42266
823Z9300
40 CFH Parts 122,123,131, and 132
[FRL-468»-7)
BIN 2040-AC08
PropoMd Water Quality Guidance for
the Great Lakes System
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. • ,
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of
documents; correction.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this document
{g to announce the availability of two
reports that EPA is considering as it
develops the final Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System; to
request public comment on the possible
application of the options set forth in
these reports in the final Guidance; and
to make corrections to the preamble and
proposed rule text for the proposed
Water Quality Guidance for the Great
Lakes System, including missing text
and changes that were inadvertently
omitted during the editing of the
Recycled/Recyclable- Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer) • Please recycle as newsprint
-------
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 151 / Monday, August 9, 1993 / Proposed Rules
42267
proposed rule. The proposed rule was
published in the April 16,1993, Federal
Register (58 FR 20802). with corrections
published at 58 FR 21046.
The two reports being made available
for public comment are: "Revision of
Methodology for Deriving National
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health: Report of
Workshop and EPA's Preliminary
Recommendations for Revision"
("Preliminary Recommendations"), and
"Interim Report on Data and Methods
for Assessment of 2.3.7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to
Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife"
("Interim Dioxin Report"). EPA wants to
ensure that the public has an
opportunity to comment on whether any
of the options in the Preliminary
Recommendations should be adopted in
the final Great Lakes Water Quality
Guidance methodologies for
development of human health criteria
and values, and for development of
bioaccumulation factors. EPA also
invites the public to comment on
whether any of the data and methods in
the Interim Dioxin Report-should be
adopted in the final Great Lakes
Guidance.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted on or before September 13,
1993. Comments postmarked after this
date may not be considered.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Wendy Schumacher, Water Quality
Branch (WQS-16J). U.S. EPA. Region V,
77 West Jackson Blvd.. Chicago, Illinois,
60604 (telephone: 312-886-0142).
Commenters are requested to submit
one original and 4 copies of their
written comments. In addition, EPA
encourages commenters to provide one
copy of their comments in electronic
format, preferably 5.25" or 3.5" diskettes
compatible with WordPerfect for DOS.
A copy of the reports identified in this
document are available for inspection
and copying at the U.S. EPA Region V
Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd..
Chicago, Illinois, by appointment only.
Appointments may be made by calling
Wendy Schumacher (telephone: 312-
886-0142). A reasonable fee will be
charged for photocopies. The two
reports are also available by mail upon
request for a fee (see section I.C of
Supplementary Information for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth A. Fenner, Water Quality
Branch Chief. (WQS-16J). U.S. EPA
Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.. Chicago.
Illinois, 60604 (telephone: 312-353-
2079).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Availability of Documents and
Request for Comments
Section 304(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C 1314(a)(l)) requires EPA
to publish and-periodically update
ambient water quality criteria. These
criteria are to reflect the latest scientific
knowledge on the identifiable effects of
pollutants on public health and welfare,
aquatic life and recreation. Section
118(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act
requires EPA to publish water quality
guidance for the Great Lakes System
which includes guidance on numerical
limits on pollutants in ambient Great
Lakes waters to protect human health,
aquatic life and wildlife.
The proposed Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System
was published on April 16.1993, in the
Federal Register (58 FR 20802).
Corrections to the proposed preamble
and proposed rule text were published
in the Federal Register on the same date
(58 FR 21046). This Guidance, once
finalized, will establish minimum water
quality standards, antidegradation
policies, and implementation
procedures for waters within the Great
Lakes System in the States of New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
including waters within the jurisdiction
of Indian Tribes.
A. Great Lakes Guidance Human Health
Methodology
In 1980, EPA published National
guidelines for the development of
protective criteria for contaminants that
may adversely affect human health in
ambient water. These guidelines can be
found at 45 FR 79347, dated November
28.1980. Using the 1980 National
Guidelines, criteria may be developed
based on lexicological endpoints
(cancer and non-cancer adverse health
effects), and organoleptic effects. The
guidelines for derivation of criteria
consider potential human exposure via
consumption of water and ingestion of
contaminated fish and shellfish.
The proposed Great Lakes Water
Quality Guidance includes proposed
numeric criteria to protect human
health for 20 pollutants and
methodologies to derive cancer and
non-cancer human health criteria and
values for additional pollutants. It also
includes a methodology for
development of bioaccumulation factors
to be used in developing human health
and wildlife criteria. Although the
objectives of the proposed Great Lakes
Human Health Guidance are similar to
those of the 1980 National Guidelines,
the proposed Great Lakes Human Health
Methodology differs from current
National Guidance in several respects.
For example, the Great Lakes Guidance
uses bioaccumulation factors which
account for uptake of pollutants directly
from the waters of the Great Lakes
System plus uptake of pollutants from
the food chain rather than
bioconcentration factors (which only
account for uptake of pollutants directly
from the water). Additionally, a fish
consumption rate that is based on data
from the Great Lakes area is used in the
proposed Guidance. For additional
details on the proposed methodology.
including similarities and differences
with the 1980 National Guidelines,
readers are referred to the preamble
discussion contained in the April 16,
1993, notice (58 FR 20863-20877).
The April 16,1993. proposed
Guidance indicated that EPA is
currently in the process of reviewing
and revising its 1980 National
Guidelines. EPA believes that the
National Guidelines should be
evaluated from time to time to
determine whether significant advances
have occurred in the science which
should be reflected in the National
methodology guidelines. As a first step
in the revision effort, EPA prepared an
issues paper and held a workshop on
September 13-16.1992, in Bethesda,
Maryland to discuss the issues with a
group of experts from EPA, other federal
agencies, states, academia, industry,
conservation groups and other
interested parties. The workshop
participants were divided into six
working groups which discussed the
following technical subjects: (1) cancer
risk, (2) non-cancer risk, (3) exposure.
(4) microbiology. (5) minimum data and
(6) bioaccumulation. Each group
provided a written summary of the
information discussed by the group. The
reports from the workshop and EPA's
preliminary recommendations for
revisions to the human health
methodology were integrated into a
report entitled, "Revision of
Methodology for Deriving National
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health: Report of
Workshop and EPA's Preliminary
Recommendations for Revision"
("Preliminary Recommendations"),
prepared by the Human Risk
Assessment Branch, U.S. EPA Office of
Water. January 8,1993.
The Preliminary Recommendations
report was submitted to EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB) for review and
comment during the SAB's February 9-
10.1993, meeting. The SAB meetings
are open to the public and the public
may submit comments on the issues.
discussed at these meetings directly to
-------
42268 Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 151 / Monday. August 9. 1993 / Proposed Rules
the SAB. EPA anticipates that the SAB
will provide formal written comments
on the Preliminary Recommendations in
an SAB report expected this year. EPA
will make the SAB report available to
the public at that time. EPA will
consider all public comments submitted
to the SAB in response to the February
9-10,1993. SAB review meeting and
any public comments on the final SAB
report, when it becomes available, in the
preparation of the final Great Lakes
Guidance. EPA encourages the public to
also send one original and 4 copies of
their written comments to the SAB
directly to Ms. Wendy Schumacher at
the address specified at the beginning of
today's notice.
EPA is providing this notice of
availability, and placing the Preliminary
Recommendations in the administrative
record for the proposed Great Lakes
Water Quality Guidance, because EPA
intends to consider all the
recommendations concerning issues
associated with the National guidelines
revision, and discussed in the subject
report, in the development of final
Water Quality Guidance for human
health protection in the Great Lakes
System. EPA will also consider the SAB
comments on the Preliminary
Recommendations in finalizing the
Great Lakes Guidance, and intends to
issue a subsequent notice of availability
when the SAB report is issued. The
following are some examples of
alternatives discussed in the January 8,
1993, Preliminary Recommendations to
the SAB but not included in the April
16/1993, proposal.
"" Data
1.
The proposed Great Lakes Guidance
would include two tiers of criteria/
values for the protection of human
health which differ in minimum data
requirements. For example, to develop a
noncancer Tier I criterion, the miniTmim
requirement is a no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) from a well
conducted subchronic mammalian
study. The duration of the study must
be at least 90 days in rodents, or 10
percent of the lifespan of other
appropriate species. For a noncancer
Tier n value, the minimum acceptable
database is a NOAEL from a well
conducted repeated dose mammalian
study of at least 28 days. For both Tier
I criteria and Tier n values all relevant
data must be considered. The terms
"criteria" and "values" are used to
differentiate between protective ambient
concentrations derived with optimum,
as opposed to acceptable, data
requirements. Both Tier I criteria and
Tier n values will have regulatory effect
under the proposed Great Lakes
Guidance. [See 58 FR 20871-74.)
One option discussed in the January
8,1993. Preliminary Recommendations
involves a five-tier approach based on
the quality and type of lexicological
information. These tiers range from high
confidence data (Tier I) to no available
data (Tier V). Data requirements for Tier
I chemicals include mechanistic,
pharmacokinetic, and target organ
toxidty data. TierH includes those
chemicals with enough data to establish
a reference dose (RED) for noncancer
endpoints or a cancer potency factor.
Readers are referred to the April 16,
1993 notice (58 FR 20872-73) for
information on the minimum acceptable
data base for an RfD or a cancer potency
factor. Tier ffl includes: (1) Chemicals
for which available data are not
sufficient to meet the requirements for
RfD development but consist of at least
a well conducted 28-day repeated oral
dose rodent bioassay resulting in a
NOAEL. (2) chemicals which are Group
C chemicals (see U.S. EPA's Guidelines
for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment.
published on September 24.1986 at 51
FR 33992) and for which insufficient
data to calculate a cancer potency slope
exists, and (3) chemicals which are
Group C chemicals of low concern (e.g.,
chemicals of low potency or in which
the mechanism of carcinogenicity does
not appear directly related to humans
due to species differences in
toxicokinetics). Tier IV chemicals
include those not meeting the 28-day
minimum data requirement for Tier ffl,
but available noncancer and cancer data
(such as acute toxicity data, genetic
toxicology, structure activity
relationship data) indicates a potential
health hazard. Tier W data are
insufficient to develop a numeric
criterion but may be used in interpreting
narrative criteria. Tier V indicates no
data availability. Under this alternative
five-tier approach, Tiers I and n are
equivalent to Tier I criteria in the
proposed Great Lakes Guidance while
Tier m is equivalent to Tier n values in
the Guidance. This alternative scheme is
a refinement of the proposed Great
Lakes Guidance 2-tier approach. The
extra tiers are added to better describe
and categorize the quality of the data.
EPA requests comment on the use of
this alternative classification scheme of
five tiers for the Great Lakes Guidance
and, specifically, on how these different
tiers could be used in regulatory
decision-making (e.g.. in setting permit
limits). For example, in those instances
where insufficient data exist to develop
numeric criteria or values, available
information could nevertheless be used
to interpret State narrative criteria.
2. Relative Source Contribution
Under the proposed Great Lakes
Guidance, EPA assumes an 80 percent
relative source contribution (RSC) from
surface water pathways (water and fish)
for bioaccumulative contaminants of
concern (BCCs). and 100 percent RSC
for non-BCCs, in deriving noncancer
criteria/values. A 100 percent RSC is
. assumed for all chemicals in deriving
cancer criteria/values. (See 58 FR
20870.)
Several alternative options are
described in the Preliminary
Recommendations. One option is to use
a subtraction approach to account for
other sources of exposure (e.g., air. food)
when there are sufficient data to
quantitatively apportion them rather
than using arbitrary default values. (In
the case of no available data, a default
assumption will still have to be made.)
The contribution from these other
sources could be subtracted from the
Reference Dose (RfD) in deriving the
criteria. One of the options includes the
use of a 20 percent floor and an 80
percent ceiling for the RSC when
adequate exposure data are available,
and a 20 percent default value when
adequate exposure data are lacking.
There is no differentiation for
bioaccumulative and non-
bioaccumulative chemicals under any of
the options in the report EPA requests
specific comments on the possibility of
incorporating one of the RSC options
described in the January 8,1993,
Preliminary Recommendations in the
final Great Lakes Guidance.
3. Development of Short-Tenn Advisory
Levels
Under the Great Lakes Guidance, all.
criteria and values are developed based
on an assumption of long-term v
exposures to humans. A 70-year
exposure is assumed, and fish and water
consumption rates reflect long-term
exposures. An alternative is discussed
in the report to the SAB. The workshop
report and EPA's preliminary
recommendations include the concept
of developing one-day Healtii Advisory
Doses (HADs) which could be used to
develop criteria to protect the public
such as pregnant women) from large
short-term doses of contaminants from
consumption of fish containing
pollutant residues. This concept was
developed with the belief that people
may consume large amounts of fish
during a given meal and that
reproduction/developmental effects (or
other short-term acute effects) may not
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 151 / Monday, August 9, 1993 / Proposed Rules 42269
adequately be accounted for with a
lifetime criterion using a long-term
exposure assumptions. Criteria based on
short-term exposures would supplement
criteria based on long-term exposures.
EPA requests specific comment on this
issue with regard to the need for
development of human health criteria
based on short-term exposures.
B. Interim Dioxin Report
EPA released a peer-reviewed interim
report on dioxin ecological effects on
April 23,1993. This report is entitled,
"Interim Report on Data and Methods
for the Assessment of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to
Aquatic Organisms and Associated
Wildlife", prepared by the Office of
Research and Development, U.S. EPA,
March 1993 (EPA Report Number EPA/
600/R-93/055). The report compiles and
evaluates toxicity, exposure and
bioaccumuhUion data from the current
scientific literature for aquatic life and
associated wildlife regarding dioxin.
The report addresses issues related to
risk characterization to illustrate the use
of current information in ecological risk
assessments.
EPA is placing this document hi the
administrative record for the Great
Lakes Guidance because the proposed
Great Lakes Guidance includes both
human health and wildlife criteria for
dioxin. The Interim Dioxin Report
contains relevant information for the
derivation of a wildlife criterion for
dioxin. In addition, the Interim Dioxin
Report summarizes available effects and
exposure data for assessment of dioxin
risks to aquatic life and provides
information on how to derive dioxin
bioaccumulation factors (BAFs). BAFs
are used in deriving both human health
and wildlife criteria. Under the BAF
methodology in the Interim Report, the
dioxin BAF varies with the particulate
organic carbon (POC] content of the
ambient water. The Interim Report
shows BAFs and environmental
concentrations associated with risks to
aquatic life and wildlife based on Lake
Ontario data (POC of 0.2 mgTL).
Available information suggests that POC
levels vary considerably among the
waters of the Great Lakes system. For
example. POC levels range from less
than 0.05 mg/L in Lake Superior to
levels from 2 mg/L to 20 mg/L (during
heavy rain periods) in the Fox River, a
tributary of Lake Michigan As the POC
level increases, the effect concentration
increases due to greater binding by
organic matter.
EPA did not propose an aquatic life-
based criterion for dioxin in the April
16.1993. proposed Great Lakes
Guidance because research efforts in
this area are still on-going and the
available data are not sufficient to
derive a Tier I aquatic life criterion. The
Interim Dioxin Report has data that may
be used to calculate a Tier H aquatic life
value for dioxin.
EPA requests specific public
comments on: (1) The applicability of
the information contained in the Interim
Dioxin Report to a wildlife criterion for
dioxin in the Great Lakes System. (2)
whether the information provided on
aquatic life effects in the Interim Dioxin
Report should be used in the final Great
Lakes Guidance to calculate an interim
numerical limit for dioxin to protect
aquatic life (i.e.. a Tier II value), and (3)
whether the methodology in the report
should be used to develop BAFs that
vary in the Great Lakes basin with POC
levels in the ambient water or whether
a single BAF should be used for
consistency among the Great Lakes
States.
C. Document Availability
The two reports that are referenced in
this document are available for
inspection and photocopying in the
administrative record for this -
rulemaking at the address listed at the
beginning of this preamble. A
reasonable fee will be charged for
photocopies.
The report, "Revision of Methodology
for Deriving National Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Human Health: Report of Workshop and
EPA's Preliminary Recommendations
for Revision" is available for a fee upon
written request or telephone call to the
National Technical Information Center
(NT1S). U.S. Department of Commerce.
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22161. The toll free number is 800-553-
6847 and the local number is 703-487-
4650. Alternatively, copies may be
obtained for a fee upon written request
or telephone call to the Educational
Resources Information Center/
Clearinghouse for Science. Mathematics.
and Environmental Education (ERIC/
CSMEE), 1200 Chambers Road, room
310. Columbus. Ohio 43212 (phone
number: 614-292- 6717). When
ordering, please include the NTIS
accession number. PB 93-213494. price
code AO6. or the ERIC/CSMEE
accession number, 687-D, $12.25.
The report, "Interim Report on Data
and Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to
Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife,"
is available upon written request or
telephone call to the Center for
Environmental Research Information,
EPA Office of Research and
Development, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive. Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(phone number: 513-569-7562).
n. Corrections
This notice provides corrections to
several paragraphs in the preamble and
the proposed rule text for the proposed
Water Quality Guidance for the Great
Lakes System which appeared on the
April 16,1993, Federal Register (58 FR
20802). The corrections provide missing
text and changes that were inadvertently
omitted during editing of the proposed
rule and are in addition to corrections
1 through 7 published with the
proposed rule in a separate section of
the April 16.1993, Federal Register (58
FR 21046).
Correction 8
The last sentence of the second
paragraph of the DATES section of the
notice should read, "The hearing officer
reserves the right to limit oral testimony
to 10 minutes or less, if necessary." (58
FR 20802) The words "or less" were
omitted ihrough editing error.
Correction 9
Two addresses in the ADDRESSES
section contained typographical errors.
Under Minnesota, the address should
read. "Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Library, 520 Lafayette, St. Paul.
Minnesota (612-296-7719)." Under
New York, the entry for NYSDEC,
Region 8. should read. "NYSDEC,
Region 8,6274 East Avon-Lima Road,
Avon. New York, 14414 (716-226-
2466)." (58 FR 20802)
Correction 10
The third sentence of the second
paragraph of section I.A.4.a of the
preamble should read, "An effluent
limit of one mg/L of phosphorus was
imposed on all major (greater than 1
million gallons per day) municipal
sewage treatment facilities in the Great
Lakes basin." (58 FR 20807) The.
revision corrects an error in the units of
the effluent limit.
Correction 11
The references in sections I.A.4.b (58
FR 20809) and I.H (58 FR 20832) to a
study by Ballschmitter et al., 1989, are
deleted.
Correction 12
The following reference should be
added to the list in section LH of the
preamble (58 FR 20832):
Eisenreich, S.J. and W.M.J. Strachan.
1992. Estimating atmospheric
deposition of toxic substances to the
Great Lakes: an update, from
workshop, Canada Center for Inland
Waters, Burlington, Ontario, January
-------
42270 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 151 / Monday, August 9, 1993 / Proposed Rules
31—February 2,1992, sponsored by
Great Lakes Protection Fund and
Environment Canada. June 1992.
Correction 13
The last sentence of section n.C of the
preamble should read as follows: "For
example, the EPA guidance document
Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control' (March
1991) remains fully applicable as
guidance within the Great Lakes System
for topics that have not been addressed
by the proposed Guidance, and fully
applicable as guidance for all topics for
waters outside the Great Lakes System."
(58 FR 20835) The second word
"guidance" replaces the word
"evidence," which was a typographical
error.
Correction 14
The second sentence of the second
paragraph of section n.D.3 of the
preamble should read, "The approach
may therefore result in permit limits
which may later be found to be more
stringent than those derived from new
toxicity data." (58 FR 20837). The words
"more stringent" replace the word .
"nonresistant," which was a
typographical error.
Correction 15
The ninth paragraph of section n.G of
the preamble should read as follows:
"The third way that Table 6 affects the
initial focus of this Guidance is in
determining when States, Tribes, and/or
permittees must generate data necessary
to calculate Tier II values used in
developing water quality-based effluent
limits. Procedure 5.D of the proposed
Implementation Procedures in appendix
F requires that permitting authorities
generate, or have permittees generate,
the data necessary to calculate Tier n
values for pollutants in Table 6 for
which there is no Tier I criterion or Tier
n value if the permitting authority
determines based on a specified
screening approach that a discharge
causes, has the reasonable potential to
cause or contributes to an excursion
above a State water quality standard."
(58 FR 20844) The word "permittee"
replaces the word "permitter," which
was a typographical error, in two places.
Correction 16
The first sentence of the second to the
last paragraph of section n.G of the
preamble should read, "EPA invites
comment on the proposed BAF level of
100C ojid any alternative BAF levels for
use in defining BCCs." (58 FR 20845).
The word "defining" replaces the word
"defending," which was a typographical
error.
Correction 17
The fifth paragraph of section n.H of
the preamble should read as follows: "If
a Great Lakes State or Tribe fails to
submit criteria, methodologies, policies,
and procedures tp EPA for review,
proposed § 132.5(c) provides that the
requirements of this part will apply to
discharges within the State or Federal
Indian Reservation upon EPA's
publication of a final rule in the Federal
Register indicating the effective date of
the part 132 requirements in the
•identified jurisdictions. EPA does not
intend to provide at that time an
opportunity for another round of public
comment on the criteria, methodologies,
policies, and procedures presented in
the proposed Guidance. EPA believes
that under these circumstances, today's
public comment period will provide
adequate notice and opportunity for
comment on all issues related to the
criteria, methodologies, policies, and
procedures. Accordingly, EPA will issue
a final rule identifying the criteria,
methodologies, policies, and procedures
that apply in the appropriate
jurisdictions." (58 FR 20846) Tho words
"a final rule" replace "the final
Guidance," to correct an editing error,
in two places.
Correction 18
The first sentence of the twelfth
paragraph of section n.H of the
preamble should read as follows:
"Proposed § 132.5 of the proposed
Guidance would provide that
requirements of this part will become
effective within a State or Federal
Indian Reservation if the State or Tribe
fails to make the necessary submission,
or if one or more parts of the submission
cannot be approved by EPA and the
State or Tribe fails to correct the
deficiency upon notice by EPA.
following EPA's publication of a final
rule in the Federal Register identifying
the elements of the part 132
requirements that apply in the
jurisdiction and their effective date in
the jurisdiction." (58 FR 20846) As in
correction 17, the words "a final rule"
replace "the final Guidance," to correct
an editing error.
Correction 19
The ambient water quality criteria for
aquatic life for pentachlorophenol and
phenol should be corrected in Tables
ni-1 and m-2 of the preamble (58 FR
20853) and Tables 1 and 2 of proposed
part 132 (58 FR 21014). The correct
values were used, however, in the
support document, "Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Criteria Documents for
the Protection of Aquatic Life in
Ambient Water." The corrected values
are: for Pentachlorophenol, chronic
criterion (CCC). 4.1 ug/L; for Phenol,
acute criterion (CMC), 3600 ug/L; for
Phenol, chronic criterion (CCC)r 110 ug/
L.
Correction 20
The headings "Percentile" and
"Sample Size" for Table ffl-3 of the
preamble were transposed by
typographical error. (58 FR 20856)
"Percentile" should appear over the left
column, and "Sample Size" should
appear over the 7 sub-columns on the
it.
Correction 21
In Table DC-1 of the preamble, the
entries for Major direct dischargers—
Municipal should read 348.9 and 353.5
for Scenarios 3 and 4 respectively. (58
FR 20987) The initial "3"s were omitted
through typographical error. The totals
for Scenarios 3 and 4 were also in error
for the same reason. They should read
473.9 and 505.5 for Scenarios 3 and 4
respectively. Please note that these
errors occur only in the table. EPA used
the correct figures in its analysis of the
costs of implementing the Guidance,
and in the preamble text discussing the
analysis. The figures are also stated
correctly in the support document,
"Assessment of Compliance Costs
Resulting from Implementation of the
Proposed Great Lakes Water Quality
Guidance."
Correction 22
The telephone number for the
National Technical Information Service
in the second paragraph of section Xin
of the preamble should be 800-553-
6847. (58 FR 21002)
Dated: July 30.1993.
Martha G. Prothro,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 93-18974 Filed 8-6-93; 8:45 am]
BILUNQ CODE !««» JO P
------- |