Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20585 

review of the proposed SIP revisions 

including the provision that may differ 

from the federal rules, and determined 

that they are consistent with the 

program requirements for NSR, set forth 

at 40 CFR 51.166. States may meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51 and the 

Phase II Rules with alternative but 

equivalent regulations. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

October 19, 2007, and July 1, 2011, SIP 

revisions adopting federal regulations 

amended in the Phase II Rule 

recognizing NOx as an ozone precursor 

into the Florida SIP and making 

clarifying and corrective changes at 

Chapters 62–210 and 62–212, F.A.C. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that these SIP revisions 

are approvable because it is in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding NSR permitting. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Oxides of nitrogen, 

Recordkeeping and reporting, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: March 23, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8197 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 EPAapproved 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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, EPAapproved 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, EPAapproved 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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20588 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 sitespecific water quality objectives or sitespecific objectives (‘‘SSOs’’). On May 

28, 2008, the State submitted the sitespecific 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20589 

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). 

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 μg/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. bThese 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. 

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-andcomment 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-forprofit 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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

§ 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’’. 

§ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R10–OW–2012–0197; FRL–9654–6] 

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

Offshore of Yaquina Bay, OR 

AGENCY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

designate two new ocean dredged 

material disposal (ODMD) sites offshore 

of Yaquina Bay, Oregon pursuant to the 

Marine Protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), as amended. 

The new sites are needed primarily to 

serve the long-term need for a location 

to dispose of material dredged from the 

Yaquina River navigation channel, and 

to provide a location for the disposal of 

dredged material for persons who have 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS