National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Water Transfers Proposed Rule, 32887-32895 [E6-8814]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule will be posted on EPA’s
Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
Comment Period
We received a request to extend the
public comment period to July 5, 2006.
We agreed to this request, therefore the
public comment period will now end on
July 5, 2006, rather than June 5, 2006.
How Can I Get Copies of the Proposed
Amendments and Other Related
Information?
EPA has established the official
public docket for the proposed
rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2003–0199. Information on
how to access the docket is presented
above in the ADDRESSES section.
Dated: June 1, 2006.
William L. Wehrum,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. E6–8813 Filed 6–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 122
[EPA–HQ–OW–2006–0141; FRL–8180–7]
RIN 2040–AE86
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Water
Transfers Proposed Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an
amendment to its Clean Water Act
(CWA) regulations to expressly exclude
water transfers from regulation under
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
program. The proposed rule would
define water transfers as an activity that
conveys waters of the United States to
another water of the United States
without subjecting the water to
intervening industrial, municipal, or
commercial use. This proposed rule
focuses exclusively on water transfers
and is not relevant to whether any other
activity is subject to the CWA
permitting requirement.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 24, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2006–0141 by one of the following
methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments. EPA prefers to receive
comments submitted electronically.
(2) E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–
2006–0141.
(3) Mail: Send the original and three
copies of your comments to: Water
Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode 4203M, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OW–2006–0141.
(4) Hand Delivery: Deliver your
comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–
2006–0141. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation and special
arrangements should be made.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2006–
0141. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or email. The federal regulations.gov Web
sites are ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32887
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the Regulations index at
https://www.regulations.gov/. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Water Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566–2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information contact Jeremy
Arling, Water Permits Division, Office of
Wastewater Management (4203M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564–
2218, e-mail address:
arling.jeremy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. Background
III. Rationale
A. Statutory Language and Structure
B. Legislative History
C. Conclusion
IV. Scope of This Proposed Rule
V. Designation Authority
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action applies to those involved
in the transfer of waters of the United
States. The following table provides a
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
32888
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
list of standard industrial codes for
operations covered under this revised
rule.
TABLE 1.—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THIS RULE
Category
NAICS
Examples of potentially affected entities
Resource management parties (includes state departments of fish
and wildlife, state departments of
pesticide regulation, state environmental agencies, and universities).
924110 Administration of Air and
Water Resource and Solid
Waste Management Programs.
Government establishments primarily engaged in the administration,
regulation, and enforcement of water resource programs; the administration and regulation of water pollution control and prevention
programs; the administration and regulation of flood control programs; the administration and regulation of drainage development
and water resource consumption programs; and coordination of
these activities at intergovernmental levels.
Government establishments primarily engaged in the administration,
regulation, supervision and control of land use, including recreational areas; conservation and preservation of natural resources; erosion control; geological survey program administration;
weather forecasting program administration; and the administration
and protection of publicly and privately owned forest lands. Government establishments responsible for planning, management,
regulation and conservation of game, fish, and wildlife populations,
including wildlife management areas and field stations; and other
administrative matters relating to the protection of fish, game, and
wildlife are included in this industry.
This category includes entities primarily engaged in the construction
of water and sewer lines, mains, pumping stations, treatment
plants and storage tanks.
This category includes dam Construction and management, flood
control structure construction, drainage canal and ditch construction, flood control project construction, and spillway, floodwater,
construction
This category includes entities engaged in operating water treatment
plants and/or operating water supply systems. The water supply
system may include pumping stations, aqueducts, and/or distribution mains. The water may be used for drinking, irrigation, or other
uses.
924120 Administration
servation Programs.
of
Con-
237110 Water and Sewer Line
and Related Structures Construction.
237990 Other Heavy and Civil
Engineering Construction.
Public Water Supply ........................
221310
This 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 affected by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. EPA welcomes comment
identifying those other entities. If you
have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
Water Supply .................
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions—The Agency
may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by
referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section
number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
Water transfers occur routinely and in
many different contexts across the
United States. Typically, water transfers
route water through tunnels, channels,
and/or natural stream water features,
and either pump or passively direct it
for uses such as providing public water
supply, irrigation, power generation,
flood control, and environmental
restoration. Water transfers can be
relatively simple, moving a small
quantity of water a short distance on the
same stream, or very complex,
transporting substantial quantities of
water over long distances, across both
state and basin boundaries. There are
thousands of water transfers currently in
place in the United States, including 16
major diversion projects in the western
States alone. Examples include the
Colorado-Big Thompson Project in
Colorado and the Central Valley Project
in California.
Water transfers are administered by
various federal, State, and local agencies
and other entities. The Bureau of
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Reclamation administers significant
transfers in western States to provide
approximately 140,000 farmers with
irrigation water. With the use of water
transfers, the Army Corps of Engineers
keeps thousands of acres of agricultural
and urban land in southern Florida from
flooding in former areas of Everglades
wetlands. Many large cities in the west
and the east would not have adequate
sources of water for their citizens were
it not for the continuous redirection of
water from outside basins. For example,
both the cities of New York and Los
Angeles are dependent on water
transfers from distant watersheds to
meet their municipal demand. In short,
numerous States, localities, and
residents are dependent upon water
transfers, and these transfers are an
integral component of U.S.
infrastructure.
Although there have been a few
isolated instances where entities
responsible for water transfers have
been issued NPDES permits, EPA is
aware of only one State that has a
practice of issuing NPDES permits for
water transfers.1 Water transfers are not
generally subject to section 402 of the
Clean Water Act. However, the Act
reserves the ability of States to regulate
water transfers under State law and this
proposed rulemaking does not affect
this state prerogative. See CWA section
510.
The question of whether or not an
NPDES permit is required for water
transfers has arisen because activities
that result in the movement of waters of
the U.S., such as trans-basin transfers of
water to serve municipal, agricultural,
and commercial needs, can also move
pollutants from one waterbody (donor
water) to another (receiving water). The
Supreme Court recently discussed this
issue in South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v.
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S.
95 (2004), leaving the matter
unresolved. In this case, the Supreme
Court vacated a decision by the 11th
Circuit, which had held that a Clean
Water Act permit was required for
transferring water from one navigable
water into another, a Water
Conservation Area in the Florida
Everglades. The Court remanded the
case for further fact-finding as to
whether the two waters in question
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
1 For
instance, courts required NPDES permits for
water transfers associated with the expansion of a
ski resort and the supply of drinking water. See
Dubois v. United States Dept. of Ag., 103 F.3d 1273
(1st Cir 1996) and Catskill Mountains Chapter of
Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. City of New York, 273 F.3d
481 (2nd Cir 2001). Pennsylvania began issuing
permits for water transfers in 1986, in response to
a State court decision mandating the issuance of
such permits. DELAWARE Unlimited v. DER, 508
A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1986).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
were ‘‘meaningfully distinct.’’ If they
were not, no permit would be required.
The Court declined to address legal
arguments made by the parties because
the arguments had not been raised in
the lower court proceedings. The Court
noted that EPA had not spoken to these
legal issues in an administrative
document. 541 U.S. at 107.
On August 5, 2005, EPA issued a legal
memorandum entitled ‘‘Agency
Interpretation on Applicability of
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act to
Water Transfers.’’ (interpretive
memorandum) The precise legal
question addressed in the interpretive
memorandum was whether the
movement of pollutants from one water
of the U.S. to another by a water transfer
is the ‘‘addition’’ of a pollutant
potentially subjecting the activity to the
permitting requirement under section
402 of the Act. Based on the statute as
a whole and consistent with the
Agency’s longstanding practice, the
interpretive memorandum concluded
that Congress intended for water
transfers to be subject to oversight by
water resource management agencies
and State non-NPDES authorities, rather
than the permitting program under
section 402 of the CWA.
Today, EPA is proposing an
amendment to its Clean Water Act
(CWA) regulations to expressly exclude
water transfers from regulation under
section 402 of the CWA. The proposed
rule would define water transfers as an
activity that conveys waters of the
United States to another water of the
United States without subjecting the
water to intervening industrial,
municipal, or commercial use. This
proposed rule focuses exclusively on
water transfers and is not relevant to
whether any other activity is subject to
the CWA permitting requirement.
This proposed rule is organized as
follows. Section III discusses the
rationale for this exclusion, based on the
language, structure, and legislative
history of the Clean Water Act; section
IV describes the scope of this proposed
rule; and section V describes
‘‘designation authority’’ as an additional
element that the Agency chose not to
propose but for which the Agency is
interested in receiving public comment.
III. Rationale
As stated in EPA’s August 5th
interpretive memorandum (available at
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OW–2006–0141),
based on the CWA as a whole, the
Agency concludes that Congress
intended to leave the oversight of water
transfers to authorities other than the
NPDES program. This proposed rule is
based on the legal analysis contained in
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32889
the interpretive memorandum and
explained below.
Statutory construction principles
instruct that the Clean Water Act should
be interpreted by analyzing the statute
as a whole. United States v. Boisdore’s
Heirs, 49 U.S. 113, 122 (1850). The
Supreme Court has long explained ‘‘in
expounding a statute, we must not be
guided by a single sentence or member
of a sentence, but look to the provisions
of the whole law, and its object and
policy.’’ Id. See also, Gustafond v.
Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 570
(1995), Smith v. United States, 508 U.S.
223, 233 (1993), United States Nat’l
Bank of Or. v. Independent Ins. Agents
of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 455 (1993).
In general, the ‘‘whole statute’’
interpretation analysis means that ‘‘a
statute is passed as a whole and not in
parts or sections and is animated by one
general purpose and intent.
Consequently, each part or section
should be construed in connection with
every other part or section so as to
produce a harmonious whole.’’ Norman
J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory
Construction vol. 2A § 46:05, 154 (6th
ed., West Group 2000). As the Second
Circuit has explained with regard to the
CWA:
Although the canons of statutory
interpretation provide a court with numerous
avenues for supplementing and narrowing
the possible meaning of ambiguous text, most
helpful to our interpretation of the CWA in
this case are two rules. First, when
determining which reasonable meaning
should prevail, the text should be placed in
the context of the entire statutory structure
[quoting United States v. Dauray, 215 F.3d
257, 262 (2d Cir. 2000)]. Second, ‘absurd
results are to be avoided and internal
inconsistencies in the statute must be dealt
with.’ United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S.
576, 580 (1981).
Natural Res. Def. Council v. Muszynski,
268 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2001). See also,
Singer, vol. 3B § 77:4, at 256–258.
A holistic approach is needed here in
particular because the heart of this
matter is the balance Congress created
between federal and State oversight of
activities affecting the nation’s waters.
The purpose of the CWA is to protect
water quality. Congress nonetheless
recognized that programs already
existed at the State and local levels for
managing water quantity, and it
recognized the delicate relationship
between the CWA and State and local
programs. Looking at the statute as a
whole is necessary to ensure that the
analysis here is consonant with
Congress’ overall policies and objectives
in the management and regulation of the
nation’s water resources.
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
32890
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
The analysis below addresses in turn
the statutory language and structure and
the legislative history.
A. Statutory Language and Structure
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
The Clean Water Act prohibits the
discharge of a pollutant by any person
except in compliance with specified
statutory sections, including section
402. CWA section 301(a). The term
‘‘discharge of a pollutant’’ is defined as
‘‘any addition of any pollutant to
navigable waters from any point
source.’’ CWA section 502(12). Where
discharges of pollutants occur, they are
generally regulated by a permit under
the NPDES program. Discharges of
pollutants other than dredged or fill
material may be authorized by permits
issued under section 402 by EPA or
States with approved permitting
programs. Discharges of dredged or fill
material may be authorized by permits
issued by the Army Corps of Engineers
and authorized States under section
404, and that provision is not addressed
or affected by this Agency
interpretation.
While no one provision of the Act
expressly addresses whether water
transfers are subject to the NPDES
program, the specific statutory
provisions addressing the management
of water resources—coupled with the
overall statutory structure—support the
conclusion that Congress did not intend
for water transfers to be regulated under
section 402. The Act establishes a
variety of programs and regulatory
initiatives in addition to the NPDES
permitting program. It also recognizes
that the States have primary
responsibilities with respect to the
‘‘development and use (including
restoration, preservation, and
enhancement) of land and water
resources.’’ CWA section 101(b).
Congress also made clear that the
Clean Water Act is to be construed in a
manner that does not unduly interfere
with the ability of States to allocate
water within their boundaries, stating:
It is the policy of Congress that the
authority of each State to allocate quantities
of water within its jurisdiction shall not be
superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired
by [the Act]. It is the further policy of
Congress that nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to supersede or abrogate rights to
quantities of water which have been
established by any State. Federal agencies
shall co-operate with State and local agencies
to develop comprehensive solutions to
prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in
concert with programs for managing water
sources.
CWA section 101(g). While section
101(g) does not prohibit EPA from
taking actions under the CWA that it
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
determines are needed to protect water
quality,2 it nonetheless establishes
Congress’ general direction against
unnecessary Federal interference with
State allocations of water rights.
Water transfers are an essential
component of the nation’s infrastructure
for delivering water that users are
entitled to receive under State law.
Because subjecting water transfers to a
federal permitting scheme could
unnecessarily interfere with State
decisions on allocations of water rights,
this section provides additional support
for the Agency’s interpretation that,
absent a clear Congressional intent to
the contrary, it is reasonable to read the
statute as not requiring NPDES permits
for water transfers. See United States v.
Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349 (1971) (‘‘unless
Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it
will not be deemed to have significantly
changed the federal-state balance.’’) A
second statutory provision, section
510(2), similarly provides:
Except as expressly provided in this Act,
nothing in this Act shall * * * be construed
as impairing or in any manner affecting any
right or jurisdiction of the States with respect
to the waters (including boundary waters) of
such States.
Like section 101(g), this provision
supports the notion that Congress did
not intend administration of the CWA to
unduly interfere with water resource
allocation.
Finally, one section of the Act—
304(f)—expressly addresses water
management activities. Mere mention of
an activity in section 304(f) does not
mean it is exclusively nonpoint source
in nature. See Miccosukee at 106 (noting
that section 304(f)(2)(F) does not
explicitly exempt nonpoint sources if
they also fall within the definition of
point source). Nonetheless, section
304(f) is focused primarily on
addressing pollution sources outside the
scope of the NPDES program. See H.R.
Rep. No. 92–911, at 109 (1972),
reprinted in Legislative History of the
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, Vol. 1 at 796
(Comm. Print 1973) (‘‘[t]his section
* * * on * * * nonpoint sources is
among the most important in the 1972
Amendments’’) (emphasis added)). This
section directed EPA to issue guidelines
for identifying and evaluating the nature
and extent of nonpoint sources of
2 PUD
No. 1 of Jefferson County. v. Wash. State
Dep’t. of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 720 (1994)
(‘‘Sections 101(g) and 510(2) preserve the authority
of each State to allocate water quantity as between
users; they do not limit the scope of water pollution
controls that may be imposed on users who have
obtained, pursuant to state law, a water
allocation.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pollutants,3 as well as processes,
procedures and methods to control
pollution from, among other things,
‘‘changes in the movement, flow or
circulation of any navigable waters or
ground waters, including changes
caused by the construction of dams,
levees, channels, causeways, or flow
diversion facilities.’’ CWA 304(f)(2)(F)
(emphasis added).
While section 304(f) does not
exclusively address nonpoint sources of
pollution, it nonetheless ‘‘concerns
nonpoint sources’’ (Miccosukee, 541
U.S. at 106) and reflects an
understanding by Congress that water
movement could result in pollution, and
that such pollution would be managed
by States under their nonpoint source
program authorities, rather than the
NPDES program. This proposed rule
accords with the direction to EPA and
other federal agencies in section 101(g)
to work with State and local agencies to
develop ‘‘comprehensive solutions’’ to
water pollution problems ‘‘in concert
with programs for managing water
resources.’’
Thus, these sections of the Act
together demonstrate that Congress was
aware that there might be pollution
associated with water management
activities, but chose to defer to
comprehensive solutions developed by
State and local agencies for controlling
such pollution. Because the NPDES
program only focuses on water pollution
from point source discharges, it is not
the kind of comprehensive program that
Congress believed was best suited to
addressing pollution that may be
associated with water transfers.
In contrast with these provisions of
the statute which expressly address
water management activities, the
general prohibition and definition
sections of the statute do not explicitly
discuss water management. Section
301(a) of the Act proscribes ‘‘the
discharge of any pollutant by any
person’’ except in compliance with
specified sections of the CWA,
including section 402. ‘‘Discharge of a
pollutant’’ is defined as ‘‘any addition of
any pollutant to navigable waters from
any point source.’’ CWA section
502(12). While the statute does not
define ‘‘addition,’’ sections 101(g),
102(b), 304(f) and 510(2) provide a
strong indication that the term
3 Sources not regulated under sections 402 or 404
are generically referred to as ‘‘nonpoint sources.’’
See National Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power
Co., 862 F.2d 580, 582 (6th Cir. 1988) (‘‘nonpoint
source’’ is shorthand for and ‘‘includes all water
quality problems not subject to section 402’’)
(quoting National Wildlife Fed’n v. Gorsuch, 693
F.2d 156,166) (D.C. Cir. 1982) (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
‘‘addition’’ should be interpreted in
accordance with those more specific
sections of the statute. In light of
Congress’ clearly expressed policy not
to unnecessarily interfere with water
resource allocation and its inclusion of
changes in the movement, flow or
circulation of any water of the U.S. in
a section of the Act addressing sources
of pollutants that would not be subject
to regulation under section 402, it is
reasonable to interpret ‘‘addition’’ as not
generally including the mere transfer of
waters from one water of the U.S. to
another.
The overall structure of the statute
further supports this conclusion. In
several important ways, water transfers
are unlike the types of discharges that
were the primary focus of Congressional
attention in 1972. Discharges of
pollutants covered by section 402 are
subject to ‘‘effluent’’ limitations. Water
transfers, however, are not like effluent
from an industrial, commercial or
municipal operation. Rather than
discharge effluent, water transfers
release one water of the U.S. into
another.
The operators of water control
facilities are generally not responsible
for the presence of pollutants in the
waters they transport. Rather, those
pollutants often enter ‘‘the waters of the
United States’’ through point and
nonpoint sources located far from those
facilities and beyond control of the
project operators. Congress generally
intended that pollutants be controlled at
the source whenever possible. See S.
Rep. No. 92–414, p. 77 (1972) (justifying
the broad definition of navigable waters
because it is ‘‘essential that discharge of
pollutants be controlled at the
source’’).4 The pollutants in transferred
waters are more sensibly addressed
through water resource planning and
land use regulations, which attack the
problem at its source. See, e.g., CWA
section 102(b) (reservoir planning);
CWA section 208(b)(2)(F) (land use
planning to reduce agricultural
nonpoint sources of pollution); CWA
section 319 (nonpoint source
management programs); and CWA
section 401 (state certification of
federally licensed projects). Congress
acknowledged this when it directed
Federal agencies to co-operate with
State and local agencies to develop
4 Recognition of a general intent to control
pollutants at the source does not mean that
dischargers are responsible only for pollutants that
they generate; rather, point sources need only
convey pollutants into navigable waters to be
subject to the Act. See Miccosukee at 105.
Municipal separate storm sewer systems, for
example, are clearly subject to regulation under the
Act. CWA section 402(p).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
comprehensive solutions to prevent,
reduce and eliminate pollution in
concert with programs for managing
water sources.
The Agency, therefore, concludes
that, taken as a whole, the statutory
language and structure of the Clean
Water Act indicate that Congress did not
generally intend to subject water
transfers to the NPDES program. Rather,
Congress intended to leave oversight of
water transfers to water resource
management agencies and the States in
cooperation with Federal authorities.
B. Legislative History
The legislative history of the Clean
Water Act also supports this conclusion.
First, the legislative history of section
101(g) reveals that ‘‘[i]t is the purpose of
this [provision] to insure that State
[water] allocation systems are not
subverted.’’ 3 Congressional Research
Serv., U.S. Library of Congress, Serial
No. 95–14, A Legislative History of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, at 532 (1978);
see PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v.
Washington Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S.
700, 721 (1994).
Notably, the legislative history of the
Act discusses water flow management
activities only in the context of the
nonpoint source program. In discussing
section 304(f), the House Committee
Report specifically mentioned water
flow management as an area where EPA
would provide technical guidance to
States for their nonpoint source
programs, rather than an area to be
regulated under section 402.
This section and the information on such
nonpoint sources is among the most
important in the 1972 Amendments. * * *
The Committee, therefore, expects the
Administrator to be most diligent in
gathering and distribution of the guidelines
for the identification of nonpoint sources and
the information on processes, procedures,
and methods for control of pollution from
such nonpoint sources as * * * natural and
manmade changes in the normal flow of
surface and ground waters.
H.R. Rep. No. 92–911, at 109 (1972)
(emphasis added).
In the legislative history of section
208 of the Act, the House Committee
report noted that in some States, water
resource management agencies
allocating stream flows are required to
consider water quality impacts. The
Report stated:
[I]n some States water resource
development agencies are responsible for
allocation of stream flow and are required to
give full consideration to the effects on water
quality. To avoid duplication, the Committee
believes that a State which has an approved
program for the handling of permits under
section 402, and which has a program for
water resource allocation should continue to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32891
exercise the primary responsibility in both of
these areas and thus provide a balanced
management control system.
H.R. Rep. No. 92–911, at 96 (1972).
Thus, Congress recognized that the
new section 402 permitting program
was not the only viable approach for
addressing water quality issues
associated with State water resource
management. The legislative history
makes clear that Congress did not
intend a wholesale transfer of
responsibility for water quality away
from water resource agencies to the
NPDES authority. Rather, Congress
encouraged States to obtain approval of
authority to administer the NPDES
program under section 402(b) so that the
NPDES program could work in concert
with water resource agencies’ oversight
of water management activities to
ensure a ‘‘balanced management control
system.’’ Id.
C. Conclusion
In sum, the language, structure, and
legislative history of the statute all
support the conclusion that Congress
did not intend to subject water transfers
to the NPDES program. Water transfers
are an integral part of water resource
management; they embody how States
and resource agencies manage the
nation’s water resources and balance
competing needs for water. Water
transfers also physically implement
State regimes for allocating water rights,
many of which existed long before
enactment of the Clean Water Act.
Congress was aware of those regimes,
and did not want to impair the ability
of these agencies to carry them out.
Finding the NPDES program generally
inapplicable to water transfers is true to
this intent and the structure of the Clean
Water Act, and gives meaning to
sections 101(g) and 304(f) of the Act.
IV. Scope of This Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would expressly
exclude discharges from water transfers
from requiring an NPDES permit. The
rule would define a water transfer as an
activity that conveys waters of the
United States to another water of the
United States without subjecting the
water to intervening industrial,
municipal, or commercial use. Waters of
the U.S. are defined for purposes of the
NPDES program in the Code of Federal
Regulations in § 122.2.
A water transfer occurs between two
‘‘waters of the United States.’’
Accordingly, the movement of water
through a dam is not a water transfer
because the dam merely conveys water
from one location to another within the
same waterbody. However, in both cases
(water transfers between distinct water
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
32892
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
bodies and movement of waters within
the same waterbody), an NPDES permit
is not required because no ‘‘addition’’ of
a pollutant has occurred.
Water transfer facilities should be able
to be operated and maintained in a
manner which ensures that they do not
add pollutants to the water being
transferred. If no pollutants are added,
a permit would not be required.
However, where these point sources do
add pollutants to water passing through
the structure into the downstream
water, NPDES permits are required.
Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 588;
Gorsuch, 693 F.2d at 165, n. 22. Nothing
in this rulemaking affects EPA’s
longstanding approach to regulation of
such discharges under section 402.
This proposed rule would not affect
EPA’s longstanding position that, if
water is withdrawn from waters of the
U.S. for an intervening industrial,
municipal or commercial use, the
reintroduction of the intake water and
associated pollutants is an ‘‘addition’’
subject to NPDES permitting
requirements. EPA has long imposed
NPDES requirements on entities that
withdraw process water or cooling
water and then return some or all of the
water through a point source. See, e.g.,
40 CFR 122.2 (definition of process
wastewater); 40 CFR 125.80–125.89
(regulation of cooling towers); 40 CFR
122.45(g) (regulations governing intake
pollutants for technology-based
permitting); 40 CFR part 132, Appendix
F, Procedure 5–D (containing
regulations governing water qualitybased permitting for intake pollutants in
the Great Lakes). Moreover, a discharge
from a waste treatment system, for
example, to a water of the United States,
would not constitute a water transfer
(and would require an NPDES permit).
See 40 CFR 122.2. These situations are
distinguished from the water transfers
that are the subject of this notice
because if water is withdrawn from
navigable waters for an intervening
industrial, municipal or commercial
use, the reintroduction of that intake
water and associated pollutants
physically introduces pollutants from
the outside world into navigable waters
and, therefore, is an ‘‘addition’’ subject
to NPDES permitting requirements. The
fact that some of the pollutants in the
discharge may have been present in the
source water does not remove the need
for a permit, although, under some
circumstances, permittees may receive
‘‘credit’’ in their effluent limitations for
such pollutants. See, 40 CFR 122.45(g)
(regulations governing intake pollutants
for technology-based permitting); 40
CFR part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5–
D (containing regulations governing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
water quality-based permitting for
intake pollutants in the Great Lakes).
Similarly, an NPDES permit is
normally required if a facility
withdraws water from a water of the
U.S., removes preexisting pollutants to
purify the water, and then discharges
the removed pollutants (perhaps in
concentrated form) back into the water
of the U.S. while retaining the purified
water for use in the facility. An example
of this situation is drinking water
treatment facilities, which withdraw
water from streams, rivers, and lakes.
The withdrawn water typically contains
suspended solids, which must be
removed to make the water potable. The
removed solids are a waste material
from the treatment process and, if
discharged into waters of the U.S., are
subject to NPDES permitting
requirements, even though that waste
material originated in the withdrawn
water. See, e.g., In re City of Phoenix,
Arizona Squaw Peak & Deer Valley
Water Treatment Plants, 9 E.A.D. 515,
2000 WL 1664964 (EPA Envtl. App. Bd.
November 1, 2000) (rejecting, on
procedural grounds, challenges to
NPDES permits for two drinking water
treatment plants that draw raw water
from the Arizona Canal, remove
suspended solids to purify the water,
and discharge the solids back into the
Canal; Final NPDES General Permits for
Water Treatment Facility Discharges in
the State of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, 65 FR 69,000 (2000)
(NPDES permits for discharges of
process wastewaters from drinking
water treatment plants).
Waters that are diverted and used for
irrigation and then reintroduced to the
waters of the U.S. are exempt from
permitting requirements under the
exemption for return flows from
irrigated agriculture from the definition
of ‘‘point source’’ in section 502(14) and
this Agency interpretation does not
affect that exemption.
The activities addressed by this
proposed rule also stand in sharp
contrast to other activities that have
long been subject to the Clean Water
Act’s permitting requirements. For
example, section 402 subjects placer
mining of ore deposits in streams and
rivers to the NPDES permitting program
because the process results in the
excavation and point source discharge
of dirt and gravel into waters of the U.S.
See Rybachek v. EPA, 904 F.2d 1276,
1285 (9th Cir. 1990). Similarly, section
404 of the Clean Water Act subjects the
deposit or redeposit of dredged or fill
material to a specialized permitting
program because that activity results in
the point source discharge of those
materials into navigable waters. See
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CWA section 404; United States v.
Deaton, 209 F.3d 331, 335–336 (4th Cir.
2000); United States v. M.C.C. of Fla.,
Inc., 772 F.2d 1501, 1503–1506 (11th
Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds,
481 U.S. 1034 (1987), readopted in
relevant part, 848 F.2d 1133 (11th Cir.
1988); Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League,
Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897, 923–925
(5th Cir. 1983). The Clean Water Act
also clearly imposes permitting
requirements on publicly owned
treatment works, and large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. See CWA sections 402(a),
402(p)(1)–(4). Congress amended the
Clean Water Act in 1987 specifically to
add new section 402(p) to better
regulate stormwater discharges from
point sources. Water Quality Act of
1987, Public Law 100–4, 101 Stat. 7
(1987). Again, this interpretation does
not affect EPA’s longstanding regulation
of such discharges.
This proposed rule also would not
change EPA’s longstanding position,
upheld by the Supreme Court in
Miccosukee, that the definition of
‘‘discharge of a pollutant’’ in the CWA
includes coverage of point sources that
do not themselves generate pollutants.
The Supreme Court stated, ‘‘A point
source is, by definition, a ‘discernible,
confined, and discrete conveyance’
Section 1362(14) (emphasis added).
That definition makes plain that a point
source need not be the original source
of the pollutant; it need only convey the
pollutant to ‘navigable waters,’ which
are, in turn, defined as ‘the waters of the
United States.’ Section 1362(7).’’
Miccosukee, 541 U.S. at 105.
EPA solicits comment on the
proposed definition of a water transfer.
Does the definition properly achieve the
Agency’s objective of excluding water
transfers from NPDES permitting (as
intended by Congress) while affirming
section 402 jurisdiction over all other
currently regulated activities? Does the
proposed rule clearly distinguish
between situations where the water
transfer facility ‘‘adds’’ pollutants to the
water being transferred and thus must
obtain a permit, and those situations
where waters merely pass through the
facility without the addition of any
pollutant?
V. Designation Authority
EPA considered, but ultimately did
not propose, an additional provision
allowing States to designate particular
water transfers as subject to the NPDES
program on a case-by-case basis. EPA
did not select this option but is seeking
comment on it.
Under this approach, the permitting
authority would have the discretion to
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
issue a permit on a case-by-case basis if
a transfer would cause a significant
impairment of a designated use and no
State authorities are being implemented
to adequately address the problem. A
significant impairment would occur
when, as a result of the water transfer,
the designated use of the receiving
water could no longer be maintained.
This designation would be at the sole
discretion of the State NPDES authority,
and would only apply in States
authorized to implement the section 402
program.
Again, the Agency is not proposing to
establish designation authority, but EPA
is interested in the programs States have
to address water quality impacts from
water transfers, how they are being
implemented, and what is the best way
to fill any gaps in how States address
those impacts currently. EPA notes that,
regardless of whether it includes this
designation authority in the final rule or
not, States retain the authority under
State law to regulate water transfers as
they see fit, including requiring permits
for such transfers. Without designation
authority, however, these permits could
not be issued under NPDES program
authority.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
action.’’ As such, this action was
submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented
in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This
proposed rulemaking would expressly
exclude discharges from water transfers
from requiring an NPDES permit. This
rule does not seek to require potentially
affected entities to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose information to or for
a Federal agency and therefore would
not impose any information collection
burden.
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 in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements 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.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32893
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant adverse
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Because EPA
is simply codifying the Agency’s
longtime position that Congress did not
generally intend for the NPDES program
to regulate the transfer of waters of the
United States into another water of the
United States, this proposed action will
not impose any requirement on small
entities. We continue to be interested in
the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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, local,
and tribal 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 UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, 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
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
32894
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
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.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule would not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year. EPA is proposing to
simply codify the Agency’s longtime
position that Congress did not generally
intend for the NPDES program to
regulate the transfer of a water of the
United States into another water of the
United States. Thus, today’s proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
For the same reason, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Thus, today’s proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements
of section 203 of UMRA.
E. 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.’’
Under section 6(b) of Executive Order
13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute,
unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. Under section 6(c) of
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
EPA has concluded that this proposed
rule does not have Federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
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. Today’s
proposed rule does not change the
relationship between the government
and the States or change their roles and
responsibilities. Rather, this proposed
rulemaking would confirm the Agency’s
longstanding practice that Congress
generally intended for water transfers to
be subject to oversight by water resource
management agencies and State nonNPDES authorities, rather than the
permitting program under section 402 of
the CWA. In addition, EPA does not
expect this rule to have any impact on
local governments.
Further, the revised regulations would
not alter the basic State-Federal scheme
established in the Clean Water Act
under which EPA authorizes States to
carry out the NPDES permitting
program. EPA expects the revised
regulations to have little effect on the
relationship between, or the distribution
of power and responsibilities among,
the Federal and State governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
Consistent with EPA policy, EPA
nonetheless consulted with
representatives of State governments
early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation to permit them to
have meaningful and timely input into
its development. EPA asked States for
data regarding the number of water
transfers within their jurisdiction and
the mechanisms under State law that
could be utilized to address any
possibly adverse water quality impacts
from those transfers. In considering the
designation authority provision, EPA
also sought data from the States
regarding their use of similar authorities
in their stormwater phase II and
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO) rules. In addition to
data collection, EPA sought States’
opinions on water transfers generally,
and designation, specifically. States
varied in their concerns, with some
opposed to NPDES permitting for water
transfers and some supportive of an
ability to use it.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local
officials.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
F. 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 9, 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 does not have
tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes,
as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Today’s proposed rule would clarify
that Congress did not generally intend
for the NPDES program to regulate the
transfer of waters of the United States
into another water of the United States.
Nothing in this rule would prevent an
Indian Tribe from exercising its own
organic authority to deal with such
matters. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and tribal governments, EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From EnvironmentalHealth
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency 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
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This regulation is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined
under E.O. 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
that it addresses environmental health
and safety risks that present a
disproportionate risk to children.
Today’s proposed rule would simply
clarify Congress’s intent that water
transfers generally be subject to
oversight by water resource
management agencies and State nonNPDES authorities, rather than the
permitting program under section 402 of
the CWA.
Dated: June 1, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
§ 122.3
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 122 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.
2. Section 122.3 is amended by
adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Exclusions.
*
This proposed rule would not be
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 an
economically significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
*
*
*
*
(i) Discharges from a water transfer.
Water transfer means an activity that
conveys waters of the United States to
another water of the United States
without subjecting the water to
intervening industrial, municipal, or
commercial use. This exclusion does
not apply to pollutants added by the
water transfer activity itself to the water
being transferred.
[FR Doc. E6–8814 Filed 6–6–06; 8:45 am]
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
standard 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 involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA is
not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0493; FRL–8072–4]
Inert Ingredient; Revocation of a
Tolerance Exemption with Insufficient
Data for Reassessment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes
under section 408(e)(1) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
to revoke the existing exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of one inert ingredient because
there are insufficient data to make the
determination of safety required by
FFDCA section 408(b)(2). The inert
ingredient tolerance exemption under
40 CFR 180.920 is ‘‘a-Alkyl (C10-C16)-whydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture of
dihydrogen phosphate and
monohydrogen phosphate esters and the
corresponding ammonium, calcium,
magnesium, monoethanolamine,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the
phosphate esters; the poly(oxyethylene)
content averages 3–20 moles.’’ The
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32895
revocation action in this document
contributes towards the Agency’s
tolerance reassessment requirements
under FFDCA section 408(q), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is
required by August 2006 to reassess the
tolerances that were in existence on
August 2, 1996. The regulatory action in
this document pertains to the revocation
of one tolerance exemption which is
counted as tolerance reassessment
toward the August 2006 review
deadline.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0493, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–
0493. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the docket
without change and may be made
available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or email. The Federal regulations.gov
website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket
and made available on the Internet. If
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32887-32895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8814]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 122
[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141; FRL-8180-7]
RIN 2040-AE86
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Water
Transfers Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an amendment to its Clean Water Act (CWA)
regulations to expressly exclude water transfers from regulation under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
program. The proposed rule would define water transfers as an activity
that conveys waters of the United States to another water of the United
States without subjecting the water to intervening industrial,
municipal, or commercial use. This proposed rule focuses exclusively on
water transfers and is not relevant to whether any other activity is
subject to the CWA permitting requirement.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0141 by one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments. EPA prefers to
receive comments submitted electronically.
(2) E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0141.
(3) Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to:
Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 4203M, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141.
(4) Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special
arrangements should be made.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
0141. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The federal regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access''
systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Regulations
index at https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact
Jeremy Arling, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management
(4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2218, e-mail address:
arling.jeremy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Background
III. Rationale
A. Statutory Language and Structure
B. Legislative History
C. Conclusion
IV. Scope of This Proposed Rule
V. Designation Authority
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action applies to those involved in the transfer of waters of
the United States. The following table provides a
[[Page 32888]]
list of standard industrial codes for operations covered under this
revised rule.
Table 1.--Entities Potentially Regulated by This Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS potentially affected
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource management parties 924110 Government
(includes state departments Administration establishments
of fish and wildlife, state of Air and Water primarily engaged in
departments of pesticide Resource and the administration,
regulation, state Solid Waste regulation, and
environmental agencies, and Management enforcement of water
universities). Programs. resource programs;
the administration
and regulation of
water pollution
control and
prevention programs;
the administration
and regulation of
flood control
programs; the
administration and
regulation of
drainage development
and water resource
consumption
programs; and
coordination of
these activities at
intergovernmental
levels.
924120 Government
Administration establishments
of Conservation primarily engaged in
Programs. the administration,
regulation,
supervision and
control of land use,
including
recreational areas;
conservation and
preservation of
natural resources;
erosion control;
geological survey
program
administration;
weather forecasting
program
administration; and
the administration
and protection of
publicly and
privately owned
forest lands.
Government
establishments
responsible for
planning,
management,
regulation and
conservation of
game, fish, and
wildlife
populations,
including wildlife
management areas and
field stations; and
other administrative
matters relating to
the protection of
fish, game, and
wildlife are
included in this
industry.
237110 Water and This category
Sewer Line and includes entities
Related primarily engaged in
Structures the construction of
Construction. water and sewer
lines, mains,
pumping stations,
treatment plants and
storage tanks.
237990 Other This category
Heavy and Civil includes dam
Engineering Construction and
Construction. management, flood
control structure
construction,
drainage canal and
ditch construction,
flood control
project
construction, and
spillway,
floodwater,
construction
Public Water Supply........... 221310 Water This category
Supply. includes entities
engaged in operating
water treatment
plants and/or
operating water
supply systems. The
water supply system
may include pumping
stations, aqueducts,
and/or distribution
mains. The water may
be used for
drinking,
irrigation, or other
uses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This 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 affected by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. EPA welcomes comment
identifying those other entities. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information. Do not submit this
information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
Water transfers occur routinely and in many different contexts
across the United States. Typically, water transfers route water
through tunnels, channels, and/or natural stream water features, and
either pump or passively direct it for uses such as providing public
water supply, irrigation, power generation, flood control, and
environmental restoration. Water transfers can be relatively simple,
moving a small quantity of water a short distance on the same stream,
or very complex, transporting substantial quantities of water over long
distances, across both state and basin boundaries. There are thousands
of water transfers currently in place in the United States, including
16 major diversion projects in the western States alone. Examples
include the Colorado-Big Thompson Project in Colorado and the Central
Valley Project in California.
Water transfers are administered by various federal, State, and
local agencies and other entities. The Bureau of
[[Page 32889]]
Reclamation administers significant transfers in western States to
provide approximately 140,000 farmers with irrigation water. With the
use of water transfers, the Army Corps of Engineers keeps thousands of
acres of agricultural and urban land in southern Florida from flooding
in former areas of Everglades wetlands. Many large cities in the west
and the east would not have adequate sources of water for their
citizens were it not for the continuous redirection of water from
outside basins. For example, both the cities of New York and Los
Angeles are dependent on water transfers from distant watersheds to
meet their municipal demand. In short, numerous States, localities, and
residents are dependent upon water transfers, and these transfers are
an integral component of U.S. infrastructure.
Although there have been a few isolated instances where entities
responsible for water transfers have been issued NPDES permits, EPA is
aware of only one State that has a practice of issuing NPDES permits
for water transfers.\1\ Water transfers are not generally subject to
section 402 of the Clean Water Act. However, the Act reserves the
ability of States to regulate water transfers under State law and this
proposed rulemaking does not affect this state prerogative. See CWA
section 510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For instance, courts required NPDES permits for water
transfers associated with the expansion of a ski resort and the
supply of drinking water. See Dubois v. United States Dept. of Ag.,
103 F.3d 1273 (1st Cir 1996) and Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout
Unlimited, Inc. v. City of New York, 273 F.3d 481 (2nd Cir 2001).
Pennsylvania began issuing permits for water transfers in 1986, in
response to a State court decision mandating the issuance of such
permits. DELAWARE Unlimited v. DER, 508 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether or not an NPDES permit is required for
water transfers has arisen because activities that result in the
movement of waters of the U.S., such as trans-basin transfers of water
to serve municipal, agricultural, and commercial needs, can also move
pollutants from one waterbody (donor water) to another (receiving
water). The Supreme Court recently discussed this issue in South Fla.
Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95 (2004),
leaving the matter unresolved. In this case, the Supreme Court vacated
a decision by the 11th Circuit, which had held that a Clean Water Act
permit was required for transferring water from one navigable water
into another, a Water Conservation Area in the Florida Everglades. The
Court remanded the case for further fact-finding as to whether the two
waters in question were ``meaningfully distinct.'' If they were not, no
permit would be required. The Court declined to address legal arguments
made by the parties because the arguments had not been raised in the
lower court proceedings. The Court noted that EPA had not spoken to
these legal issues in an administrative document. 541 U.S. at 107.
On August 5, 2005, EPA issued a legal memorandum entitled ``Agency
Interpretation on Applicability of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
to Water Transfers.'' (interpretive memorandum) The precise legal
question addressed in the interpretive memorandum was whether the
movement of pollutants from one water of the U.S. to another by a water
transfer is the ``addition'' of a pollutant potentially subjecting the
activity to the permitting requirement under section 402 of the Act.
Based on the statute as a whole and consistent with the Agency's
longstanding practice, the interpretive memorandum concluded that
Congress intended for water transfers to be subject to oversight by
water resource management agencies and State non-NPDES authorities,
rather than the permitting program under section 402 of the CWA.
Today, EPA is proposing an amendment to its Clean Water Act (CWA)
regulations to expressly exclude water transfers from regulation under
section 402 of the CWA. The proposed rule would define water transfers
as an activity that conveys waters of the United States to another
water of the United States without subjecting the water to intervening
industrial, municipal, or commercial use. This proposed rule focuses
exclusively on water transfers and is not relevant to whether any other
activity is subject to the CWA permitting requirement.
This proposed rule is organized as follows. Section III discusses
the rationale for this exclusion, based on the language, structure, and
legislative history of the Clean Water Act; section IV describes the
scope of this proposed rule; and section V describes ``designation
authority'' as an additional element that the Agency chose not to
propose but for which the Agency is interested in receiving public
comment.
III. Rationale
As stated in EPA's August 5th interpretive memorandum (available at
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141), based on the CWA as a whole, the
Agency concludes that Congress intended to leave the oversight of water
transfers to authorities other than the NPDES program. This proposed
rule is based on the legal analysis contained in the interpretive
memorandum and explained below.
Statutory construction principles instruct that the Clean Water Act
should be interpreted by analyzing the statute as a whole. United
States v. Boisdore's Heirs, 49 U.S. 113, 122 (1850). The Supreme Court
has long explained ``in expounding a statute, we must not be guided by
a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions
of the whole law, and its object and policy.'' Id. See also, Gustafond
v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995), Smith v. United States,
508 U.S. 223, 233 (1993), United States Nat'l Bank of Or. v.
Independent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 455 (1993). In
general, the ``whole statute'' interpretation analysis means that ``a
statute is passed as a whole and not in parts or sections and is
animated by one general purpose and intent. Consequently, each part or
section should be construed in connection with every other part or
section so as to produce a harmonious whole.'' Norman J. Singer,
Statutes and Statutory Construction vol. 2A Sec. 46:05, 154 (6th ed.,
West Group 2000). As the Second Circuit has explained with regard to
the CWA:
Although the canons of statutory interpretation provide a court
with numerous avenues for supplementing and narrowing the possible
meaning of ambiguous text, most helpful to our interpretation of the
CWA in this case are two rules. First, when determining which
reasonable meaning should prevail, the text should be placed in the
context of the entire statutory structure [quoting United States v.
Dauray, 215 F.3d 257, 262 (2d Cir. 2000)]. Second, `absurd results
are to be avoided and internal inconsistencies in the statute must
be dealt with.' United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580 (1981).
Natural Res. Def. Council v. Muszynski, 268 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2001).
See also, Singer, vol. 3B Sec. 77:4, at 256-258.
A holistic approach is needed here in particular because the heart
of this matter is the balance Congress created between federal and
State oversight of activities affecting the nation's waters. The
purpose of the CWA is to protect water quality. Congress nonetheless
recognized that programs already existed at the State and local levels
for managing water quantity, and it recognized the delicate
relationship between the CWA and State and local programs. Looking at
the statute as a whole is necessary to ensure that the analysis here is
consonant with Congress' overall policies and objectives in the
management and regulation of the nation's water resources.
[[Page 32890]]
The analysis below addresses in turn the statutory language and
structure and the legislative history.
A. Statutory Language and Structure
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of a pollutant by any
person except in compliance with specified statutory sections,
including section 402. CWA section 301(a). The term ``discharge of a
pollutant'' is defined as ``any addition of any pollutant to navigable
waters from any point source.'' CWA section 502(12). Where discharges
of pollutants occur, they are generally regulated by a permit under the
NPDES program. Discharges of pollutants other than dredged or fill
material may be authorized by permits issued under section 402 by EPA
or States with approved permitting programs. Discharges of dredged or
fill material may be authorized by permits issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers and authorized States under section 404, and that provision
is not addressed or affected by this Agency interpretation.
While no one provision of the Act expressly addresses whether water
transfers are subject to the NPDES program, the specific statutory
provisions addressing the management of water resources--coupled with
the overall statutory structure--support the conclusion that Congress
did not intend for water transfers to be regulated under section 402.
The Act establishes a variety of programs and regulatory initiatives in
addition to the NPDES permitting program. It also recognizes that the
States have primary responsibilities with respect to the ``development
and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land
and water resources.'' CWA section 101(b).
Congress also made clear that the Clean Water Act is to be
construed in a manner that does not unduly interfere with the ability
of States to allocate water within their boundaries, stating:
It is the policy of Congress that the authority of each State to
allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be
superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by [the Act]. It is the
further policy of Congress that nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water
which have been established by any State. Federal agencies shall co-
operate with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive
solutions to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with
programs for managing water sources.
CWA section 101(g). While section 101(g) does not prohibit EPA from
taking actions under the CWA that it determines are needed to protect
water quality,\2\ it nonetheless establishes Congress' general
direction against unnecessary Federal interference with State
allocations of water rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County. v. Wash. State Dep't. of
Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 720 (1994) (``Sections 101(g) and 510(2)
preserve the authority of each State to allocate water quantity as
between users; they do not limit the scope of water pollution
controls that may be imposed on users who have obtained, pursuant to
state law, a water allocation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water transfers are an essential component of the nation's
infrastructure for delivering water that users are entitled to receive
under State law. Because subjecting water transfers to a federal
permitting scheme could unnecessarily interfere with State decisions on
allocations of water rights, this section provides additional support
for the Agency's interpretation that, absent a clear Congressional
intent to the contrary, it is reasonable to read the statute as not
requiring NPDES permits for water transfers. See United States v. Bass,
404 U.S. 336, 349 (1971) (``unless Congress conveys its purpose
clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the
federal-state balance.'') A second statutory provision, section 510(2),
similarly provides:
Except as expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act
shall * * * be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any
right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters
(including boundary waters) of such States.
Like section 101(g), this provision supports the notion that Congress
did not intend administration of the CWA to unduly interfere with water
resource allocation.
Finally, one section of the Act--304(f)--expressly addresses water
management activities. Mere mention of an activity in section 304(f)
does not mean it is exclusively nonpoint source in nature. See
Miccosukee at 106 (noting that section 304(f)(2)(F) does not explicitly
exempt nonpoint sources if they also fall within the definition of
point source). Nonetheless, section 304(f) is focused primarily on
addressing pollution sources outside the scope of the NPDES program.
See H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 109 (1972), reprinted in Legislative
History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Vol. 1
at 796 (Comm. Print 1973) (``[t]his section * * * on * * * nonpoint
sources is among the most important in the 1972 Amendments'') (emphasis
added)). This section directed EPA to issue guidelines for identifying
and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants,\3\ as well as processes, procedures and methods to control
pollution from, among other things, ``changes in the movement, flow or
circulation of any navigable waters or ground waters, including changes
caused by the construction of dams, levees, channels, causeways, or
flow diversion facilities.'' CWA 304(f)(2)(F) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sources not regulated under sections 402 or 404 are
generically referred to as ``nonpoint sources.'' See National
Wildlife Fed'n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580, 582 (6th Cir.
1988) (``nonpoint source'' is shorthand for and ``includes all water
quality problems not subject to section 402'') (quoting National
Wildlife Fed'n v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156,166) (D.C. Cir. 1982)
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While section 304(f) does not exclusively address nonpoint sources
of pollution, it nonetheless ``concerns nonpoint sources'' (Miccosukee,
541 U.S. at 106) and reflects an understanding by Congress that water
movement could result in pollution, and that such pollution would be
managed by States under their nonpoint source program authorities,
rather than the NPDES program. This proposed rule accords with the
direction to EPA and other federal agencies in section 101(g) to work
with State and local agencies to develop ``comprehensive solutions'' to
water pollution problems ``in concert with programs for managing water
resources.''
Thus, these sections of the Act together demonstrate that Congress
was aware that there might be pollution associated with water
management activities, but chose to defer to comprehensive solutions
developed by State and local agencies for controlling such pollution.
Because the NPDES program only focuses on water pollution from point
source discharges, it is not the kind of comprehensive program that
Congress believed was best suited to addressing pollution that may be
associated with water transfers.
In contrast with these provisions of the statute which expressly
address water management activities, the general prohibition and
definition sections of the statute do not explicitly discuss water
management. Section 301(a) of the Act proscribes ``the discharge of any
pollutant by any person'' except in compliance with specified sections
of the CWA, including section 402. ``Discharge of a pollutant'' is
defined as ``any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any
point source.'' CWA section 502(12). While the statute does not define
``addition,'' sections 101(g), 102(b), 304(f) and 510(2) provide a
strong indication that the term
[[Page 32891]]
``addition'' should be interpreted in accordance with those more
specific sections of the statute. In light of Congress' clearly
expressed policy not to unnecessarily interfere with water resource
allocation and its inclusion of changes in the movement, flow or
circulation of any water of the U.S. in a section of the Act addressing
sources of pollutants that would not be subject to regulation under
section 402, it is reasonable to interpret ``addition'' as not
generally including the mere transfer of waters from one water of the
U.S. to another.
The overall structure of the statute further supports this
conclusion. In several important ways, water transfers are unlike the
types of discharges that were the primary focus of Congressional
attention in 1972. Discharges of pollutants covered by section 402 are
subject to ``effluent'' limitations. Water transfers, however, are not
like effluent from an industrial, commercial or municipal operation.
Rather than discharge effluent, water transfers release one water of
the U.S. into another.
The operators of water control facilities are generally not
responsible for the presence of pollutants in the waters they
transport. Rather, those pollutants often enter ``the waters of the
United States'' through point and nonpoint sources located far from
those facilities and beyond control of the project operators. Congress
generally intended that pollutants be controlled at the source whenever
possible. See S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 77 (1972) (justifying the broad
definition of navigable waters because it is ``essential that discharge
of pollutants be controlled at the source'').\4\ The pollutants in
transferred waters are more sensibly addressed through water resource
planning and land use regulations, which attack the problem at its
source. See, e.g., CWA section 102(b) (reservoir planning); CWA section
208(b)(2)(F) (land use planning to reduce agricultural nonpoint sources
of pollution); CWA section 319 (nonpoint source management programs);
and CWA section 401 (state certification of federally licensed
projects). Congress acknowledged this when it directed Federal agencies
to co-operate with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive
solutions to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with
programs for managing water sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Recognition of a general intent to control pollutants at the
source does not mean that dischargers are responsible only for
pollutants that they generate; rather, point sources need only
convey pollutants into navigable waters to be subject to the Act.
See Miccosukee at 105. Municipal separate storm sewer systems, for
example, are clearly subject to regulation under the Act. CWA
section 402(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency, therefore, concludes that, taken as a whole, the
statutory language and structure of the Clean Water Act indicate that
Congress did not generally intend to subject water transfers to the
NPDES program. Rather, Congress intended to leave oversight of water
transfers to water resource management agencies and the States in
cooperation with Federal authorities.
B. Legislative History
The legislative history of the Clean Water Act also supports this
conclusion. First, the legislative history of section 101(g) reveals
that ``[i]t is the purpose of this [provision] to insure that State
[water] allocation systems are not subverted.'' 3 Congressional
Research Serv., U.S. Library of Congress, Serial No. 95-14, A
Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977, at 532 (1978); see
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S.
700, 721 (1994).
Notably, the legislative history of the Act discusses water flow
management activities only in the context of the nonpoint source
program. In discussing section 304(f), the House Committee Report
specifically mentioned water flow management as an area where EPA would
provide technical guidance to States for their nonpoint source
programs, rather than an area to be regulated under section 402.
This section and the information on such nonpoint sources is
among the most important in the 1972 Amendments. * * * The
Committee, therefore, expects the Administrator to be most diligent
in gathering and distribution of the guidelines for the
identification of nonpoint sources and the information on processes,
procedures, and methods for control of pollution from such nonpoint
sources as * * * natural and manmade changes in the normal flow of
surface and ground waters.
H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 109 (1972) (emphasis added).
In the legislative history of section 208 of the Act, the House
Committee report noted that in some States, water resource management
agencies allocating stream flows are required to consider water quality
impacts. The Report stated:
[I]n some States water resource development agencies are
responsible for allocation of stream flow and are required to give
full consideration to the effects on water quality. To avoid
duplication, the Committee believes that a State which has an
approved program for the handling of permits under section 402, and
which has a program for water resource allocation should continue to
exercise the primary responsibility in both of these areas and thus
provide a balanced management control system.
H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 96 (1972).
Thus, Congress recognized that the new section 402 permitting
program was not the only viable approach for addressing water quality
issues associated with State water resource management. The legislative
history makes clear that Congress did not intend a wholesale transfer
of responsibility for water quality away from water resource agencies
to the NPDES authority. Rather, Congress encouraged States to obtain
approval of authority to administer the NPDES program under section
402(b) so that the NPDES program could work in concert with water
resource agencies' oversight of water management activities to ensure a
``balanced management control system.'' Id.
C. Conclusion
In sum, the language, structure, and legislative history of the
statute all support the conclusion that Congress did not intend to
subject water transfers to the NPDES program. Water transfers are an
integral part of water resource management; they embody how States and
resource agencies manage the nation's water resources and balance
competing needs for water. Water transfers also physically implement
State regimes for allocating water rights, many of which existed long
before enactment of the Clean Water Act. Congress was aware of those
regimes, and did not want to impair the ability of these agencies to
carry them out. Finding the NPDES program generally inapplicable to
water transfers is true to this intent and the structure of the Clean
Water Act, and gives meaning to sections 101(g) and 304(f) of the Act.
IV. Scope of This Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would expressly exclude discharges from water
transfers from requiring an NPDES permit. The rule would define a water
transfer as an activity that conveys waters of the United States to
another water of the United States without subjecting the water to
intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. Waters of the
U.S. are defined for purposes of the NPDES program in the Code of
Federal Regulations in Sec. 122.2.
A water transfer occurs between two ``waters of the United
States.'' Accordingly, the movement of water through a dam is not a
water transfer because the dam merely conveys water from one location
to another within the same waterbody. However, in both cases (water
transfers between distinct water
[[Page 32892]]
bodies and movement of waters within the same waterbody), an NPDES
permit is not required because no ``addition'' of a pollutant has
occurred.
Water transfer facilities should be able to be operated and
maintained in a manner which ensures that they do not add pollutants to
the water being transferred. If no pollutants are added, a permit would
not be required. However, where these point sources do add pollutants
to water passing through the structure into the downstream water, NPDES
permits are required. Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 588; Gorsuch, 693
F.2d at 165, n. 22. Nothing in this rulemaking affects EPA's
longstanding approach to regulation of such discharges under section
402.
This proposed rule would not affect EPA's longstanding position
that, if water is withdrawn from waters of the U.S. for an intervening
industrial, municipal or commercial use, the reintroduction of the
intake water and associated pollutants is an ``addition'' subject to
NPDES permitting requirements. EPA has long imposed NPDES requirements
on entities that withdraw process water or cooling water and then
return some or all of the water through a point source. See, e.g., 40
CFR 122.2 (definition of process wastewater); 40 CFR 125.80-125.89
(regulation of cooling towers); 40 CFR 122.45(g) (regulations governing
intake pollutants for technology-based permitting); 40 CFR part 132,
Appendix F, Procedure 5-D (containing regulations governing water
quality-based permitting for intake pollutants in the Great Lakes).
Moreover, a discharge from a waste treatment system, for example, to a
water of the United States, would not constitute a water transfer (and
would require an NPDES permit). See 40 CFR 122.2. These situations are
distinguished from the water transfers that are the subject of this
notice because if water is withdrawn from navigable waters for an
intervening industrial, municipal or commercial use, the reintroduction
of that intake water and associated pollutants physically introduces
pollutants from the outside world into navigable waters and, therefore,
is an ``addition'' subject to NPDES permitting requirements. The fact
that some of the pollutants in the discharge may have been present in
the source water does not remove the need for a permit, although, under
some circumstances, permittees may receive ``credit'' in their effluent
limitations for such pollutants. See, 40 CFR 122.45(g) (regulations
governing intake pollutants for technology-based permitting); 40 CFR
part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5-D (containing regulations governing
water quality-based permitting for intake pollutants in the Great
Lakes).
Similarly, an NPDES permit is normally required if a facility
withdraws water from a water of the U.S., removes preexisting
pollutants to purify the water, and then discharges the removed
pollutants (perhaps in concentrated form) back into the water of the
U.S. while retaining the purified water for use in the facility. An
example of this situation is drinking water treatment facilities, which
withdraw water from streams, rivers, and lakes. The withdrawn water
typically contains suspended solids, which must be removed to make the
water potable. The removed solids are a waste material from the
treatment process and, if discharged into waters of the U.S., are
subject to NPDES permitting requirements, even though that waste
material originated in the withdrawn water. See, e.g., In re City of
Phoenix, Arizona Squaw Peak & Deer Valley Water Treatment Plants, 9
E.A.D. 515, 2000 WL 1664964 (EPA Envtl. App. Bd. November 1, 2000)
(rejecting, on procedural grounds, challenges to NPDES permits for two
drinking water treatment plants that draw raw water from the Arizona
Canal, remove suspended solids to purify the water, and discharge the
solids back into the Canal; Final NPDES General Permits for Water
Treatment Facility Discharges in the State of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, 65 FR 69,000 (2000) (NPDES permits for discharges of process
wastewaters from drinking water treatment plants).
Waters that are diverted and used for irrigation and then
reintroduced to the waters of the U.S. are exempt from permitting
requirements under the exemption for return flows from irrigated
agriculture from the definition of ``point source'' in section 502(14)
and this Agency interpretation does not affect that exemption.
The activities addressed by this proposed rule also stand in sharp
contrast to other activities that have long been subject to the Clean
Water Act's permitting requirements. For example, section 402 subjects
placer mining of ore deposits in streams and rivers to the NPDES
permitting program because the process results in the excavation and
point source discharge of dirt and gravel into waters of the U.S. See
Rybachek v. EPA, 904 F.2d 1276, 1285 (9th Cir. 1990). Similarly,
section 404 of the Clean Water Act subjects the deposit or redeposit of
dredged or fill material to a specialized permitting program because
that activity results in the point source discharge of those materials
into navigable waters. See CWA section 404; United States v. Deaton,
209 F.3d 331, 335-336 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. M.C.C. of Fla.,
Inc., 772 F.2d 1501, 1503-1506 (11th Cir. 1985), vacated on other
grounds, 481 U.S. 1034 (1987), readopted in relevant part, 848 F.2d
1133 (11th Cir. 1988); Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715
F.2d 897, 923-925 (5th Cir. 1983). The Clean Water Act also clearly
imposes permitting requirements on publicly owned treatment works, and
large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems. See CWA
sections 402(a), 402(p)(1)-(4). Congress amended the Clean Water Act in
1987 specifically to add new section 402(p) to better regulate
stormwater discharges from point sources. Water Quality Act of 1987,
Public Law 100-4, 101 Stat. 7 (1987). Again, this interpretation does
not affect EPA's longstanding regulation of such discharges.
This proposed rule also would not change EPA's longstanding
position, upheld by the Supreme Court in Miccosukee, that the
definition of ``discharge of a pollutant'' in the CWA includes coverage
of point sources that do not themselves generate pollutants. The
Supreme Court stated, ``A point source is, by definition, a
`discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance' Section 1362(14)
(emphasis added). That definition makes plain that a point source need
not be the original source of the pollutant; it need only convey the
pollutant to `navigable waters,' which are, in turn, defined as `the
waters of the United States.' Section 1362(7).'' Miccosukee, 541 U.S.
at 105.
EPA solicits comment on the proposed definition of a water
transfer. Does the definition properly achieve the Agency's objective
of excluding water transfers from NPDES permitting (as intended by
Congress) while affirming section 402 jurisdiction over all other
currently regulated activities? Does the proposed rule clearly
distinguish between situations where the water transfer facility
``adds'' pollutants to the water being transferred and thus must obtain
a permit, and those situations where waters merely pass through the
facility without the addition of any pollutant?
V. Designation Authority
EPA considered, but ultimately did not propose, an additional
provision allowing States to designate particular water transfers as
subject to the NPDES program on a case-by-case basis. EPA did not
select this option but is seeking comment on it.
Under this approach, the permitting authority would have the
discretion to
[[Page 32893]]
issue a permit on a case-by-case basis if a transfer would cause a
significant impairment of a designated use and no State authorities are
being implemented to adequately address the problem. A significant
impairment would occur when, as a result of the water transfer, the
designated use of the receiving water could no longer be maintained.
This designation would be at the sole discretion of the State NPDES
authority, and would only apply in States authorized to implement the
section 402 program.
Again, the Agency is not proposing to establish designation
authority, but EPA is interested in the programs States have to address
water quality impacts from water transfers, how they are being
implemented, and what is the best way to fill any gaps in how States
address those impacts currently. EPA notes that, regardless of whether
it includes this designation authority in the final rule or not, States
retain the authority under State law to regulate water transfers as
they see fit, including requiring permits for such transfers. Without
designation authority, however, these permits could not be issued under
NPDES program authority.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This proposed rulemaking would expressly exclude discharges from water
transfers from requiring an NPDES permit. This rule does not seek to
require potentially affected entities to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose information to or for a Federal agency and therefore would not
impose any information collection burden.
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Because EPA is simply codifying the Agency's longtime position that
Congress did not generally intend for the NPDES program to regulate the
transfer of waters of the United States into another water of the
United States, this proposed action will not impose any requirement on
small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts
of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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, local, and tribal
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 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
[[Page 32894]]
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.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. EPA is proposing to simply codify the
Agency's longtime position that Congress did not generally intend for
the NPDES program to regulate the transfer of a water of the United
States into another water of the United States. Thus, today's proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA. For the same reason, EPA has determined that this rule contains
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
E. 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.''
Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. Under section 6(c) of Executive
Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
EPA has concluded that this proposed rule 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.
Today's proposed rule does not change the relationship between the
government and the States or change their roles and responsibilities.
Rather, this proposed rulemaking would confirm the Agency's
longstanding practice that Congress generally intended for water
transfers to be subject to oversight by water resource management
agencies and State non-NPDES authorities, rather than the permitting
program under section 402 of the CWA. In addition, EPA does not expect
this rule to have any impact on local governments.
Further, the revised regulations would not alter the basic State-
Federal scheme established in the Clean Water Act under which EPA
authorizes States to carry out the NPDES permitting program. EPA
expects the revised regulations to have little effect on the
relationship between, or the distribution of power and responsibilities
among, the Federal and State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with
representatives of State governments early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. EPA asked States for data regarding the
number of water transfers within their jurisdiction and the mechanisms
under State law that could be utilized to address any possibly adverse
water quality impacts from those transfers. In considering the
designation authority provision, EPA also sought data from the States
regarding their use of similar authorities in their stormwater phase II
and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) rules. In addition to
data collection, EPA sought States' opinions on water transfers
generally, and designation, specifically. States varied in their
concerns, with some opposed to NPDES permitting for water transfers and
some supportive of an ability to use it.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. 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 9, 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 does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Today's proposed rule would clarify that Congress did not generally
intend for the NPDES program to regulate the transfer of waters of the
United States into another water of the United States. Nothing in this
rule would prevent an Indian Tribe from exercising its own organic
authority to deal with such matters. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
EnvironmentalHealth and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency 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
[[Page 32895]]
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This regulation is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe that it addresses
environmental health and safety risks that present a disproportionate
risk to children. Today's proposed rule would simply clarify Congress's
intent that water transfers generally be subject to oversight by water
resource management agencies and State non-NPDES authorities, rather
than the permitting program under section 402 of the CWA.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule would not be 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 an economically significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866.
I. 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 t