Opinion ID: 796659
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Definition of Great Lakes

Text: 142 The entrainment performance standard of 40 C.F.R. § 125.94(b)(2) applies to facilities that use cooling water withdrawn from . . . one of the Great Lakes. 40 C.F.R. § 125.49(b)(2)(ii)(A). Great Lakes, however, is not defined in the Rule. An affidavit of UWAG's counsel states that UWAG members 143 have been told by state regulators that they have been told by EPA Headquarters that EPA would apply the Great Lakes national performance standards regarding impingement and entrainment to the cooling water intake structures located in the Great Lakes connecting channels or in waterways with open fish passage to a Great Lake and within 30 miles from a Great Lake. 144 UWAG argues that interested parties were given no notice of this interpretation of the Phase II Rule or opportunity to comment on it and that the interpretation has no record support. UWAG also remarks that the EPA mentioned in the preamble to the Rule that in assessing the national environmental benefits of its final Phase II Rule, it had evaluated the benefits in seven study regions. The EPA defined the Great Lakes region for that purpose as follows: 145 The Great Lakes region includes all facilities in scope of the Phase II rule that withdraw water from Lakes Ontario, Erie, Michigan, Huron, and Superior or are located on a waterway with open fish passage to a Great Lake and within 30 miles of the lake. 146 69 Fed.Reg. at 41,655. UWAG contends that the EPA never indicated that this definition would apply to § 125.94(b)(2) and seeks either a ruling that Great Lakes has its ordinary meaning or a remand for an express definition of what the term means. 147 Notwithstanding UWAG's proffer that the EPA has informally interpreted Great Lakes, the Rule itself does not define what is encompassed by the term, and UWAG has provided no documentary evidence that the EPA has issued a formal and binding definition or even applied a particular definition in a permitting proceeding. There is, therefore, no final agency action for us to review. We agree with the holding of the Seventh Circuit in American Paper Institute, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, that in the absence of a formal and binding rule or some other final agency action, judicial review is not available at this time. 882 F.2d 287, 289 (7th Cir.1989). We therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction so much of the petition for review as challenges the purported definition of Great Lakes.