```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20585-20590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8202]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095; FRL-9656-3]
RIN 2040-AF33

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria 
Applicable to California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the federal regulations to withdraw 
human health and aquatic life water quality criteria applicable to 
certain waters of New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and California's San 
Francisco Bay, now that those States have adopted and EPA has approved 
relevant state criteria. EPA is seeking public comment on its action 
with respect to those state criteria that are less stringent than the 
federally promulgated criteria. The withdrawal of the federally 
promulgated criteria will enable New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and 
California to implement their EPA-approved water quality criteria.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2012-0095, by one of the following methods:
    www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: ow-docket@epa.gov.
     Mail to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095. 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-2012-
0095. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The 
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 email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
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

[[Page 20586]]

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 
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 material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in 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 2 and 
U.S. EPA Region 9 addresses. Docket materials can be accessed from 9 
a.m. until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information with respect to New 
Jersey, contact Wayne Jackson, U.S. EPA, Region 2, Division of 
Environmental Planning and Protection, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 
10007 (telephone: (212) 637-3807 or email: jackson.wayne@epa.gov). For 
information with respect to Puerto Rico, contact Izabela Wojtenko U.S. 
EPA, Region 2, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, 290 
Broadway, New York, NY 10007 (telephone: (212) 637-3814 or email: 
wojtenko.izabela@epa.gov). For information with respect to California, 
contact Diane E. Fleck, P.E. Esq., U.S. EPA Region 9, WTR-2, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105 (telephone: (415) 972-3480 or 
email: fleck.diane@epa.gov). For general and administrative concerns, 
contact Bryan ``Ibrahim'' Goodwin, U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of 
Science and Technology, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 4305T, 
Washington, DC 20460 (telephone: (202) 566-0762 or email: 
goodwin.bryan@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. What entities may be affected by this action?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background
    A. What are the applicable federal statutory and regulatory 
requirements?
    B. What are the applicable federal water quality criteria that 
EPA is proposing to withdraw?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations)

I. General Information

A. What entities may be affected by this action?

    No one is affected by the proposed actions contained in this 
notice. These proposed actions would merely serve to withdraw certain 
federal water quality criteria that have been applicable to New Jersey, 
Puerto Rico, and California now that these States have adopted criteria 
that EPA has determined are consistent with the CWA and its 
implementing 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.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or email. 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.
     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.

II. Background

A. What are the applicable federal statutory and regulatory 
requirements?

    In 1992, EPA promulgated the ``National Toxics Rule'' (``NTR'') to 
establish numeric water quality criteria for 12 states and two 
Territories, including New Jersey, Puerto Rico and parts of California 
(hereafter ``States'') that had failed to comply fully with Section 
303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act (``CWA'') (57 FR 60848, December 
22, 1992). The criteria codified at 40 CFR 131.36 became the applicable 
water quality standards in those 14 States for all purposes and 
programs under the CWA effective February 5, 1993.
    On May 18, 2000, EPA then promulgated a final rule known as the 
``California Toxics Rule'' (``CTR'') at 40 CFR 131.38 in order to 
establish numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants 
for the State of California that were not previously in the NTR, since 
the State had not complied fully with Section 303(c) (2) (B) of the 
Clean Water Act (CWA) (65 FR31682). At that time, any criteria 
promulgated as part of the NTR for California were codified in the 
criteria tables for the CTR at 40 CFR 131.38.

[[Page 20587]]

    The water quality standards program was developed with an emphasis 
on state primacy. Although in the NTR and CTR EPA promulgated toxic 
criteria for the certain States, EPA prefers that states maintain 
primacy, revise their own standards, and achieve full compliance (see 
57 FR 60860, December 22, 1992). As described in the preamble to the 
final NTR and CTR, when a State adopts, and EPA approves, water quality 
criteria that meet the requirements of the CWA, EPA will issue a rule 
amending the NTR and/or CTR to withdraw the federal criteria applicable 
to that State.
    Today, EPA is proposing to amend the federal regulations to 
withdraw certain human health and aquatic life criteria applicable in 
New Jersey and Puerto Rico, and the Agency does not anticipate public 
comment on such action because the state-adopted, EPA-approved criteria 
are no less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria. In 
addition, EPA is proposing to amend the federal regulations to withdraw 
certain other human health and aquatic life criteria applicable in New 
Jersey and Puerto Rico, as well as California, and the Agency is 
seeking public comment because such state-adopted, EPA-approved 
criteria are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria.

B. What are the applicable federal water quality criteria that EPA is 
proposing to withdraw?

New Jersey
    On August 4, 1994, New Jersey submitted to EPA Region 2 revisions 
to its surface water quality standards (New Jersey Administrative Code 
7:9B), including aquatic life and human health criteria. New Jersey 
adopted aquatic life and human health criteria for many of the toxic 
pollutants contained in the NTR and reorganized certain designated use 
classifications and requirements pertaining to the Delaware River and 
Bay. EPA Region 2 approved the State's criteria (with the exception of 
the State's Polychlorinated biphenyl (``PCB'') human health criteria) 
on March 17, 2000, because New Jersey's numeric criteria for the 
protection of aquatic life and human health were consistent with the 
CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA published 
the final rule to remove these criteria in the Federal Register on 
December 3, 2002 (67 FR 71843). However, this action did not address 
all applicable EPA-promulgated numeric water quality criteria contained 
in the 1992 NTR.
    Subsequently, On March 1, 2002, New Jersey submitted to EPA Region 
2 revisions to its surface water quality standards (New Jersey 
Administrative Code 7:9B), including aquatic life criteria for lead and 
human health criteria for PCBs. EPA Region 2 approved the State's 
criteria on August 16, 2002, because New Jersey's numeric criteria for 
lead for the protection of aquatic life and for PCBs for the protection 
of human health were consistent with the CWA and EPA's implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR 131.11.
    In addition, on November 8, 2006, New Jersey submitted to EPA 
Region 2 revisions to its surface water quality standards (New Jersey 
Administrative Code 7:9B), including aquatic life and human health 
criteria. New Jersey adopted aquatic life and human health criteria for 
the remainder of the toxic pollutants contained in the NTR. EPA Region 
2 approved the State's criteria on December 20, 2006, because New 
Jersey's numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human 
health were consistent with the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations 
at 40 CFR 131.11.
    For many of the pollutants covered in the 2002 and 2006 actions, 
New Jersey adopted water quality criteria for aquatic life and human 
health that are no less stringent than the promulgated federal 
criteria. In addition, for certain pollutants covered in the 2002 and 
2006 actions, New Jersey adopted water quality criteria for aquatic 
life and human health that are less stringent than the promulgated 
federal criteria, but that nonetheless meet the requirements of the CWA 
and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA approved the 
State's criteria, although they are less stringent than the federally 
promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the State's criteria 
were scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s). 
EPA's actions which approve New Jersey's adopted criteria (including a 
rationale for approving criteria that are less stringent than the 
federally promulgated criteria) can be accessed at OW docket number 
EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
    The following is a list of pollutants for which New Jersey adopted 
criteria that are no less stringent than the promulgated federal 
criteria covered in this proposal:
     Arsenic (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and 
marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Cadmium (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and 
marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Chromium III (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and 
chronic))).
     Chromium VI (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) 
and marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Copper (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic))).
     Lead (aquatic life--freshwater (acute) and marine water 
(acute)).
     Mercury (aquatic life--freshwater (acute) and marine water 
(acute)).
     Nickel (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and 
marine water (acute)).
     Selenium (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and 
marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Silver (aquatic life--freshwater (acute) and marine water 
(acute)).
     Zinc (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and 
marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Chlorodibromomethane (human health--organisms only).
     Fluorene (human health--organisms only).
     Hexachlorbutadiene (human health--organisms only).
     PCBs (human health--water & organisms and organisms only).
    EPA is proposing to withdraw the federally promulgated criteria for 
these pollutants and does not anticipate public comment on such action 
because the state-adopted, EPA-approved criteria are no less stringent 
than the federally promulgated criteria.
    The following is a list of pollutants for which New Jersey adopted 
criteria, and which EPA approved, that are less stringent than the 
promulgated federal criteria, but that nonetheless meet the 
requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 
131.11 covered in this proposal:
     Copper (aquatic life--marine (acute and chronic)).
     Lead (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic) and marine water 
(chronic)).
     Mercury (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic) and marine 
water (chronic)).
     Nickel (aquatic life--marine water (chronic)).
     1,1-Dichloroethylene (human health--organisms only).
     1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (human health--organisms only).
     1,1,2-Trichloroethane (human health--organisms only).
     Isophrone (human health--organisms only).
     gamma-BHC (human health--organisms only).
    As these criteria are less stringent than the federally promulgated 
criteria, but nonetheless have been determined to meet the requirements 
of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131, EPA is 
seeking public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated 
criteria.

[[Page 20588]]

    The finalization of the proposed actions for New Jersey would 
result in the complete removal of New Jersey from the NTR.
Puerto Rico
    On September 21, 1990 and March 28, 2003, respectively, Puerto Rico 
submitted to EPA Region 2 revisions to its water quality standards, 
including aquatic life and human health criteria. Puerto Rico adopted 
aquatic life and human health criteria for many of the toxic pollutants 
contained in the NTR. EPA Region 2 approved the Commonwealth's 1990 and 
2003 criteria on March 28, 2002, and June 26, 2003, respectively, 
because Puerto Rico's numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic 
life and human health were consistent with the CWA and EPA's 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA published the final rule 
to remove those criteria that were no less stringent than the 
promulgated criteria in the NTR in the Federal Register on October 29, 
2004 (69 FR 63079). However, this action did not address all applicable 
EPA promulgated numeric water quality criteria contained in the 1992 
NTR.
    On May 5, 2010, Puerto Rico submitted to EPA Region 2 revisions to 
its water quality standards, including aquatic life and human health 
criteria. Puerto Rico adopted aquatic life and human health criteria 
for the remainder of the toxic pollutants contained in the NTR. EPA 
Region 2 approved the Commonwealth's criteria on August 4, 2010, 
because Puerto Rico's numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic 
life and human health were consistent with the CWA and EPA's 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA approved the 
Commonwealth's criteria, although they are less stringent than the 
federally promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the 
Commonwealth's criteria were scientifically sound and protective of the 
designated use(s). EPA's actions which approve Puerto Rico's adopted 
criteria (including a rationale for approving criteria that are less 
stringent than the federally promulgated criteria) can be accessed at 
OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
    For many of the pollutants covered in the 2010 action, Puerto Rico 
adopted water quality criteria for aquatic life and human health that 
are no less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria. In 
addition, for certain pollutants covered in the 2010 action, Puerto 
Rico adopted water quality criteria for aquatic life and human health 
that are less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria, but that 
nonetheless meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR 131.11.
    The following is a list of pollutants for which Puerto Rico adopted 
criteria that are no less stringent than the promulgated federal 
criteria covered in this proposal:
     Chromium VI (aquatic life--marine water (acute and 
chronic)).
     Thallium (human health--water & organisms and organisms 
only).
     Dioxin (human health--water & organisms and organisms 
only).
     Dichlorobromomethane (human health--organisms only).
     Benzo(a)Anthracene (human health--organisms only).
     Benzo(a)Pyrene (human health--organisms only).
     Benzo(b)Flouranthene (human health--organisms only).
     Benzo(k)Flouranthene (human health--organisms only).
     Chrysene (human health--organisms only).
     Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene (human health--organisms only).
     Fluorene (human health--organisms only).
     Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (human health--organisms only).
     alpha-BHC (human health--water & organisms and organisms 
only).
     beta-BHC (human health--water & organisms and organisms 
only).
     gamma-BHC (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic)).
     alpha-Endosulfan (aquatic life--marine water (acute and 
chronic)).
     beta-Endosulfan (aquatic life--marine water (acute and 
chronic)).
     Endrin Aldehyde (human health--water & organisms and 
organisms only).
     Heptachlor Epoxide (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and 
chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic).
     PCBs (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic) and marine water 
(chronic)) (human health--water & organisms and organisms only).
    EPA is proposing to withdraw the federally promulgated criteria for 
these pollutants and does not anticipate public comment on such action 
because the state-adopted, EPA-approved criteria are no less stringent 
than the federally promulgated criteria.
    The following is a list of pollutants for which Puerto Rico adopted 
criteria, approved by EPA, that are less stringent than the promulgated 
federal criteria, but that nonetheless meet the requirements of the CWA 
and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131, covered in this 
proposal:
     Mercury (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic) and marine 
water (chronic)).
     Dichlorobromomethane (human health--water & organisms).
     Benzo(a)Anthracene (human health--water & organisms).
     Benzo(a)Pyrene (human health--water & organisms).
     Benzo(b)Flouranthene (human health--water & organisms).
     Benzo(k)Flouranthene (human health--water & organisms).
     Chrysene (human health--water & organisms).
     Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene (human health--water & organisms).
     Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (human health--water & organisms).
     Isophrone (human health--water & organisms and organisms 
only).
     Endosulfan Sulfate (human health--water & organisms and 
organisms only).
     Endrin (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic)).
     Heptachlor Epoxide (human health--water & organisms and 
organisms only).
    As these criteria are less stringent than the promulgated federal 
criteria, but nonetheless have been determined to meet the requirements 
of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.36, EPA is 
seeking public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated 
criteria.
    The finalization of the proposed actions for Puerto Rico would 
result in the complete removal of Puerto Rico from the NTR.
California
    This notice proposes to amend the federal regulations to withdraw 
water quality criteria for cyanide applicable to San Francisco Bay, 
California. On December 22, 1992, in the NTR, and on May 18, 2000, in 
the CTR, EPA promulgated federal regulations establishing water quality 
criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California. On February 28, 
2008, California completed its adoption process to incorporate cyanide 
aquatic life water quality criteria for San Francisco Bay. The State 
calls these criteria site-specific water quality objectives or site-
specific objectives (``SSOs''). On May 28, 2008, the State submitted 
the site-specific objectives to EPA Region 9 for review and approval. 
On July 22, 2008, EPA approved an amendment to the Water Quality 
Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region (Basin Plan), which was 
adopted under Resolution No. R2-2006-0086 and submitted to EPA by the 
State. The amendment adopts site-specific marine aquatic life water 
quality objectives for cyanide in San Francisco Bay. Since California 
now has marine aquatic life site-specific objectives, effective under 
the CWA, for cyanide for San Francisco Bay, EPA has

[[Page 20589]]

determined that the federally promulgated saltwater cyanide aquatic 
life criteria are no longer needed for San Francisco Bay. EPA approved 
the State's criteria, although they are less stringent than the 
federally promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the State's 
criteria were scientifically sound and protective of the designated 
use(s) for San Francisco Bay. EPA's actions which approve California's 
adopted objectives (including a rationale for approving objectives that 
are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria) can be 
accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
    Described in detail herein under the heading ``Site-Specific 
Aquatic Life Objectives for Cyanide'' are California's recently adopted 
marine cyanide aquatic life site-specific objectives for the San 
Francisco Bay, which EPA subsequently approved, including the 
accompanying footnotes to the table. The footnotes also include a 
description of which waters are included in the term ``San Francisco 
Bay.''
    EPA-Approved Site-Specific Aquatic Life Objectives

              Table 3-3C--Marine \a\ Water Quality Objectives for Cyanide in San Francisco Bay \b\
                                             [Values in [micro]g/l]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.............................................  Chronic Objective (4-day Average)......                2.9
Cyanide.............................................  Acute Objective (1-hour Average).......                9.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes to Table 3-3C:
\a\ Marine waters are those in which the salinity is equal to or greater than 10 parts per thousand 95 percent
  of the time, as set forth in Chapter 4 of the Basin Plan. For water in which the salinity is between 1 and 10
  parts per thousand, the applicable objectives are the more stringent of the freshwater and marine objectives.
\b\ These Objectives apply to all segments of San Francisco Bay, including Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta
  (within San Francisco Bay region), Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay,
  Lower San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay.

    As these criteria are less stringent than the promulgated federal 
criteria, but nonetheless have been determined to meet the requirements 
of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131, EPA 
is seeking public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated 
criteria. This proposal will result in the withdrawal of saltwater 
aquatic life cyanide \1\ criteria for San Francisco Bay under the NTR 
(with conforming changes to the CTR). However, other criteria for 
cyanide for waters in California that are currently part of the NTR or 
CTR will remain unchanged in the federal regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the regulatory text, saltwater criteria for Cyanide are 
identified as Columns C1 and C2 of ``Compound 14'' in National 
Toxics Rule at 40 CFR 131.36(b)(1), therefore, the proposed 
withdrawal will remove Column C1- pollutant 14 and Column C2 
``pollutant 14'' from the applicable criteria to ``Waters of San 
Francisco Bay, at 40 CFR 131.36(d)(10)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive 
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    This action 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 review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

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 New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and California. It 
does not include any information-collection, reporting, or 
recordkeeping requirements. However, the Office of Management and 
Budget (``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's'') 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

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or 
tribal governments, or the private sector. 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)

    This action 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 of August 4, 1999, entitled 
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule imposes no 
regulatory requirements or costs on any state or local governments. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    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 action 
from state and local officials.

[[Page 20590]]

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks)

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited to submit 
comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects 
of early-life exposure to the toxic pollutants for which we are 
soliciting comments.

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) New Jersey's, Puerto Rico's, and 
California's criteria apply to all marine waters in the State, and thus 
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 New Jersey's, Puerto Rico's, and 
California's adopted and EPA-approved criteria are protective of human 
health and aquatic life.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: March 30, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

     For the reasons set out in the preamble title 40, Chapter 
I, part 131 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 
amended as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as 
follows:

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

Sec.  131.36  [Amended]

    2. Section 131.36 is amended as follows:
    a. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(3).
    b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(4).
    c. Revising the table in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) as follows:
    (i) Under the heading ``Water and use classification'' add a new 
first line to read as follows:
    Waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta within Regional Water 
Board 5
    (ii) Under the heading ``Applicable criteria'' add a new first line 
to read as follows:
    These waters are assigned the criteria in:
    Column C1--pollutant 14
    Column C2--pollutant 14
    (iii) Under the heading ``Applicable criteria'', opposite the entry 
for ``Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay 
and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta'', remove ``Column C1--pollutant 
14'' and ``Column C2--pollutant 14''.

Sec.  131.38  [Amended]

    3. Section 131.38 is amended as follows:
    a. Revise footnote ``r'' in the ``Footnotes to Table in Paragraph 
(b) (1)'' to read as follows:
    r. These criteria were promulgated for specific waters in 
California in the NTR. The specific waters to which the NTR criteria 
apply include: Waters of the State defined as bays or estuaries 
including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta within California Regional 
Water Board 5, but excluding the San Francisco Bay. This section does 
not apply instead of the NTR for these criteria.

[FR Doc. 2012-8202 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```