Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63941

finding that the State has corrected the

deficiency prior to the rulemaking

approving the State’s submittal.

Therefore, EPA believes that it is

necessary to use the interim final

rulemaking process to temporarily stay

or defer sanctions while EPA completes

its rulemaking process on the

approvability of the State’s submittal. In

addition, EPA is invoking the good

cause exception to the 30-day notice

requirement of the APA because the

purpose of this notice is to relieve a

restriction. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. Section 600 et. seq., EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.

sections 603 and 604. Alternatively,

EPA may certify that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

This action, pertaining to the interim

final approval of corrections to the

Pennsylvania Stage II vapor recovery

regulation, temporarily relieves sources

of an additional burden potentially

placed on them by the sanction

provisions of the Act. Therefore, I

certify that it does not have an impact

on any small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental regulations,

Reporting and recordkeeping, Ozone,

and Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: November 27, 1995.

Stanley Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30111 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 140

[FRL–5345–4]

RIN 2040–AC51

Marine Sanitation Devices; Final

Regulation to Establish Drinking Water

Intake Zones in Two Sections of the

Hudson River, New York State

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency is establishing two Drinking

Water Intake Zones in the Hudson

River, in response to an application

received by the New York State

Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC). Establishment

of a Drinking Water Intake Zone serves

to completely prohibit the discharge of

vessel sewage, treated or untreated, to

waters contained in that zone. Zone 1 is

bounded by the northern confluence of

the Mohawk River on the south and

Lock 2 on the north. It is approximately

8 miles long. Zone 2 is bounded on the

south by the Village of Roseton on the

western shore and bounded on the north

by the southern end of Houghtaling

Island. Zone 2 is approximately 60

miles long.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The final rule will take

effect April 11, 1996. In accordance

with 40 CFR 23.2, these amendments to

the regulation shall be considered

issued for purposes of judicial review at

1 p.m. eastern time, two weeks after

publication.

ADDRESSES: Patrick M. Durack, Chief,

Water Permits and Compliance Branch

(25th Floor), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region 2, 290

Broadway, New York, New York,

10007–1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Sweeney, 212–637–3765.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In July 1992 the New York State

Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted an

application for two reaches of the

Hudson River to be designated by EPA

as Drinking Water Intake Zones. Section

312(f)(4)(B) of Public Law 92–500, as

amended by Public Law 95–217 and

Public Law 100–4, (the ‘‘Clean Water

Act’’), states, ‘‘Upon application by a

State, the Administrator shall, by

regulation, establish a drinking water

intake zone in any waters within such

State and prohibit the discharge of

sewage from vessels within that zone.

‘‘Region II requested that authority for

taking action in response to this

application be delegated from the

Administrator to the Regional

Administrator. That authority was

delegated on November 16, 1992.

Zone 1 is in the Hudson River/

Champlain Canal and is bounded by an

east-west line through the most northern

confluence of the Mohawk River which

will be designated by the TroyWaterford Bridge (126th Street Bridge)

on the south and Lock 2 on the north.

It is approximately 8 miles long. This

zone is classified in the Official

Compilation of Codes, Rules and

Regulations of the State of New York (6

NYCRR) Part 941.6, Item Number 1, as

one Class A segment. This classification

was assigned in February 1967. Class A

is the standard given to waters of New

York for the protection of a source of

water supply for drinking, culinary, or

food processing purposes. There is one

drinking water intake located in Zone 1,

authorized for 2.0 million gallons per

day, which serves the Town and Village

of Waterford, Saratoga County, New

York. This portion of the Hudson River

adjoins Saratoga County on the west and

Rensselaer County on the east.

Zone 2 is also in the Hudson River

and is bounded on the south by the

Village of Roseton on the western shore

and Low Point on the eastern shore in

the vicinity of Chelsea, and on the north

by the southern end of Houghtaling

Island. This zone is classified in 6

NYCRR as two segments, both Class A.

The northern segment, which stretches

from the southern end of Houghtaling

Island (at light #72) to the southern end

of Esopus Island (at light #28), was

classified as Class B in 1966 and

reclassified by the State of New York as

Class A in 1969. The southern segment

of Zone 2 stretches from the southern

end of Esopus Island (at light #28) to the

line formed by Roseton on the west

shore and Low Point on the east shore

in the vicinity of Chelsea, New York.

This southern segment of Zone 2 was

classified on October 15, 1966 as Class

A. There are six authorized drinking

water intakes in Zone 2. They are listed

below:

Community served

Authorized

taking in

million gallons per day

Rhinebeck Village and Hamlet

of Rhinecliff ........................... 1.0

Hyde Park Fire and Water District, Town of Hyde Park ....... 6.0

City and Town of Poughkeepsie .......................................... 16.0

New York City, Chelsea Emergency Pump Station .............. 100.0

Port Ewan Water District, Town

of Esopus .............................. 1.0

Highland Water District ............. 3.0

Authority to enforce the prohibition

of vessel sewage discharges lies with the

U.S. Coast Guard, which may by

agreement utilize enforcement officers

of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, other Federal agencies, or

States, in accordance with § 312(k) of

the Clean Water Act.

Both the Federal and New York State

governments will take a role in

implementation and enforcement of the

prohibition in the two drinking water
63942 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

intake zones. The prohibition will take

effect one hundred and twenty (120)

days after this notice. A major focus of

the implementation plan for this

prohibition will be public education,

specifically boater education. For the

purposes of boater understanding and

compliance, it is worthwhile to note

landmarks which approximate the

boundaries of the drinking water intake

zones, which are in view of the Hudson

River boater. For Zone 1, the TroyWaterford Bridge (126th Street Bridge)

and Lock #2 are visible landmarks. For

Zone 2, the northern border is at the

southern end of Houghtaling Island. The

Newburgh-Beacon Bridge, which is

south of the southern zone border, is an

obvious landmark for the southern end

of Zone 2. All of Zone 2 lies between

Houghtaling Island and the NewburghBeacon Bridge, and these landmarks are

therefore useful markers for boaters.

II. Public Comments and Response to

Most Significant Comments

On July 5, 1995, EPA noticed the

proposed regulation in the Federal

Register, which regulation would

establish drinking water intakes zones

in two sections of the Hudson River.

Upon publication of the proposed

regulation, a sixty day public comment

period commenced and was closed on

September 5, 1995. During the comment

period, two public hearings were held at

the following locations:

1. August 9, 1995 at the offices of the

NYSDEC, 21 South Putt Corners Road,

New Paltz, New York from 6:30 p.m. to

8:30 p.m.

2. August 10, 1995 at the Town of

Waterford Civic Center, 35 Third Street,

Waterford, New York from 6:30 p.m. to

8:30 p.m.

Written and/or oral statements were

received by six individuals. One

individual represented the association

of towboat operators. Another

individual represented the shipping

operations for a major petroleum

company. Two individuals represented

two citizens group interested in the

Hudson River. The comments of each

individual are summarized and

responded to below:

Comment 1: One individual asserted

that the proposed rule goes beyond the

proscriptions [sic] of the U.S. Coast

Guard by effectively mandating that

commercial vessels which operate on

the Hudson River install a Type III

marine sanitation device (MSD). She

contended further that while Section

312(f)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA) permits the establishment of a

‘‘no discharge zone’’ once a state

submits an application to EPA, the

statute does not limit the options which

may be considered nor empower EPA to

contravene federal regulations

promulgated by the U.S. Coast Guard

which address MSDs aboard vessels.

The individual argued that the proposed

rule ‘‘oversteps the bounds of

established international and domestic

statutes related to the discharge of

sewage.’’

Response 1: Section 312 of the CWA

requires the Administrator, in

conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard,

to promulgate performance standards

for MSDs and requires the U.S. Coast

Guard to promulgate regulations

governing the design, construction,

installation and operation of MSDs.

Section 312(f)(4)(B) of the CWA,

however, addresses an issue other than

performance standards, design,

construction, installation or operation of

MSDs. This subsection of the CWA

provides that ‘‘[u]pon application by a

State, the Administrator shall, by

regulation, establish a drinking water

intake zone in any waters within such

State and prohibit the discharge of

sewage from vessels within that zone.’’

The rule, which designates two drinking

water intake zones, is, therefore, not

inconsistent with Coast Guard

regulation and is consistent with the

CWA. The comment concerning

international agreements and statutes is

non-specific and as such cannot be

addressed; moreover, the Hudson River

is considered domestic waters.

Comment 2: The individual

maintained that by proposing to

‘‘prohibit the discharge of treated

sewage, vessels with Type II MSDs will

be rendered non-operational in the

winter months and only operational at

other times of the year.’’

Response 2: EPA maintains that vessel

operators may operate in compliance

with the no discharge requirements by

utilizing permanently-installed Type III

systems; using portable Type III

systems; or by discharging treated waste

outside the zone. However, EPA

acknowledges that certain

circumstances (e.g. winter operation in

Zone 2) could preclude the ‘‘discharge

outside the zone’’ option for certain

vessels. In these circumstances, vessel

owners may find it necessary to use

either permanent or portable Type III

systems. In response to the concern

about complying with no discharge

requirements during winter months

without retrofitting with a permanent

Type III system, EPA is delaying the

effective date of the rule to 120 days

after final notice. This change will allow

additional time to retrofit and will allow

operators additional time to plan for the

more challenging winter operational

period.

Comment 3: The two alternatives

offered to vessel owners with Type II

MSDs is to either install a Type III MSD

or discharge treated sewage outside the

no discharge zones. An individual

argued that the off-loading of sewage at

a pump-out station located in the no

discharge zone is not a viable option for

some vessel operators given the physical

dimensions, geographic location and

depth of water at many of the pump-out

facilities on the Hudson River.

Response 3: Many vessel owners

currently operating on the Hudson River

use Type III MSDs and are off-loading

sewage. The fact that these vessels

commonly off-load sewage demonstrates

that this is a viable alternative for many

other vessel operators, as well. While

applications made pursuant to section

312(f)(3) of the CWA must show that

adequate facilities for the safe and

sanitary removal and treatment of

sewage are reasonably available, this is

not a criterion for applications or

determinations made pursuant to

section 312(f)(4)(B) of the CWA.

Comment 4: One individual declared

that the proposed regulation will have a

detrimental operational and economic

impact on commercial vessels which

have a Type II marine sanitation device

on-board. She criticized that the

proposed rule characterizes the costs

associated with the purchase of Type III

marine sanitation devices as ‘‘nominal’’

and explained that the actual cost

associated with the purchase and

installation of a holding tank aboard a

tugboat can be tens of thousands of

dollars depending upon the

configuration of the vessel. She

concluded that the installation and

utilization of a Type III MSD is not a

viable alternative for many tug/barge

units transporting petroleum products

on the Hudson River.

Response 4: Retrofitting is not the

only option available and some vessel

owners will choose not to retrofit, but

will use portable toilets or discharge

outside the zones instead. EPA,

however, recognizes that some vessels

will retrofit with a Type III MSD to

comply with the regulation and that

there will be a cost associated with

retrofitting. EPA—s original cost

estimates were based on equipment

costs and did not include installation

costs. The individual points out that

cost estimates should include

installation of the equipment as well as

the purchase price of the equipment.

During the public hearing on August 9,

1995, an individual stated that the cost

to retrofit would be between $10,000

and $75,000 and impact 100 tugboats

and 40 to 75 barges (a total of 140 to 175

vessels). Employing the numbers
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63943

provided by the industry representative,

the most expensive estimates would

result in costs of approximately $13

million to the industry. This dollar

amount is well below the $100 million

annual cost ceiling imposed by Congress

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995, which amount can be used as

a guide in determining what is, in the

view of Congress, a substantial cost.

Comment 5: One person commented

that the second alternative outlined in

the proposed rulemaking is for vessels

with a Type II MSD to simply treat and

discharge the sewage outside the no

discharge zone. She stated that the fact

that EPA and DEC are suggesting that

vessels discharge outside the proposed

sixty-eight mile no discharge zone is

disingenuous.

Response 5: Vessels which discharge

treated sewage outside of the drinking

water intakes zones are in compliance

with the regulation. This rule,

promulgated to protect specific drinking

water intakes, regulates discharges

inside the delineated zones as a means

of protecting these intakes and does not

attempt to control the discharge or

prohibit the discharge of treated sewage

outside the zones.

Comment 6: One individual

speculated that the entire Hudson River

would soon be designated as a no

discharge zone. She made this

speculation because based on her

information and belief, the southern

segment of Zone 2, from Esopus Island

to Chelsea, New York also has drinking

water intake valves with the cumulative

capacity of 127 millions gallons per day.

Response 6: To date, no other

applications have been made by

NYSDEC or discussed with EPA. EPA

will act on the facts before it and will

not act on mere speculation.

With regard to the Chelsea water

intake, that intake is included in Zone

2, which is bounded on the south by the

Village of Roseton on the western shore

and on the north by the southern end of

Houghtaling Island. This zone is

classified in 6 NYCRR as two segments,

both Class A. The northern segment,

which stretches from the southern end

of Houghtaling Island (at light #72) to

the southern end of Esopus Island (at

light #28). The southern segment of

Zone 2 stretches from the southern end

of Esopus Island (at light #28) to the line

formed by Roseton on the west shore

and Low Point on the east shore in the

vicinity of Chelsea, New York.

Comment 7: An individual questioned

the beneficial results of designated no

discharge zones if the Hudson River

continues to be contaminated by

combined sewer outfalls and storm

water run-off.

Response 7: The prohibition of the

discharge of vessel sewage from MSDs

is not the only NYSDEC program to

protect the drinking water sources of

several communities and to improve the

water quality in the Hudson River.

There are programs in place to reduce

and better manage the discharge of

storm water and non-point pollution.

Combined sewer overflows are regulated

through the NYSDEC State Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System

permitting program. This final rule is in

addition to programs already in place

and will serve to enhance the Hudson

River water quality.

Comment 8: Another individual

representing a shipping operations for a

major petroleum company provided a

letter that reiterated the comments

submitted by the association

representing the tow boat industry. See

comments and responses 1 through 7.

Comment 9: An individual entered an

oral statement into the record at the

public hearing held on August 10, 1995.

This individual expressed his support of

the regulation. He also stated that EPA

should consider regulations which

parallel the Lake Champlain regulations

which require that all vessels with a

marine toilet on-board must be

equipped with a holding tank.

Response 9: EPA acknowledges this

support for the proposal. With regard to

mandating installation of holding tanks,

EPA does not have the authority to

prescribe the method of compliance

with the rule. EPA expects to address

operational procedures in the

implementation plan which is to be

developed following promulgation.

Comment 10: This individual also

named four Class A water segments (a

30-mile stretch in the Mohawk River,

the Seneca River, Cayuga Lake and

Seneca Lake) as classified by NYSDEC

which are navigable and not among the

waters which are no discharge zones.

These are waters which he feels need to

be designated as no discharge zones. He

recognized that EPA could not act on

this suggestion unless NYSDEC applied

for such designation.

Response 10: No response needed.

Comment 11: Another individual

commented during the public hearing

on August 10, 1995 that he wondered

what part of the Mohawk River served

as the southern boundary of Zone 1. He

recommended that the Green IslandTroy dam be designated as the landmark

for the southern boundary. He also

stated his support for the regulation.

Response 11: EPA concurs that the

description in the proposed rule is

ambiguous and needs clarification. The

final rule will clarify that the southern

border of Zone 1 is the northernmost

confluence of the Mohawk River with

the Hudson River; the Troy-Waterford

Bridge (126th Street Bridge) will serve

as the line delineating the southern

boundary of Zone 1. The confluence is

not a landmark which is readily

apparent to a vessel operator on the

water. The Troy-Waterford Bridge

(126th Street Bridge) will serve as a

landmark which is easily recognized by

an operator on the water. EPA considers

this clarification to be a minor

modification which results in the

boundary line being moved

approximately 3–4 city blocks to the

north of the original boundary. Upon

reevaluation of all the boundary

delineations, EPA discovered that the

description of the southern boundary to

Zone 2 may not be easily understood by

the public. The final regulation will add

the phrase ‘‘in the vicinity of Chelsea.’’

Comment 12: A citizens group

through its representative stated its

support for the regulation in a letter

dated August 25, 1995.

Response 12: EPA acknowledges this

support for this proposal.

Comment 13: Another representative

of a citizens group provided a comment

on September 27, 1995, after the public

comment period closed. The comment

stated support for the proposed rule.

Response 13: No response required.

III. Compliance with Other Acts and

Orders

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is significant and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order. It

has been determined that this rule is not

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the terms of Executive Order 12866 and

is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.,

whenever an agency is developing

regulations, it must prepare and make

available for public comment the impact

of the regulations on small entities (i.e.,

small businesses, small organizations,

and small governmental jurisdictions).

A regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required if the head of the agency

certifies that the rule will not have

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

EPA policy dictates that an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

be prepared if the action will have any

effect on any small entity. An
63944 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

abbreviated IRFA can be prepared

depending on the severity of the

economic impact and the relevant

statute’s allowance of alternatives.

The Agency has prepared an IRFA for

this final rule. In summary, the IRFA

describes that a prohibition of vessel

sewage discharge in these two zones

will apply to any commercial or

recreational vessel with on-board toilet

facilities that navigates the Hudson

River in the described areas. Only

commercial vessels are considered small

entities with respect to the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. All vessels are already

subject to the EPA Marine Sanitation

Device Standards at 40 CFR Part 140

and the U.S. Coast Guard Marine

Sanitation Device Standards at 33 CFR

Part 159. These standards prohibit the

overboard discharge of vessel sewage in

any freshwater lakes, freshwater

reservoirs, or other freshwater

impoundments whose inlet or outlet is

such as to prevent the ingress or egress

by vessel traffic subject to this

regulation, or in rivers not capable of

being navigated, (40 CFR 140.3). In

other waters, including the Hudson

River, vessels with on-board toilets shall

have U.S. Coast Guard certified marine

sanitation devices which either retain

sewage or treat sewage to the applicable

standards. There are three types of

marine sanitation devices certified by

the U.S. Coast Guard. Type I and Type

II devices are both flow-through devices

that treat sewage through maceration

and disinfection. Type III devices are

holding tanks. Vessel sewage is held in

tanks until it can be properly disposed

of at a pump-out facility, or it may be

discharged untreated outside of U.S.

territorial waters. Most Type III devices

are equipped with a discharge option, in

the form of a Y-valve, which allows the

boater to discharge the sewage directly

overboard, which is legal only outside

of U.S. territorial waters. Since the

Hudson River is a U.S. territorial water,

the discharge of untreated vessel sewage

is prohibited under the existing

regulations. Today’s rule, therefore, will

not change the legal requirements for

boats with Type III devices.

Consequently, the only small entities

affected by this rule will be commercial

boats with on-board toilets with a Type

I or II marine sanitation device which

use these approximately 68 miles of the

Hudson River. The rule will affect these

vessels by requiring retention and

pump-out of their sewage, or discharge

outside of the designated zones. This

rule requires no reporting or record

keeping activity on the part of small

entities. Because of the cost associated

with purchase of portable Type III

devices and use of pump-out facilities,

and the option to discharge sewage in

accordance with Federal standards

outside of the zones, this final rule

imposes no significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

As mentioned above, NYSDEC

submitted the application for these

Drinking Water Intake Zones under

Section 312(f) of the Clean Water Act—

the section that sets national standards

for discharges of vessel sewage and

prohibits the states or political

subdivision thereof from adopting or

enforcing any other regulation or

standard for vessel sewage discharges.

There are several exceptions to this

prohibition. Section 312(f)(4)(B) is one

of these exceptions. This section was

added to the Clean Water Act in 1977

in order to provide the states with an

opportunity to have a more stringent

standard (i.e., a prohibition) for drinking

water intake areas. The Act states,

‘‘Upon application by a State, the

Administrator shall, by regulation,

establish a drinking water intake zone in

any waters within such State and

prohibit the discharge of sewage from

vessels within that zone.’’ EPA wishes

to correct its interpretation of CWA

section 312(f)(4)(B), as stated in the

preamble of the proposed rule at 60 FR

34942. EPA interprets CWA Section

312(f)(4)(B) to give EPA discretion upon

application by a state to establish a

drinking water intake zone, both with

respect to the timing of EPA action on

such an application and the substance

of such action. There is no mandatory

duty for EPA to act upon such an

application, as the CWA specifies no

date certain for such action. Further,

EPA interprets the requirement for

states to apply to EPA for the flexibility

to promulgate a drinking water intake

zone different from that applied for, if

EPA believes that a different zone is

warranted.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to

minimize the reporting and record

keeping burden on the regulated

community, as well as minimize the

cost of Federal information collection

and dissemination. In general, the Act

requires that information requests and

record keeping requirements affecting

10 or more non-Federal respondents be

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget. Since today’s rule would

not establish or modify any information

and record keeping requirements, it is

not subject to the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),

P.L. 104–4, which was signed into law

on March 22, 1995, EPA generally must

prepare a written statement for rules

with Federal mandates that may result

in estimated costs to State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. When such a

statement is required for EPA rules,

under Section 205 of the Act EPA must

identify and consider alternatives,

including the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

EPA must select that alternative, unless

the Administrator explains in the final

rule why it was not selected or it is

inconsistent with law. Before EPA

establishes regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must develop under

Section 203 of the Act a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, giving them

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the regulatory

requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not include a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annualized

costs of $100 million or more to either

State, local, and tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector.

All vessels that are equipped with

marine sanitation devices and that

navigate the Hudson River are already

subject to the EPA Marine Sanitation

Device Standards at 40 CFR Part 140

and the U.S. Coast Guard Marine

Sanitation Device Standards at 33 CFR

Part 159. These standards prohibit the

overboard discharge of untreated vessel

sewage in the Hudson River and require

that vessels with on-board toilets shall

have U.S. Coast Guard certified marine

sanitation devices which either retain

sewage or treat sewage to the applicable

standards. There are three types of

marine sanitation devices certified by

the U.S. Coast Guard. Only those vessels

that have either one of the two types of

certified flow-through devices will be

affected by this rule. Those vessels

affected by this rule will either retain

and pump out treated sewage or

discharge outside of the designated

zones. It is therefore estimated that the

annualized costs to State, local and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63945

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, will not be or

exceed $100 million. Thus, today’s rule

is not subject to the requirements of

Section 202 and 205 of the Act. Because

the rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, it

also is not subject to the requirements

of Section 203 of the Act. Small

governments are subject to the same

requirements as other entities whose

duties result from this rule and they

have the same ability as other entities to

retain and pump out treated sewage or

discharge outside of the designated

zones.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 140

Environmental protection, Sewage

disposal, Vessels.

Dated: December 5, 1995.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR Part 140 is amended

as follows:

PART 140—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 140

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 312, as added Oct. 18,

1972, Pub. L. 92–500, Sec. 2, 86 Stat. 871.

Interpret or apply Sec. 312(b)(1), 33 U.S.C.

1322(b)(1).

2. In § 140.4 paragraph (b)(1) is

amended by designating the

undesignated text after the colon as

paragraph (b)(1)(i) and by adding

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 140.4 Complete prohibition.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Two portions of the Hudson River

in New York State, the first is bounded

by an east-west line through the most

northern confluence of the Mohawk

River which will be designated by the

Troy-Waterford Bridge (126th Street

Bridge) on the south and Lock 2 on the

north, and the second of which is

bounded on the north by the southern

end of Houghtaling Island and on the

south by a line between the Village of

Roseton on the western shore and Low

Point on the eastern shore in the

vicinity of Chelsea, as described in

Items 2 and 3 of 6 NYCRR Part 858.4.

[FR Doc. 95–30406 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 3F4222/R2192; FRL–4989–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes

tolerances for residues of the fungicide

tebuconazole (alpha-[2-(4-

chlorophenyl)ethyl]-alpha-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-

ethanol) in or on the raw agricultural

commodities cherries at 4.0 parts per

million (ppm) and peaches (includes

nectarines) at 1.0 ppm. Miles, Inc. (now

Bayer Corp.) submitted a petition

pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for the regulation

to establish these maximum permissible

levels for residues of the fungicide.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of

this rule is November 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 3F4222/

R2192], may be submitted to: Hearing

Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections shall be

labeled Tolerance Petition Fees and

forwarded to EPA Headquarters

Accounting Operations Branch, OPP

(Tolerance Fees), P. O. Box 360277M,

Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any

objections and hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the document control

number and submitted to: Public

Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In

person, bring copy of objections and

hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 22202.

A copy of any objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the document number [PP 3F4222/

R2192]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic copies of

objections and hearing requests on this

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Connie B. Welch, Product

Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-

305-6226; e-mail:

welch.connie@.epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a notice, published in the

Federal Register of August 17, 1995 (60

FR 42885), which announced that Miles,

Inc., Agricultural Division (formerly

Mobay Corp., Agricultural Chemicals

Division, now Bayer Corp.), P.O. Box

4913, Kansas City, MO 64120-0013, had

submitted pesticide petition (PP)

3F4222 to EPA requesting that the

Administrator, pursuant to section

408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.

346a(d), establish a tolerance for

residues of the fungicide tebuconazole

(alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)ethyl]-alpha-

(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-

ethanol) in or on the raw agricultural

commodities cherries at 4.0 parts per

million (ppm) and peaches (includes

nectarines per 40 CFR 180.1(h)) at 1.0

ppm.

There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing. The

scientific data submitted in the petition

and other relevant material have been

evaluated. The toxicological data

considered in support of the tolerance

include:

1. A 90-day rat feeding study with a

no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 34.8

milligrams per kilogram of body weight

per day (mg/kg bw/day) (400 ppm) and

a lowest-effect-level (LEL) of 171.7 mg/

kg bw/day (1,600 ppm) in males, based

on decreased body weight gains and

histological changes in the adrenals. For

females, the NOEL was 10.8 mg/kg bw/

day (100 ppm) and the LEL was 46.5

mg/kg bw/day (400 ppm) based on

decreased body weights, decreased body

weight gains, and histological changes

in the adrenals.

2. A 90-day dog-feeding study with a

NOEL of 200 ppm (73.7 mg/kg bw/day

in males and 73.4 mg/kg bw/day in

females) and an LEL of 1,000 ppm

(368.3 mg/kg bw/day in males and 351.8

mg/kg bw/day in females). The LEL was