13564 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Rules referred to herein can be found at 17

C.F.R. Ch. I (1996).

2The term ‘‘customer funds’’ is defined in Rule

1.3(gg).

3 If adopted, the proposed changes will also

require the Division to revise Financial and

Segregation Interpretation No. 7, which includes

the following statement:

Under Regulations 1.23 and 1.25 such obligations

must be: (1) purchased with money deposited in an

account used for the deposit of customers’ funds;

(2) made through such an account; and (3) the

proceeds from any sale of such obligations must be

redeposited in such an account. Thus, all additions

to and withdrawals from customer segregated funds

which represent topping up by the FCM to cover

actual or expected customer deficits must be in the

form of cash.

1 Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 7117, at 7124 (July

23, 1980).

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Marysville, CA

Marysville Yuba County Airport, CA

(Lat. 39°05′52′′ N, long. 121°34′11′′ W)

Marysville Beale AFB, CA

(Lat. 39°08′10′′ N, long. 121°26′12′′ W)

Marysville Beale AFB TACAN

(Lat. 39°08′05′′ N, long. 121°26′26′′ W)

Marysville VOR/DME

(Lat. 39°05′55′′ N, long. 121°34′23′′ W)

Mustang VORTAC

(Lat. 39°31′53′′ N, long. 119°39′22′′ W)

Lincoln Municipal Airport, CA

(Lat. 38°54′33′′ N, long. 121°21′05′′ W)

Sierraville Dearwater Airport, CA

(39°34′51.653′′ N, 120°21′15.745′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within an 8.7-mile

radius of Beale AFB and 2 miles each side

of a 345° bearing from the Lincoln Municipal

Airport and within a 7-mile radius of Yuba

County Airport and within 7.8 miles west

and 4.3 miles east of Beale AFB TACAN 342°

radial extending from the Beale AFB 8.7-mile

radius to 25 miles northwest of the Beale

AFB TACAN and within 7 miles west and 4.3

miles east of the Marysville VOR 343° radial,

extending from the Yuba County Airport 7-

mile radius to 10.4 miles northwest of the

Marysville VOR and within 7 miles

southwest and 4.3 miles northeast of the

Marysville VOR 153° radial extending from

the Yuba County Airport 7-mile radius to

10.4 miles southeast of the Marysville VOR.

That airspace extending upward from 1,200

feet above the surface bounded on the east by

a line extending from lat. 40°00′00′′ N, long.

120°30′04′′ W; to lat. 39°30′00′′ N, long.

120°30′04′′ W; to lat. 39°30′00′′ N, long.

120°19′04′′ W; to lat. 39°07′00′′ N, long.

120°19′04′′ W; thence counterclockwise via

the 39.1-mile radius of the Mustang VORTAC

to lat. 39°00′00′′ N; thence via lat. 39°00′00′′

N, to the west boundary of V–23; thence

bounded on the west by the west boundary

of V–23, on the northwest by the Red Bluff,

CA Class E airspace area, and on the north

by lat. 40°00′00′′ N. That airspace extending

upward from 8,500 feet MSL bounded on the

south by lat. 40°00′00′′ N, on the west and

northwest by the Red Bluff, CA and Maxwell,

CA Class E airspace areas, on the north by

lat. 40°45′00′′ N, and on the east by a line

extending from lat. 40°45′00′′ N, long.

121°39′04′′ W; to lat. 40°23′00′′ N, long.

121°39′04′′ W; to lat. 40°23′00′′ N, long

121°25′04′′ W; to lat. 40°00′00′′ N, long.

121°25′04′′ W. That airspace extending

upward from 10,500 feet MSL bounded on

the east by long. 120°19′04′′ W; on the south

by the Truckee-Tahoe Class E airspace area,

including that airspace within a 2-mile

radius of the Sierraville Dearwater Airport,

thence north via long. 120°30′04′′ W; to lat.

40°00′00′′ N, long. 120°30′04′′ W; to lat.

40°00′00′′ N, long. 121°25′04′′ W; on the west

by long. 121°25′04′′ W, and on the north by

lat. 40°45′00′′ N. That airspace extending

upward from 12,500 feet MSL bounded on

the east by long. 121°25′04′′ W; on the south

by lat. 40°23′00′′ N, on the west by long.

121°39′04′′ W; and on the north lat. 40°45′00′′

N.

* * * * *

Issued in Los Angeles, California, on

March 3, 1997.

Michael Lammes,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Western-Pacific Region.

[FR Doc. 97–7224 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1

Securities Representing Investment of

Customer Funds Held in Segregated

Accounts by Futures Commission

Merchants

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is

proposing to amend Rules 1.23, 1.25,

and 1.27 to permit futures commission

merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) to increase or

decrease the amount of funds segregated

for the benefit of commodity customers

by making direct transfers of permitted

securities into and out of segregated

safekeeping accounts. The types of

securities in which customer funds can

be invested and which will now be

directly transferable are set forth in Rule

1.25. Currently, FCMs can only make

direct transfers of cash to augment the

customer segregated account.

Furthermore, in order to provide

additional assurance that there will be

a clear audit trail for such permitted

transfers of securities, Rule 1.27 is

proposed to be amended to require that

the description of the investment

securities, required by the rule, include

the security identification number

developed by the Committee on

Uniform Security Identification

Procedures (‘‘CUSIP Number’’).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rules should be sent to Jean A. Webb,

Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Center,

1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20581. Comments may be sent by

facsimile transmission to (202) 418–

5528, or by electronic mail to

secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should be

made to ‘‘Securities Representing

Investment of Customer Funds.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

H. Bjarnason, Chief Accountant, or

Lawrence B. Patent, Associate Chief

Counsel, Division of Trading and

Markets (‘‘Division’’), Commodity

Futures Trading Commission, Three

Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20581. Telephone

(202) 418–5430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission is proposing technical

amendments to Rules 1.23, 1.25, and

1.27.1 These changes will permit FCMs

to transfer unencumbered securities

directly from the proprietary domain

into a segregated safekeeping account at

a bank or trust company, if they are the

types of securities that are permitted

investments of customer funds 2 under

Rule 1.25, in order to increase the

amount of funds segregated for the

benefit of commodity customers. It will

also permit an FCM to transfer such

securities directly from such a

segregated safekeeping account to the

proprietary domain, to the extent the

FCM has excess funds in segregation.

I. Investment of Customers’ Segregated

Funds

A. Background

Section 4d(2) of the Commodity

Exchange Act and Rule 1.25 restrict the

types of securities in which customer

funds can be invested by FCMs to

obligations of the United States, general

obligations of any State or any political

subdivision thereof, and obligations

fully guaranteed as to principal and

interest by the United States (‘‘Qualified

Investments’’). Rule 1.25 also requires

all such investments to be purchased

from, and the proceeds of any sale to be

deposited into, an account or accounts

used for the deposit of customer funds.

Rule 1.23 currently allows an FCM to

add to the funds segregated for

customers through transfers of cash into

a segregated account and to reduce its

residual interest by cash withdrawals

payable directly to the FCM.3

Current Commission rules and

Division interpretations do not permit

FCMs to increase their interest in

segregated funds by directly transferring

into a segregated account Qualified

Investments which they may own.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 13565

4The JAC is comprised of representatives from

each commodity exchange and National Futures

Association who coordinate the industry’s audit

and ongoing surveillance activities to promote a

uniform framework of self-regulation.

5See 11 U.S.C. 761–766.

6Section 761(10) defines ‘‘customer property’’ as

follows:

(10) Customer property’ means cash, a security,

or other property, or proceeds of such cash,

security, or property, at any time received,

acquired, or held by or for the account of the debtor,

from or for the account of a customer—

(A) including—

(i) property received, acquired, or held to margin,

guarantee, secure, purchase, or sell a commodity

contract;

(ii) profits or contractual or other rights accruing

to a customer as a result of a commodity contract;

(iii) an open commodity contract;

(iv) specifically identifiable customer property;

(v) warehouse receipt or other document held by

the debtor evidencing ownership of or title to

property to be delivered to fulfill a commodity

contract from or for the account of a customer;

(vi) cash, a security, or other property received by

the debtor as payment for a commodity to be

delivered to fulfill a commodity contract from or for

the account of a customer;

(vii) a security held as property of the debtor to

the extent such security is necessary to meet a net

equity claim based on a security of the same class

and series of an issuer;

(viii) property that was unlawfully converted and

that is property of the state; and

(ix) other property of the debtor that any

applicable law, rule, or regulation requires to be set

aside or held for the benefit of a customer, unless

including such property as customer property

would not significantly increase customer property;

but

(B) not including property to the extent that a

customer does not have a claim against the debtor

based on such property[.]

7Noncustomers are persons within the definition

of a proprietary person in Commission Rule 1.3(y)

other than the FCM itself or a general partner of the

FCM. Examples of noncustomers are associated

persons, officers, directors, owners, contributors of

10 percent or more of the FCM’s capital or

controllers of 10 percent or more of the FCM’s

shares, and affiliated companies. See Commission

Rule 1.17(b)(2)–(4).

Current rules also prohibit FCMs from

withdrawing Qualified Investments

from a segregated account and

depositing them in their own account in

order to reduce their financial interest

in segregated funds. Consequently, all

such additions to and withdrawals from

segregated accounts must currently be

in the form of cash.

FCMs and the Joint Audit Committee

(‘‘JAC’’) 4 have claimed that the current

rules place an undue burden on FCMs.

For example, in the event an FCM

desires to correct an expected or

existing undersegregated condition, in

order to comply with the Commission’s

existing segregation rules, if the FCM

does not have cash readily available to

transfer into the segregated account, it

would have to sell its own Qualified

Investments and, then, transfer the cash

to the segregated account. The cash

could then be re-invested in Qualified

Securities. Conversely, when an FCM

wishes to decrease its financial interest

in segregated funds, this entire process

must be reversed.

This additional step not only causes

a delay in the transfer, but additional

transaction costs associated with buying

and selling the proprietary securities are

incurred. These costs can be substantial,

not only as a result of the commissions

or other fees incurred, but also due to

possibly unfavorable market conditions

when buying and selling like securities.

The Commission believes the

industry’s proposal, as first suggested to

the Commission’s staff during a JAC

meeting, to allow direct transfers of

Qualified Securities into and out of the

segregated account, has merit. Customer

protection would be directly enhanced

by reducing the amount of time required

to effect a transfer of funds into

segregation and, with appropriate

safeguards, should not diminish existing

segregation protections.

The Commission has reviewed these

proposed changes in light of the

Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

(‘‘BRAct’’), which appears to have

resolved any questions with respect to

the status of customers’ segregated

funds in the event of an FCM

bankruptcy.5 In the Commission’s view,

the definition of customer property

contained in Section 761(10) 6 of the

BRAct, together with the special priority

of distribution accorded to such

property under Section 766(h) of the

BRAct, requires that, like cash, any

securities held in a segregated

safekeeping account will not be used to

satisfy the claim of a noncustomer

creditor of the FCM until all customer

net equity claims have been satisfied.

B. Proposed Amendments

The Commission is proposing that

Rules 1.23 and 1.25 be amended to

allow an FCM to deposit firm-owned

unencumbered Qualified Investments

directly into segregated accounts held at

qualifying banks or trust companies and

to withdraw, to the extent of the FCM’s

residual financial interest in segregated

funds, any Qualified Investments from

such segregated accounts.

The Commission is proposing to

permit an FCM to deposit Qualified

Investments owned by the FCM which

are otherwise unencumbered into

customers’ segregated accounts to

overcome an undersegregated condition

or to increase its financial interest in

segregated funds. Any securities

transferred into segregation must be

owned directly by the FCM itself, i.e.,

the FCM is not permitted to transfer in

securities owned by any other persons,

including noncustomers.7 Under this

proposal an FCM will also be permitted

to withdraw Qualified Investments from

segregated accounts and deposit them

into its own accounts to decrease its

residual financial interest in segregated

funds.

These proposed rule changes would

permit the deposit and withdrawal of

Qualified Investments into and out of

segregated accounts, in effect, under

essentially the same conditions and

restrictions as cash. There is no change

in the conditions applicable to the

transfer of proprietary cash into or out

of segregation.

Rule 1.25, as proposed to be amended,

would no longer require that Qualified

Investments which represent an

investment of customers funds be

purchased from and the sales proceeds

flow through a segregated account. The

proposed amendments would permit

FCMs to deposit their own Qualified

Investments into a segregated account at

a permitted custodian. The amendments

would also permit FCMs to withdraw

any Qualified Investments from

segregation and deposit such securities

in their own account up to the extent of

their residual financial interest in

customers’ segregated funds.

For purposes of Rules 1.26, 1.27, 1.28

and 1.29, all Qualified Investments

when deposited into a customers’

segregated account will be deemed to be

securities and obligations which

represent investments of customers’

funds until such time as the FCM

withdraws or otherwise disposes of

such investments.

The Commission is also proposing to

amend Rule 1.27, which requires FCMs

to maintain records of Qualified

Investments held in segregated

accounts. The Commission is proposing

that the rule explicitly require the

record to include the CUSIP number of

such securities as a part of the

description of such investments. The

Commission believes that the addition

of the CUSIP number will impose no

significant additional burden on FCMs,

and that many entities already

incorporate the CUSIP number in their

record-keeping formats. Further, the

CUSIP numbers are provided by the

counterparty financial institutions at the

time of purchase or sale of a security.

The Commission is not proposing any

other changes to Rule 1.27, but wants to

remind FCMs that Rule 1.27 requires

them to include in the investments

record, among other information, the

name of the person through whom such

investments were made and the name of

the person to or through whom such
13566 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

8 47 FR 18618–18621 (April 30, 1982).

9 47 FR 18619–18620.

investments were disposed of.

Therefore, this record should clearly

identify Qualified Investments owned

by the FCM which were deposited into

segregation and any investments

withdrawn from segregation and

deposited in the FCM’s own account.

The Commission invites comments on

whether custodians for these purposes

should be limited to banks and trust

companies not affiliated with the FCM.

II. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–611 (1988),

requires that agencies, in proposing

rules, consider the impact of those rules

on small businesses. The rule

amendments discussed herein would

affect registered FCMs. The Commission

has previously established certain

definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to be used

by the Commission in evaluating the

impact of its rules on such entities in

accordance with RFA.8 The Commission

previously determined that registered

FCMs are not small entities for the

purpose of the RFA.9

Further, the amendments proposed

herein do not impose any significant

new burdens upon FCMs. The proposed

amendments facilitate the use of firmowned obligations to enhance funds

segregated for commodity customers by

allowing the direct transfer of said

obligations into and out of segregated

accounts. As a result, the Commission

anticipates that adoption of the

proposed amendments will reduce the

burden of compliance with segregation

requirements by FCMs. Accordingly,

pursuant to Section 3(a) of the RFA (5

U.S.C. 605(b)), the Chairperson, on

behalf of the Commission, certifies that

these proposed amendments would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission nonetheless invites

comment from any registered FCM

which believes that these rules would

have significant impact on its

operations.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(Act), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., imposes

certain requirements on federal agencies

(including the Commission), in

connection with their conducting or

sponsoring any collection of

information as defined by the

Paperwork Reduction Act. The

Commission believes these proposed

amendments impose no burden. While

these proposed rule amendments have

no burden, the group of rules (3038–

0024) of which the rules proposed to be

amended are a part, has the following

burden:

Average burden hours per response:

18.00.

Number of Respondents: 1,662.00.

Frequency of response: 19.00.

Copies of the OMB approved

information collection package

associated with these rules may be

obtained from the Desk Officer, CFTC,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 10202, NEOB, Washington, DC

20503, (202) 395–7340.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 1

Brokers, Commodity futures,

Consumer protection, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Segregation requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing and

pursuant to the authority contained in

the Commodity Exchange Act and, in

particular, Sections 4d, 4g and 8a(5)

thereof, 7 U.S.C. 6d, 6g and 12a(5), the

Commission hereby proposes to amend

Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1—GENERAL REGULATIONS

UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE

ACT

1. The authority citation for Part 1

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 4, 4a, 6, 6a,

6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m,

6n, 6o, 6p, 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a,

13a–1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24.

2. Section 1.23 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1.23 Interest of futures commission

merchant in segregated funds; additions

and withdrawals.

The provision in Section 4d(2) of the

Act and the provision in § 1.20(c) which

prohibit the commingling of customer

funds with the funds of a futures

commission merchant shall not be

construed to prevent a futures

commission merchant from having a

residual financial interest in the

customer funds segregated as required

by the Act and the regulations in this

part and set apart for the benefit of

commodity or option customers, nor

shall such provisions be construed to

prevent a futures commission merchant

from adding to such segregated

customer funds such amount or

amounts of money from its own funds

or unencumbered securities from its

own inventory of the type set forth in

§ 1.25, as it may deem necessary to

ensure any and all commodity or option

customers’ accounts from becoming

undersegregated at any time. The books

and records of a futures commission

merchant shall at all times accurately

reflect its interest in the segregated

funds. A futures commission merchant

may draw upon such segregated funds

to its own order, to the extent of its

actual interest therein, including the

withdrawal of securities held in

segregated safekeeping accounts held by

the bank or trust company custodians.

Such withdrawal shall not result in the

customer funds of one commodity and/

or option customer being used to

purchase, margin or carry the trades,

contracts or commodity options, or

extend the credit of any other

commodity customer, option customer

or other person.

3. Section 1.25 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1.25 Investment of customer funds.

No futures commission merchant and

no clearing organization shall invest

customer funds except in obligations of

the United States, in general obligations

of any State or of any political

subdivision thereof, or in obligations

fully guaranteed as to principal and

interest by the United States. Such

investments shall be made through an

account or accounts used for the deposit

of customer funds and proceeds from

any sale of such obligations shall be

deposited into such account or

accounts. However, this shall not

prohibit a futures commission merchant

from directly depositing unencumbered

securities, of the type specified in this

section, which it owns for its own

account into a segregated account or

from transferring any such securities

from a segregated account to its own

account up to the extent of its residual

financial interest in customers’

segregated funds: Provided, however,

that such transfers are clearly recorded

in the record of investments required to

be maintained by § 1.27 and such funds

are held by bank or trust company

custodians. Furthermore, for purposes

of §§ 1.25, 1.26, 1.27, 1.28 and 1.29,

investments permitted by § 1.25 that are

owned by the futures commission

merchant and deposited into segregation

shall be considered customer funds

until such investments are withdrawn

from segregation.

4. Section 1.27 is amended by revising

paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 1.27 Record of investments.

(a) * * *

(4) A description of the obligations in

which such investments were made,

including the CUSIP numbers;

* * * * *

(b) * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 13567

(2) A description of such documents,

including the CUSIP numbers; and

* * * * *

Issued in Washington D.C. on March 17,

1997, by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–7179 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL–5711–9]

Water Quality Standards for Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of rulemaking.

SUMMARY: EPA is preparing to

promulgate water quality standards

applicable to surface waters in the State

of Idaho. These federally promulgated

standards will supersede those aspects

of Idaho’s water quality standards that

EPA disapproved on June 25, 1996. EPA

is taking this action to comply with a

court order directing EPA to promulgate

standards by April 21, 1997. Due to the

brevity of the court-ordered deadline for

promulgation, EPA plans to promulgate

an ‘‘interim-final’’ rule without a prior

proposal or comment period. EPA will

request comment on the interim-final

standards after their promulgation. EPA

will revise the interim-final standards

through a subsequent rulemaking if

justified by analysis of the comments.

The rulemaking that EPA is preparing

will establish revised use designations

on currently unclassified waters in the

state and on 53 specified water body

segments whose use designations do not

meet the goals of the Clean Water Act

and for which the state has not provided

information to justify its lower use

designations. The interim-final rule will

also establish revised temperature

criteria necessary to protect certain

threatened, endangered, and candidate

species. Finally, EPA’s interim-final rule

will amend Idaho’s mixing zone and

antidegradation policies as well as its

‘‘private waters exclusion.’’

Today’s notice is intended to alert the

public to the process EPA is following

and the reasons for doing so, to reassure

the public that EPA intends to seek

public comment, and to give the public

advance notice of the need to identify

information that may be relevant to the

attainability of fishable/swimmable uses

in the waters identified in EPA’s June

1996 letter.

DATES: EPA plans to promulgate

replacement water quality standards for

Idaho in a separate action by April 21,

1997. At that time, EPA will solicit

public comment. Comments are not

being considered at this time, due to the

brevity of the court schedule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Macchio at U.S. EPA Region 10, Office

of Water, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington, 98101, (telephone: 260–

553–1834) or William Morrow in U.S.

EPA Headquarters at 202–260–3657.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Potentially Affected Entities

Citizens concerned with water quality

in Idaho may be interested in this

rulemaking. Entities discharging

pollutants to waters of the United States

in Idaho could be affected by this

rulemaking since water quality

standards are used in determining

NPDES permit limits.

B. Background

1. Statutory/Regulatory History.

Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA) directs States, with oversight by

EPA, to adopt water quality standards to

protect public health and welfare,

enhance the quality of water and serve

the purposes of the CWA. Under Section

303, States have the primary

responsibility to establish water quality

standards, which consists of designated

uses, the water quality criteria necessary

to support those uses, and

antidegradation.

Section 303 requires States and Tribes

to review their standards at least once

every three years and to submit any new

or revised standards to EPA for its

review. Under Section 303(c), EPA is

required to either approve or disapprove

such new or revised State/Tribal

standards, depending on whether they

meet the requirements of the Act. Where

EPA disapproves a new or revised State/

Tribal standard, and the State or Tribe

does not revise the standard to meet

EPA’s objection, sections 303(c)(3) and

303(c)(4)(A) of the Act require the

Agency to promptly propose substitute

Federal standards and promulgate final

Federal standards within 90 days

thereafter. In addition, section

303(c)(4)(B) authorizes the

Administrator to promulgate a Federal

standard whenever she determines that

a new or revised standard is necessary

to meet the requirements of the CWA.

The implementing regulations for the

water quality standards program are

found at 40 CFR part 131.

2. History of Idaho/EPA Actions

In 1994, Idaho submitted water

quality standards to EPA for review and

approval under § 303 of the Act. On

October 25, 1995, EPA gave Idaho

advance notice of deficiencies in the

state’s 1994 standards submission. On

June 25, 1996, EPA approved some

portions and disapproved other portions

of those standards. Both before and after

the October 25, 1995, letter and the June

25, 1996, approval/disapproval letter,

EPA worked to encourage the state of

Idaho to revise its standards to address

the deficiencies identified by EPA.

While the state has taken some

preliminary steps to address some of

EPA’s concerns, it has not yet submitted

revised standards to EPA for approval.

On February 20, 1997, as a result of a

lawsuit filed by three environmental

groups (Idaho Conservation League v.

Browner; No. C96–807WD), Judge

Dwyer of the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Washington ruled that EPA had failed to

carry out a mandatory duty to promptly

prepare and publish Federal standards

to address the items disapproved in the

June 25, 1996, letter. Judge Dwyer

ordered EPA to promulgate such

standards within 60 days, that is, by

April 21, 1997.

Because of the court order, EPA has

found it necessary to condense its

normal rulemaking process, and will be

issuing an interim-final rule with

subsequent opportunity for public

comment. The national goal for water

quality as articulated in section

101(a)(2) of the Act ‘‘provides for the

protection and propagation of fish,

shellfish, and wildlife and provides for

recreation in and on the water.’’ These

goal uses of the Act are commonly

referred to as ‘‘fishable/swimmable’’.

Since Idaho has not provided

information concerning the attainability

or non-attainability of ‘‘fishable/

swimmable’’ uses for the waters

addressed in the June 1996 letter, EPA

will likely be promulgating designated

uses based on the goal uses of the Act

for those waters. During the comment

period which will follow the April 21st

promulgation, EPA will seek

information from the public on the

appropriateness of those designated

uses and will revise them as needed.

The State of Idaho is currently

working to resolve many of the

deficiencies identified in EPA’s June 25,

1996, letter. EPA is coordinating this

rulemaking effort with that of the state.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

Tudor Davies,

Director, Office of Science and Technology.

[FR Doc. 97–7216 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P