|
<br />51412
<br />
<br />Federal F.eglsler / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday., November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulatiol}s .
<br />I r
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />,....
<br />CO
<br />,tv
<br />00
<br />
<br />expertise does, of co~rse.'v8ry from
<br />State to State but thaI situation exi.ts
<br />under any';egulation EPA may
<br />promulgate.
<br />In addition to the t~chnicaJ concerns
<br />on the development of site-specific
<br />criteria addressed earlier in both the
<br />Preamble and this Ap'pendix, the public
<br />expressed concern wfth the cost of the
<br />procedures and the availability of State
<br />personnel to conduct ;md manage such
<br />procedures. Because U is a new concept
<br />in terms of applicaUoq in a regulation,
<br />the Preamble to the propo.ed rule
<br />discussed the procedure. in detail. This
<br />conveyed the impression that site~
<br />specific criteria developm'ent would be
<br />the basic method of selting water
<br />quality criteria..EPA believes the States
<br />will continue to base most of their
<br />standards on EPA dev"eloped Section
<br />304(8) criteria because of the-resource
<br />question and becauae pf the fact that
<br />slte-specific criteria win not be
<br />necessary in'most water bOdies. The
<br />Final Rule allows States to develop site-
<br />specific criteria; it doe, no, require them
<br />to do .0. As with use attainability
<br />analyses, States shoulc:lselprloritie..
<br />and enlist the a8si8tan(:~ of dischargers
<br />in conducting site 8pe~fic criteria. EPA
<br />will be providing tralnillg seminars for
<br />State personnel In appl,ying site-.pecific
<br />eriteria development procedures. EPA is
<br />also developing simpler and improved
<br />techniques.
<br />
<br />State/Federal Roles
<br />
<br />There were a number of diverse
<br />comments on the sectlans of the
<br />proposed rule dealing with "Staie
<br />Review and Revision of Water Quality
<br />Stand.rd..., "JlpA Revi,wand Approval
<br />of Water Qu.lity Stand!,rds" and "EPA
<br />Promulgation of Water Quality
<br />Standards". .
<br />Several comme'lts on' 1131.20 of the
<br />proposed reguletion "Stltte Review and
<br />Revision of Water Quality Standards",
<br />requested specific mecWanisIDs be
<br />included in the regulatiQn on how States
<br />should generate data arid information,
<br />how to involve local go~ernment and
<br />industry in the data collection and
<br />decision making, how p$rmittees could.
<br />request a review of inappropriate water
<br />quality standerd. and hQw the public
<br />participates in the water quillity
<br />.standards revision process. All of these
<br />comments were evaluated but few
<br />changes were made oth~r than those in
<br />1131.20 which were described earlier.
<br />States are responsiblE" ~ithin tha
<br />guidelines of Section 30:1(<:) of the Act
<br />end the Water Quality S\andarda
<br />Regul.tion, for setting water quality
<br />standards. EPA doe. not believe it i.
<br />appropriate to specify particular
<br />administrative mechani9~8 States must
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />,I
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />Ii
<br />'I
<br />ii
<br />"
<br />!i
<br />I
<br />
<br />use in that process. Ensuring such
<br />administrative uniformity would be
<br />disruptive to the States without yielding
<br />any significant environmental ben.efit,
<br />There was also a recommendation to
<br />include in the rule the policy statement
<br />that was in the preamble to the proposal
<br />on the relationshIp of Section 24 of the
<br />"Municipal Waste Water Treatment
<br />Construction Grant Amendments of
<br />1981" (Pub. L. 97-117. December 29.1961.
<br />33 U.s.C. 1313(a)J. to water quality
<br />standards reviews.. The Agency chose
<br />not to do so because. for the purposes of
<br />Section 24, water quality standards
<br />reviews are synonymous with the water
<br />quali ty standa,rds reviews under' Section
<br />303(c) of the Act and the one final rule.
<br />A number of letters and statements
<br />expressed concern that the various EP A
<br />Regional Offices will interpret the
<br />regulation differently. It is recognized
<br />that with.l0 Regional Offices
<br />responsible for the review and approval
<br />of State water quality .tandards. there ts
<br />potential for inconsistencies between
<br />. _ Regions-on recommended data and
<br />, analyses.. Of course, sinoe water quality
<br />problems in, different regions may vary
<br />,considerably, the-regions must also be
<br />able to re.pond to tho.e problems in
<br />ways that make the most sense under
<br />the particular circumstances., However,
<br />it is believed Ihal EPA's guidance and
<br />Headquarlel'S evaluations of the
<br />Regional Offices will, '10 the extent
<br />possible. minimize inconsistencies in the
<br />jntarpretation of the Regulation by our
<br />Regional Offices. .
<br />There were suggestions that EPA
<br />change the ruIe to read tha.t the State
<br />water quality standards go into effecl
<br />only after EPA epproval, Standards are
<br />adopted by States under State law.
<br />Consistent with the Clean Water Act,
<br />EPA's policy has always beenthet a .
<br />State standard goes into effect when
<br />adopted by the State and remains in
<br />effect, even if di.approved, unUl the
<br />State revises its standards or EPA
<br />promulgates a Federal standard. This
<br />interpre1~tion is necess.ary because
<br />otherwise there would be no standard at
<br />all until Federal action was completed.
<br />A State rescinds its prior standard
<br />whenever. it ~dopt8 a revised standard.
<br />In addition. EPA approval of a standerd
<br />should not be interpreted as super.eding
<br />the State's rjgh~ to amend its own la~s.
<br />By Ihe same token. if EPA promuigates a
<br />Federal standard, the State is ohliged to
<br />apply that .tandard in it. pollution
<br />control programs or until the State
<br />adopts a State .Iandard identical to or
<br />more stringent than the Feder.l
<br />standards.
<br />EP A propo.ed to publish a notic.e of
<br />approvals of State water quality
<br />
<br />st.ndards in the Fe!i..aIReAislerat
<br />lea.t .nnually, One letter requested that
<br />'EPA publish the notice of approvals at
<br />the time the Agency take acflon.. EPA
<br />believes that this action is unnecel:!'sary
<br />since publicatio~ of these noUces for
<br />any del.y in publi.hing them) in no way
<br />affects the legal standing oflhe
<br />.t.ndards or the status of EPA's
<br />approval action. When a State adopts a
<br />standard. it publishes a noti~,e under
<br />, State. law. This should be sufficient to
<br />ensure that the regulated community is
<br />informed of any changes in State water
<br />quality standard.. EPA's annual
<br />publica Hon will serve as a convenient
<br />check.
<br />A n~mber of respondents
<br />recommended that in promulgating State.
<br />standards. EP A move. exp'editiousJy to
<br />avoid excessive.~elays. EPAI;s approach
<br />in disapproving Stjlte standafds j. 10
<br />work with the State to assist ,the State in
<br />revising its standard to meet the Act'!J.
<br />requirements. Only as a last- resort 'will
<br />EPA promulgate Federalstan<:lard._ln
<br />working with a State to revistt,-its
<br />.tandard, EPA will try to do so within
<br />the timefranie of the Act. However. -this
<br />m.y not always be possible depending
<br />on State administrative and/or .
<br />leglslativeprocednre.. How."er. we
<br />intend to try harder to eliminate
<br />u.itnecessary del~y,
<br />In response to_ a nmnber- of 9uestion$
<br />raised, the final rule clearly .tates tha.t
<br />inpromulgatillg State standarlis. the
<br />Admini.lrator wlll be subjectjlothe
<br />same publicpartlcipationpoli~ie. and
<br />procedurea established for Sta.tes,
<br />
<br />InterstatelInternotional Water Quality
<br />Standards Issues
<br />
<br />In the Preamble to the propo.ed wa ter
<br />quality standards regulation, EPA .
<br />discussed its role in interstate :and
<br />international water quality st8Iu;l.E,lrds
<br />issues. There were those that believed
<br />that 'EP kshouId include in the
<br />regulation specific procedures for
<br />resolving interstate/internatiorasl
<br />conflicts and-require States to l,ld()pt
<br />standards that meet trea-ty requirements,
<br />Since these issues have been B!Jsociated
<br />with the st.ndards prqgram sin"" its
<br />inception and have been ac:leqtlately
<br />resolved previously without tht need for
<br />regulatory language, EPA see. no need
<br />to include such langupge in the Final
<br />Rule.
<br />When interstate/international
<br />conflicts arise. EPA will play a .atronger
<br />role In the standarda process in:addition
<br />to the ordinary review andapptoval
<br />procedure. described In the regulation.
<br />First, if an interstate conflict oC\lurs
<br />between States In the .same EPA region,
<br />the EPA Regional Administrator Is io a
<br />
<br />-.
<br />
<br />
<br />Ii.
<br />
<br />
<br />;"
<br />
<br />"'''-
<br />,
<br />!i>i~
<br />
|