Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14351 

AD and the corrective action required in 

paragraph (f)(2) of this AD if already done 

before the effective date of this AD following 

British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 

3200 Service Bulletin 32–JA090240, original 

issue dated April 29, 2009; and BEA Systems 

All Operator Message: Ref 09–014J–1, issue 1, 

dated July 31, 2009. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

Attn: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4138; fax: (816) 329– 

4090. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2011–0016, 

dated February 1, 2011; British Aerospace 

Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 

32–JA090240, original issue dated April 29, 

2009; British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 

& 3200 Service Bulletin 32–JA090240, 

Revision 1, dated January 18, 2010; and BAE 

Systems All Operator Message: Ref 09–014J– 

1, issue 1 dated July 31, 2009, for related 

information. For service information related 

to this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) 

Ltd, Customer Information Department, 

Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, 

KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; 

telephone: +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 

675704; e-mail: 

RApublications@baesystems.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

816–329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 

10, 2011. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6097 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 132 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0492; FRL–9279–6] 

RIN 2040–AF23 

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain 

Federal Aquatic Life Water Quality 

Criteria Applicable to Wisconsin 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw 

Federal aquatic life water quality 

criteria for chronic and acute copper 

and nickel, and chronic endrin and 

selenium applicable to certain waters of 

the Great Lakes in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin’s revised and EPA-approved 

criteria adequately protect all waters of 

the State designated for aquatic life use 

at a level consistent with the Federal 

requirements. Once finalized, the 

withdrawal will enable Wisconsin to 

implement its EPA-approved aquatic 

life criteria. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by April 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2010–0492, by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail to either: Water Docket, 

USEPA, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 or Francine Norling, Proposed 

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Aquatic 

Life Water Quality Criteria Applicable 

to Wisconsin, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 

60604, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2010–0492. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20229 or Francine Norling, Proposed 

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Aquatic 

Life Water Quality Criteria Applicable 

to Wisconsin, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 

60604, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2010–0492. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0492. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 http:// 

www.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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14352 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

two Docket Facilities. The Office of 

Water (OW) Docket Center is open from 

8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket telephone number 

is (202) 566–2426 and the Docket 

address is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. 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. Publicly available 

docket materials are also available in 

hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 5 

address. Docket materials can be 

accessed from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number is (312) 

886–0271. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francine Norling, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 

77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 

(telephone: (312) 886–0271 or e-mail: 

norling.francine@epa.gov) or Claudia 

Fabiano, U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office 

of Science and Technology, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code 

4305T, Washington, DC 20460 

(telephone: (202) 566–0446 or e-mail: 

fabiano.claudia@epa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is organized as follows: 

General Information 

What entities may be affected by this 

action? 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

Background 

What are the applicable Federal statutory 

and regulatory requirements? 

Why is EPA withdrawing certain Federal 

aquatic life water quality criteria 

applicable to Wisconsin? 

Why is EPA not withdrawing Wisconsin’s 

endrin (chronic) aquatic life use criterion 

for waters designated as warm water 

sportfish and warm water forage fish use, 

and selenium (chronic) aquatic life use 

criterion for waters designated as limited 

forage fish use? 

What are the applicable Federal aquatic life 

water quality criteria that EPA is 

withdrawing? 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations) 

General Information 

What entities may be affected by this 

action? 

This rule proposes to withdraw 

Federally promulgated aquatic life 

criteria for chronic and acute copper 

and nickel for all waters of the Great 

Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin 

designated for aquatic life uses. This 

rule also proposes to withdraw 

Federally promulgated chronic aquatic 

life use criteria for endrin for waters 

designated by Wisconsin as Cold Water, 

Limited Forage Fish, and Limited 

Aquatic Life Use, and withdraw 

Federally promulgated chronic aquatic 

life use criteria for selenium for waters 

designated as Cold Water, Warm Water 

Sportfish, Warm Water Forage Fish, and 

Limited Aquatic Life use. Entities 

discharging copper, nickel, endrin or 

selenium to surface waters of Wisconsin 

could be affected by this rulemaking 

given that water quality standards are 

used to determine water quality based 

effluent limits in National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits, and may affect Clean Water Act 

(CWA) Section 404 dredge and fill 

permits, and other Federal licenses and 

permits requiring CWA 401 

certification. Table 1, below, provides 

examples of the types of NPDESregulated entities that may ultimately be 

affected by the Federal rule withdrawal. 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE FEDERAL RULE WITHDRAWAL

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ...................... Industries discharging to waters within the Great Lakes System as defined in 40 CFR 132.2 in Wisconsin. 

Municipalities ............. Publicly-owned treatment works discharging to waters within the Great Lakes System as defined in 40 CFR 132.2 in 

Wisconsin. 

To determine whether your facility 

may be affected by this proposed 

withdrawal, examine 40 CFR 132.2, 

which defines ‘‘Great Lakes System’’ and 

describes the 40 CFR part 132 

regulations. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

identified in the preceding section 

entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.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: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations part or 

section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14353 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Background 

A. What are the applicable Federal 

statutory and regulatory requirements? 

In 1995, EPA promulgated a final rule 

known as ‘‘Water Quality Guidance for 

the Great Lakes System’’ at 40 CFR part 

132, hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Guidance,’’ required by CWA Section 

118(c)(2) (33.U.S.C 1268). Among other 

provisions, the Guidance identified 

minimum water quality standards to 

protect aquatic life as part of a 

comprehensive plan to restore the 

health of the Great Lakes System. Under 

CWA Section 118(c)(2), Great Lakes 

States were required to adopt 

provisions, consistent with the 

Guidance, into their water quality 

standards and NPDES permit programs. 

In the absence of State action, or in the 

case of an EPA disapproval of the 

revised State water quality standards, 

EPA was required to promulgate any 

necessary requirements pursuant to the 

Guidance within a two-year period. 

As described in the preamble of the 

Guidance, when a State adopts and EPA 

approves revised numeric water quality 

criteria applicable to the Great Lakes 

System, thereby meeting the 

requirements of CWA Section 

303(c)(2)(B), EPA will publish a notice 

of approval in the Federal Register at 40 

CFR 132.5(f)(1). If EPA determines that 

all or part of the State criteria are 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CWA or the Guidance, then EPA 

will provide notice to the State and 

identify changes necessary for EPA 

approval (40 CFR 132.5(f)(2)). If the 

State does not adopt the changes within 

90 days of the notification, then EPA 

publishes a notice identifying the 

approved and disapproved elements of 

the submission, then a proposed and 

subsequent final rule (40 CFR 

132.5(f)(2)). 

B. Why is EPA withdrawing certain 

federal aquatic life water quality criteria 

applicable to Wisconsin? 

In 1997, Wisconsin adopted revised 

water quality standards to comply with 

the Guidance requirements (40 CFR part 

132). In October 2000, EPA disapproved 

six of Wisconsin’s revised aquatic life 

criteria, including chronic and acute 

copper and nickel, and chronic endrin 

and selenium. In January 2008, 

Wisconsin began rulemaking to revise 

its water quality standards to address 

EPA’s disapproval of these aquatic life 

criteria. The Wisconsin Natural 

Resources Board adopted the State’s 

revised criteria on June 24, 2008 and the 

Wisconsin Attorney General certified 

these rules on December 22, 2008. On 

May 4, 2009, EPA Region 5 received a 

letter from the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources requesting approval 

of final revisions to Chapter NR 105 

(Surface Water Quality Criteria and 

Secondary Values for Toxic Substances) 

of the Wisconsin Administrative Code 

(WAC). 

Pursuant to CWA Section 303(c)(3), 

EPA is required to review and approve 

new and revised State water quality 

standards before they can become 

effective for CWA purposes. EPA found 

that Wisconsin’s revised criteria satisfy 

the Federal requirements for submittal 

of new or revised water quality 

standards by a State to EPA and are 

consistent with the CWA and the 

Guidance requirements. EPA approved 

Wisconsin’s revised criteria on July 1, 

2009, with the exception of the chronic 

aquatic life criterion for selenium in 

waters designated by Wisconsin as 

Limited Forage Fish use. 

EPA’s approval of Wisconsin’s aquatic 

life criteria makes the Federally 

promulgated criteria no longer 

necessary for compliance with the 

CWA. Therefore, EPA has determined 

that the Federal aquatic life criteria for 

chronic and acute copper and nickel, 

chronic endrin (with the exception of 

the aquatic life criterion for waters 

designated as Warm Water Forage Fish 

and Warm Water Sportfish use), and 

chronic selenium (with the exception of 

the aquatic life criterion for waters 

designated as Limited Forage Fish use) 

may be withdrawn. 

C. Why is EPA not withdrawing 

Wisconsin’s endrin (chronic) aquatic life 

use criterion for waters designated as 

warm water sportfish and warm water 

forage fish use, and selenium (chronic) 

aquatic life use criterion for waters 

designated as limited forage fish use? 

On July 1, 2009, EPA approved 

Wisconsin’s revised chronic endrin 

aquatic life use criteria for all waters of 

the Great Lakes System in the State of 

Wisconsin designated for aquatic life 

uses. However, due to a transcription 

error, the chronic aquatic life use 

criterion for endrin for waters 

designated as Warm Water Forage Fish 

and Warm Water Sportfish use 

published in Wisconsin’s regulations at 

NR 105.06 (0.05 μg/L) is not identical to 

the criterion that Wisconsin submitted 

to EPA and which EPA approved (0.036 

μg/L). Therefore, EPA is not proposing 

to withdraw the Federal chronic endrin 

criterion for these aquatic life uses until 

after Wisconsin concludes rulemaking 

to correct the criterion in the State’s 

regulations. 

EPA took no action on Wisconsin’s 

revised chronic selenium criterion for 

Limited Forage Fish waters in its July 1, 

2009 action approving the other aquatic 

life criteria. In summary, Wisconsin 

calculated the chronic selenium 

criterion based on water column toxicity 

studies, rather than through dietary 

exposure, which currently available 

data indicates is the appropriate 

methodology to use. Because Wisconsin 

does not have an EPA-approved chronic 

aquatic life selenium criterion for 

Limited Forage Fish Waters, EPA is not 

proposing to withdraw the Federal 

chronic aquatic life selenium criterion 

as it applies to Wisconsin’s Limited 

Forage Fish waters at this time. 

Wisconsin may revise their chronic 

selenium criterion and submit to EPA 

for review and approval. 

D. What are the applicable Federal 

aquatic life water quality criteria that 

EPA is withdrawing? 

EPA is proposing to withdraw certain 

Federally promulgated aquatic life 

criteria for Wisconsin included in the 

Guidance (40 CFR 132.6). Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to withdraw the 

Federal aquatic life use criteria for 

chronic and acute copper and nickel (40 

CFR 132.6(f)) applicable to all waters of 

the Great Lakes System in Wisconsin 

designated for aquatic life uses. EPA 

also is proposing to amend the Federal 

chronic aquatic life criterion for endrin 

(40 CFR 132.6(f)) to apply exclusively to 

waters designated by Wisconsin as 

Warm Water Sportfish and Warm Water 

Forage Fish use, and to amend the 

Federal chronic aquatic life criterion for 

selenium (40 CFR 132.6(g)) to apply 

exclusively to waters designated by 

Wisconsin as Limited Forage Fish use. 

Once finalize, the rule withdrawal will 

enable Wisconsin to implement under 

State law, the EPA-approved aquatic life 

criteria. 

Wisconsin’s EPA-approved aquatic 

life criteria revisions do not affect 

Wisconsin’s designated uses included in 

Chapter NR 105 of the WAC. Based on 

the designated uses defined in NR 

102.04(3) of the WAC, aquatic life 

designated uses of Cold Water 

communities, Warm Water Sportfish 

communities, and Warm Water Forage 

Fish communities are consistent with 

the requirements of CWA Section 

101(a)(2) for the protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife. The Limited Forage Fish 

aquatic life use does not meet this 

requirement because these surface 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14354 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

waters are capable of supporting only a 

‘‘limited community of forage fish and 

other aquatic life,’’ based on ‘‘limited 

capacity and naturally poor water 

quality or habitat’’ (WAC, Chapter 

102.04(3)(d)). The following section 

discusses and compares the calculations 

and criteria included in EPA’s Federal 

regulations and those included in 

Wisconsin’s revised criteria. 

1. Acute Copper Aquatic Life Criteria 

Applicable to Cold Water, Warm Water 

Sportfish, Warm Water Forage Fish, 

Limited Forage Fish, and Limited 

Aquatic Life Designated Uses 

Wisconsin adopted and EPA reviewed 

and approved an acute copper aquatic 

life criteria equation applicable to all 

surface waters in Wisconsin designated 

for aquatic life use. The equation used 

by Wisconsin to calculate the acute 

copper aquatic life criteria results in a 

slightly higher value than the EPA 

equation contained in 40 CFR part 132, 

applicable to all waters within the Great 

Lakes Basin (see Table 2). 

TABLE 2—ACUTE COPPER CRITERIA EQUATION

[All surface water classifications] 

EPA criteria maximum concentration 

(μg/L) 

Wisconsin acute toxicity criteria 

(μg/L) 

CMC = exp(0.9422*ln(hardness)) ¥ 1.700 .............................................. ATC = exp(0.9436*ln(hardness)) ¥ 1.6036 

The difference between EPA’s and 

Wisconsin’s intercept in the copper 

equation is due to the elimination of one 

of the most sensitive species from the 

criteria calculation (northern 

pikeminnow, genus Ptychocheilus) and 

inclusion of additional data for three 

species. Eliminating the Ptychocheilus 

data from the equation is scientifically 

defensible because Ptychocheilus is not 

native to Wisconsin and is not a 

surrogate for other Wisconsin taxa 

unrepresented in the data set. The 

northern pikeminnow is a type of 

minnow, and other minnows (fathead 

and bluntnose) found in Wisconsin are 

well-represented in the copper data set. 

Wisconsin’s slope of 0.9436 is slightly 

different from EPA’s 0.9422 slope due to 

Wisconsin’s inclusion of additional data 

on three species (Daphnia magna, 

rainbow trout, and bluegill) that were 

not included in EPA’s 1985 slope 

calculation used in the Guidance. EPA 

included these data in the 1995 criteria 

update, but did not recalculate the slope 

used in the 1985 EPA copper criteria 

document. 

Wisconsin’s method for deriving the 

acute copper criteria equation is an 

acceptable State-specific modification of 

EPA’s criteria, consistent with 

Wisconsin’s methods for deriving 

criteria (WAC Chapter NR 105). The 

equation is scientifically sound and 

results in criteria that are protective of 

the use, therefore this equation is 

consistent with CWA Sections 101(a)(2) 

and 303(c)(2), and 40 CFR parts 131 and 

132. 

2. Chronic Copper Aquatic Life Criteria 

Applicable to Cold Water, Warm Water 

Sportfish, Warm Water Forage Fish, 

Limited Forage Fish, and Limited 

Aquatic Life Designated Uses 

Wisconsin has adopted and EPA 

reviewed and approved a chronic 

copper aquatic life criteria equation 

applicable to all surface waters in 

Wisconsin designated for aquatic life 

use. The equation used by Wisconsin for 

calculating chronic aquatic life criteria 

for copper produces a slightly higher 

value than the EPA equation at a given 

hardness (see Table 3). 

TABLE 3—CHRONIC COPPER CRITERIA EQUATION

[All surface water classifications] 

EPA Criterion continuous concentration 

(μg/L) 

Wisconsin chronic toxicity criteria 

(μg/L) 

CCC = exp(0.8545*ln(hardness)) ¥ 1.702 .............................................. CTC = exp(0.8557*ln(hardness)) ¥ 1.6036 

The difference between EPA’s and 

Wisconsin’s copper equation intercept 

is primarily due to the elimination of 

one of the most sensitive species from 

the criteria calculation (northern 

pikeminnow, genus Ptychocheilus), 

which is not native to Wisconsin. It is 

scientifically defensible for Wisconsin 

to eliminate from the calculation data 

for a non-native species which is not a 

surrogate for taxon that are 

unrepresented in the data set. The 

northern pikeminnow is a type of 

minnow, and other minnows (fathead 

and bluntnose) found in Wisconsin, are 

well-represented in the copper data set. 

Wisconsin’s slope of 0.8557 is slightly 

different from EPA’s 0.8545 slope due to 

Wisconsin’s inclusion of additional data 

on three species (Daphnia magna, 

rainbow trout, and bluegill) that were 

not included in EPA’s 1985 slope 

calculation used in the Guidance. EPA 

included these data in the 1995 criteria 

update, but did not recalculate the slope 

used in the 1985 copper criteria 

document. 

Wisconsin’s method for deriving the 

chronic copper criteria equation is an 

acceptable State-specific modification of 

EPA’s criteria, consistent with 

Wisconsin’s methods for deriving 

criteria (WAC Chapter NR 105). The 

equation is scientifically sound and 

results in criteria that are protective of 

the use, therefore this equation is 

consistent with CWA Sections 101(a)(2) 

and 303(c)(2), and 40 CFR parts 131 and 

132. 

3. Acute Nickel Aquatic Life Criteria 

Applicable to Cold Water, Warm Water 

Sportfish, Warm Water Forage Fish, 

Limited Forage Fish, and Limited 

Aquatic Life Designated Uses 

Wisconsin adopted and EPA reviewed 

and approved an acute nickel aquatic 

life criteria equation applicable to all 

surface waters in Wisconsin designated 

for aquatic life use. The equation used 

by Wisconsin to calculate acute aquatic 

life criteria for nickel is identical to that 

contained in the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Guidance, 40 CFR part 132 as 

well as EPA’s CWA Section 304(a) 

national criteria guidance (see Table 4). 

The equation is scientifically sound and 

results in criteria that are protective of 

the use, therefore this equation is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14355 

consistent with CWA Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2), and 40 CFR parts 131 and 

132. 

TABLE 4—ACUTE NICKEL CRITERIA EQUATION

[All surface water classifications] 

EPA criteria maximum concentration 

(μg/L) 

Wisconsin acute toxicity criteria 

(μg/L) 

CMC = exp(0.846*ln(hardness)) + 2.255 ................................................. ATC = exp(0.846*ln(hardness)) + 2.255 

4. Chronic Nickel Aquatic Life Criteria 

Applicable to Cold Water, Warm Water 

Sportfish, Warm Water Forage Fish, 

Limited Forage Fish, and Limited 

Aquatic Life Designated Uses 

Wisconsin adopted and EPA 

approved, two chronic nickel aquatic 

life criteria equations (see Table 5). The 

first equation is used to calculate the 

chronic nickel aquatic life criterion for 

Cold Water, Warm Water Sportfish, 

Warm Water Forage Fish, and Limited 

Forage Fish designated uses. The second 

equation is used to calculate the chronic 

nickel aquatic life criterion for the 

Limited Aquatic Life designated use. 

TABLE 5—CHRONIC NICKEL CRITERIA EQUATIONS

EPA criterion continuous concentration 

(μg/L) 

Wisconsin chronic toxicity criteria (μg/L): Cold 

water, warm water sportfish, warm water forage fish, and limited 

forage fish 

Wisconsin chronic toxicity criteria (μg/L): 

Limited aquatic life 

CCC = exp(0.846*ln(hardness)) + 0.0584 ......... CTC = exp(0.846*ln(hardness)) + .0591 ......... CTC = exp(0.846*ln(hardness)) + .4004 

The equation used by Wisconsin for 

calculating the chronic criteria for Cold 

Water, Warm Water Sportfish, Warm 

Water Forage Fish, and Limited Forage 

Fish designated uses results in a value 

that is slightly higher than EPA’s 304(a) 

recommendation. This difference is due 

to Wisconsin’s use of a slightly different 

intercept and the acute-chronic ratio for 

the Cladoceran test data. The equation 

for the Limited Aquatic Life 

classification has a different value for 

the intercept because the fathead 

minnow data were not included in the 

calculation. Fathead minnow data were 

not included because this species is not 

expected to have a fish community in 

waters designed as Limited Aquatic Life 

use. 

The regulations at 40 CFR part 132 

contain EPA’s chronic nickel aquatic 

life equation, which is applicable to all 

waters within the Great Lakes Basin. For 

the Cold Water, Warm Water Sportfish, 

Warm Water Forage Fish, and Limited 

Forage Fish water classifications, 

Wisconsin’s equation is scientifically 

defensible and results in criteria 

protective of the use and therefore is 

consistent with CWA Sections 101(a)(2) 

and 303(c)(2), and 40 CFR parts 131 and 

132. For the Limited Aquatic Life water 

classification, the elimination of data for 

a non-resident species is an appropriate 

State-specific modification of EPA’s 

equation. Wisconsin’s equation is 

scientifically sound and results in 

criteria that are protective of the use, 

therefore Wisconsin’s Limited Aquatic 

Life equation is consistent with CWA 

Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2), and 40 

CFR parts 131 and 132. 

5. Chronic Endrin Aquatic Life Criteria 

Applicable to Cold Water, Warm Water 

Sportfish, Warm Water Forage Fish, 

Limited Forage Fish, and Limited 

Aquatic Life Designated Uses 

Wisconsin adopted and EPA reviewed 

and approved a chronic endrin criterion 

for Cold Water, Warm Water Forage 

Fish, and Warm Water Sportfish 

classifications that is identical to EPA’s 

criterion in the Guidance (40 CFR part 

132). The criterion is scientifically 

sound and protective of the use, 

therefore this criterion is consistent 

with CWA Sections 101(a)(2) and 

303(c)(2), and 40 CFR parts 131 and 132 

(see Table 6). However, due to a 

transcription error, the chronic aquatic 

life use endrin criterion for waters 

designated as Warm Water Forage Fish 

and Warm Water Sportfish use 

published in Wisconsin’s regulations 

NR 105.06 (0.05 μg/L) is not identical to 

the criterion that Wisconsin submitted 

to EPA and which EPA approved (0.036 

μg/L). Therefore, EPA is not 

withdrawing the Federal chronic endrin 

criterion for these uses until after 

Wisconsin concludes rulemaking to 

correct the criterion in the State’s 

regulations. 

TABLE 6—CHRONIC ENDRIN AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA

EPA criterion continuous concentration 

(μg/L) 

Wisconsin chronic toxicity criteria (μg/L): Cold 

water, warm water forage fish, and warm 

water sportfish 

Wisconsin chronic toxicity criteria (μg/L): 

Limited forage fish and limited aquatic life 

0.036 0.036 0.050 

Wisconsin’s criterion for Limited 

Aquatic Life and Limited Forage Fish 

waters is higher than EPA’s 304(a) 

recommendation. This is due to the fact 

that three of the four most sensitive 

genera used to calculate EPA’s criterion 

do not exist in Limited Aquatic Life and 

Limited Forage Fish waters in 

Wisconsin. These species are Perca 

(yellow perch), Lepomis (bluegill), and 

micropterus (largemouth bass). Instead, 

Wisconsin used data for the following 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14356 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Lemly, 2002. Selenium Assessment in Aquatic 

Ecosystems: A Guide for Hazard Evaluation. 

Springer Series on Environmental management. 

Page 23. 

genera for the endrin criterion 

calculation for Limited Forage Fish 

Waters: Pteronarcys (stonefly), which 

was also used by EPA; Cyprinus (carp); 

Piemphales (fathead minnow); and 

Pteronarcella (stonefly). When the 

fathead minnow data was removed from 

the Limited Aquatic Life calculation, the 

calculated criterion was lower than the 

calculated criterion for Limited Forage 

Fish waters. Under Wisconsin’s rules 

NR 105.05(1)(a)(9), when this occurs, 

the Limited Aquatic Life criterion can 

be set equal to the Limited Forage Fish 

criterion if the species used to calculate 

the Limited Aquatic Life criterion are 

already included in the database used to 

calculate the Limited Forage Fish 

criterion. Therefore, Wisconsin 

established the Limited Aquatic Life 

criterion for endrin at a level that 

provides protection equal to the level 

for the Limited Forage Fish criterion. 

Wisconsin’s method for deriving the 

chronic endrin criterion for Limited 

Aquatic Life and Limited Forage Fish 

waters is an acceptable State-specific 

modification of EPA’s criterion, 

consistent with Wisconsin’s methods for 

deriving criteria (Chapter NR 105 of the 

WAC). The criterion is scientifically 

sound and protective of the use, 

therefore this criterion is consistent 

with CWA Sections 101(a)(2) and 

303(c)(2), and 40 CFR parts 131 and 132. 

6. Chronic Selenium Aquatic Life 

Criteria Applicable to Cold Water, 

Warm Water Sportfish, Warm Water 

Forage Fish, Limited Forage Fish, and 

Limited Aquatic Life Designated Uses 

Wisconsin adopted revised chronic 

aquatic life criteria for selenium as 

reflected in Table 7. EPA reviewed and 

approved the revised selenium criteria 

for Cold Water, Warm Water Sportfish, 

and Warm Water Forage Fish 

classifications, which are identical to 

EPA’s selenium criteria in 40 CFR part 

132. The criteria are scientifically sound 

and protective of the uses, therefore 

they are consistent with CWA Section 

101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2), and 40 CFR 

parts 131 and 132. 

TABLE 7—CHRONIC SELENIUM AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA

EPA criterion continuous concentration (μg/L) 

Wisconsin chronic toxicity criteria (μg/L): Cold 

water, warm water sportfish, warm water forage fish 

Wisconsin chronic toxicity criteria (μg/L): 

Limited forage fish, limited aquatic life 

5.0 5.0 46.5 

Wisconsin did not adopt EPA’s 

chronic aquatic life criterion for 

selenium, found in 40 CFR part 132, for 

Limited Aquatic Life waters. 

Wisconsin’s basis for this decision is 

that Limited Aquatic Life waters only 

support an invertebrate community, and 

EPA’s recommended criterion was 

based on observed effects of selenium 

on sportfish (bluegills) in field studies 

(Belews Lake, North Carolina, and 

others). Instead, Wisconsin calculated a 

criterion for Limited Aquatic Life waters 

based on toxicity studies listed in EPA’s 

1987 selenium aquatic life criteria 

document (selenite, +4). Wisconsin’s 

value of 46.5 μg/L is slightly different 

than EPA’s calculated criterion of 44.72 

μg/L, because Wisconsin removed the 

data for two saltwater species used in 

EPA’s calculation. 

Wisconsin’s chronic aquatic life 

selenium criterion of 46.5 μg/L for 

Limited Aquatic Life waters is 

consistent with the protection provided 

for aquatic life in Limited Aquatic Life 

waters, for the following reasons: 

Two of the three freshwater studies 

used to calculate the criterion, in accord 

with the 1985 Guidelines, were 

conducted on invertebrates (Daphnia 

magna and Daphnia pulex). Wisconsin 

followed their State procedures for 

deriving aquatic life criteria, using these 

toxicity studies (Chapter NR 105 of the 

WAC). 

Current literature on selenium states: 

‘‘The most important aspect of selenium 

residues in aquatic food chains is not 

direct toxicity to the organisms 

themselves, but rather the dietary source 

of selenium they provide to fish and 

wildlife species that feed on them’’.1 In 

the case of Limited Aquatic Life waters, 

there are no fish to feed on the 

invertebrates, and there is currently no 

information available to determine 

effects on wildlife from eating these 

organisms. No new studies have been 

conducted with invertebrates that 

would provide a scientific basis to 

refute the 1987 invertebrate toxicity 

studies reported in EPA’s 1987 selenium 

criteria document. Given these reasons, 

EPA approved Wisconsin’s chronic 

selenium criterion for Limited Aquatic 

Life waters as an acceptable Statespecific modification of EPA’s criterion, 

consistent with Wisconsin’s methods for 

deriving criteria. The criterion is 

scientifically sound and protective of 

the use, therefore this criterion is 

consistent with CWA Sections 101(a)(2) 

and 303(c)(2), and 40 CFR parts 131 and 

132. 

Wisconsin did not adopt EPA’s 

chronic aquatic life selenium criterion 

of 5 μg/L, found in 40 CFR part 132, for 

Limited Forage Fish waters. Wisconsin’s 

basis for not adopting EPA’s 

recommendation is that Limited Forage 

Fish waters only support forage fish and 

invertebrates, and EPA’s recommended 

criterion was based on observed effects 

of selenium on sportfish (blue gill) in 

field studies. Instead, Wisconsin 

calculated a chronic selenium criterion 

for Limited Forage Fish waters based on 

toxicity studies listed in EPA’s 1987 

selenium aquatic life criteria document 

(selenite, +4). 

EPA did not use these laboratory 

toxicity studies as the final basis for the 

recommended national selenium 

criterion of 5 μg/L because these studies 

were based on water column-only 

exposure to selenium. Given the 

available data showing the importance 

of dietary exposure, EPA’s criteria 

recommendations are based on field 

studies that account for 

bioaccumulation through the food chain 

as the main route of the exposure. The 

available data indicate that the primary 

route of exposure to all fish species is 

dietary. Consequently, a water column 

exposure-based criterion, such as the 

criterion adopted by Wisconsin for 

Limited Forage Fish waters, may not 

protect aquatic life in these waters. 

Therefore, EPA did not act on 

Wisconsin’s revised chronic selenium 

criterion for Limited Forage Fish waters 

in its July 1, 2009 action approving the 

other aquatic life criteria. Because 

Wisconsin does not have an EPAapproved chronic aquatic life selenium 

criterion for Limited Forage Fish 

Waters, at this time EPA is not 

proposing to withdraw this Federal 

chronic aquatic life selenium criterion. 

Therefore, EPA’s Federally promulgated 

criteria will continue to apply to 

Wisconsin’s Limited Forage Fish waters. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14357 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

This action proposes to withdraw 

Federal requirements applicable to 

Wisconsin and imposes no regulatory 

requirements or costs on any person or 

entity, does not interfere with the action 

or planned action of another agency, 

and does not have any budgetary 

impacts or raise novel legal or policy 

issues. Thus, it has been determined 

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden because it 

is administratively withdrawing Federal 

requirements that are no longer needed 

in Wisconsin. It does not include any 

information collection, reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. However, 

the OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 40 

CFR part 131 under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2040–0049. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

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 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 this action 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. 

This rule imposes no regulatory 

requirements or costs on any small 

entity. Therefore, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

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 UMRA Section 202, 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, UMRA 

Section 205 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 UMRA Section 205 do 

not apply when they are inconsistent 

with applicable law. Moreover, UMRA 

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 of 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 UMRA Section 203 a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

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. 

This rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, Tribal, or local governments or 

the private sector because it imposes no 

enforceable duty on any of these 

entities. Thus, this rule is not subject to 

the requirements of UMRA Sections 202 

and 205 for a written statement and 

small government agency plan. 

Similarly, EPA has determined that this 

rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments and 

is therefore not subject to UMRA 

Section 203. 

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.’’ 

This rule imposes no regulatory 

requirements or costs on any State or 

local governments; therefore, it does not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

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.’’ This rule imposes no 

regulatory requirements or costs on any 

Tribal government. It does not have 

substantial direct effects on Tribal 

governments, 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. 

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

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 Executive 

Order 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 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14358 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant and EPA has 

no reason to believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

This rule is not 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 a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 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 standards 

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 rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898—Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because (1) since 

Wisconsin’s criteria apply to all marine 

waters in the State, EPA does not 

believe that this action would 

disproportionately affect any one group 

over another, and (2) EPA has 

previously determined, based on the 

most current science and EPA’s CWA 

Section 304(a) recommended criteria, 

that Wisconsin’s adopted and EPAapproved criteria are protective of 

human health and aquatic life. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 132 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Great Lakes, Indian lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control. 

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR Part 132 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 132—WATER QUALITY 

GUIDANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES 

SYSTEM 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

Section 132.6 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows: 

§ 132.6 Application of part 132 

requirements in Great Lakes States and 

Tribes. 

* * * * * 

(f) Effective [insert date to be 

determined in final rule], the chronic 

aquatic life criterion for endrin in Table 

2 of this part shall apply to the waters 

of the Great Lakes System in the State 

of Wisconsin, designated as Warm 

Water Sportfish and Warm Water Forage 

Fish aquatic life use. Effective [insert 

date], the criterion for acute and chronic 

copper and nickel in Tables 1 and 2 of 

this part may be removed and reserved. 

(g) Effective [insert date to be 

determined in final rule], the chronic 

aquatic life criterion for selenium in 

Table 2 of this part shall apply to the 

waters of the Great Lakes System in the 

State of Wisconsin, designated by 

Wisconsin as Limited Forage Fish 

aquatic life use. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–5972 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 152, 158, and 174 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0499; FRL–8863–5] 

RIN 2070–AJ27 

Pesticides; Data Requirements for 

Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) 

and Certain Exemptions for PIPs; 

Notification to the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Health and Human 

Services 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification to the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Health and Human 

Services. 

SUMMARY: This document notifies the 

public that the Administrator of EPA 

has forwarded to the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Health and Human 

Services a draft proposed rule under 

sections 21 and 25(a) of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA). The draft proposed rule 

will propose codifying data 

requirements that specifically address 

the registration data needs of plantincorporated protectants (PIPs). These 

data requirements are intended to 

provide EPA with data and other 

information necessary for the 

registration of a PIP or the issuance of 

an experimental use permit for a PIP. 

Also, EPA will propose to exempt 

cisgenic PIPs from registration to 

encourage research and development of 

useful biotechnology and reduce the 

number of PIPs seeking registration. 

Cisgenic PIPs are formed when genetic 

material is transferred, using 

bioengineering technology, between 

plants that could transfer the genetic 

material naturally. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0499. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available in http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(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 in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS