you must send them in

any one of the following ways:

Mail: Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters, U.S. EPA, CERCLA

Docket Office, (Mail Code 5201G), Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Express Mail or courier (such as

Federal Express, other overnight

delivery, or courier): Docket

Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA,

CERCLA Docket Office, 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway #1,

First Floor, Arlington, Virginia, 22202.

E-mail: in ASCII format only to:

superfund.docket@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caroline Previ, phone number (202)

260–2593, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (Mail Code 5101),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,

or the Superfund Hotline, phone

number (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–

9810 in the Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The program managers and staff in the

Regions and at Headquarters are

committed to implementing the federal

solid waste and hazardous waste

statutes managed by EPA, being

responsive to the public, and resolving

issues and concerns brought to their

attention. In some cases, the individual

or group raising a given concern does

not believe the official problem solving

channels dealt fairly or fully with their

situation. In such cases, the individual

or group may request assistance from

the Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (OSWER)

Ombudsman, an Agency official

designated to receive inquiries and

complaints about the administration of

OSWER programs. The National and

Regional Ombudsmen receive many

calls for assistance each year—ranging

from routine questions about hazardous

waste laws to specific complaints about

allegedly improper activities conducted

at a site or facility.

Today’s Federal Register notice

introduces a policy entitled ‘‘Draft

Guidance for National Hazardous Waste

Ombudsman and Regional Superfund

Ombudsmen Program’’ which explains

the role and conduct of the OSWER

National Ombudsman and the Regional

Superfund Ombudsmen, scope of their

activity, and the guidelines under which

they coordinate and carry out their

responsibilities. The main objective in

issuing this guidance is to improve the

effectiveness of this program by giving

the Ombudsmen and those who may

contact them a clear and consistent set

of operating policies and expectations.

This draft guidance would cover only

the Ombudsmen who work on OSWER

related issues, and staff who supply

primary support or assistance to the

Ombudsmen.

This guidance, when finalized, is not

intended to be, and should not be

construed as a rule. Use of the guidance

would not be legally binding on EPA

managers or staff or on other parties.

EPA is seeking public comment at this

time to ensure hearing the widest range

of views and obtaining all information

relevant to the development of the

guidance.

II. Background

The hazardous and solid waste

management laws passed by Congress

created some of the most complex

programs administered by EPA and the