65614 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Branch-NY, Project Officer, and CAPT

R.A. Knee, Fifth Coast Guard District

Legal Office, Project Counsel.

Background and Purpose

The Route 9 Bridge across Nacote

Creek, mile 1.5, at Smithville, Atlantic

County, NJ, has a vertical clearance of

5′ above mean high water (MHW) and 8′

above mean low water (MLW) in the

closed position. The current regulations

require the bridge to open on signal at

all times.

Review of the bridge logs provided by

NJDOT reveals that from 11 p.m. to 7

a.m., there were no requests for bridge

openings in 1992 and 1993, and only 13

requests for openings in 1994 during

these hours. NJDOT is seeking relief

from the requirement that a

bridgetender be present during the

hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. when there

are minimal requests for openings.

The New Jersey Department of

Transportation requested that the Coast

Guard make a permanent change to the

regulations governing operation of the

Route 9 Bridge to require the draw to

open on signal except from 11 p.m. to

7 a.m., which would require a two-hour

advance notice. At all other times, the

bridge would open on signal. The

bridgetenders would be on call to open

the draw when the advance notice is

given. A 24-hour special telephone

number would be posted on the bridge

and maintained by the NJDOT.

Accordingly, a new provision

allowing the draw of the Route 9 bridge,

at mile 1.5, to remain closed during late

night and early morning hours unless

two hours advance notice is given will

be designated as paragraph (a). The

current provision allowing the draw of

the Atlantic County (Rte. 575) bridge, at

mile 3.5, to remain closed unless eight

hours advance notice is given will be

designated as paragraph (b). A general

provision requiring the passage of

Federal, State, and local government

vessels used for public safety through

all drawbridges in published at 33 CFR

117.31, and is no longer required to be

published for each waterway. Therefore,

this proposal would remove a provision

requiring passage of public vessels from

section 117.732.

Regulatory Evaluation

The proposed action is not a

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has been

exempted from review by the Office of

Management and Budget under that

order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation, under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

This conclusion is based on the fact that

the rule will not prevent mariners from

transiting the bridge. It will only require

mariners to plan their transits.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ include independently owned

and operated small businesses that are

not dominant in their field and that

otherwise qualify as ‘‘small business

concerns’’ under section 3 of the Small

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Because it

expects the impact of this proposal to be

minimal, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612 and

it has been determined that this

proposal will not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that under section

2.B.2.e.(32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B (as amended, 59

FR 38654, July 29, 1994), this proposal

is categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

statement has been prepared and placed

in the rulemaking docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend part 117

of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,

as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.732 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.732 Nacote Creek.

(a) The Route 9 bridge, mile 1.5, shall

open on signal except that from 11 p.m.

to 7 a.m., the draw shall open if at least

two hours advance notice is given.

(b) The draw of the Atlantic County

(Rte. 575) bridge, mile 3.5, at Port

Republic, shall open on signal if at least

eight hours advance notice is given.

Dated: November 22, 1995.

W.J. Ecker,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–30967 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL–5399–8]

Proposed Removal of Federal Water

Quality Standards for Surface Waters

of the Sacramento River, San Joaquin

River, and San Francisco Bay and

Delta of the State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In December 1994, under the

authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA),

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) promulgated a rule establishing

four sets of water quality criteria to

protect the designated uses for the

surface waters of the Sacramento River,

San Joaquin River, and San Francisco

Bay and Delta of the State of California

(Bay/Delta). Subsequent to this

promulgation, the State of California

adopted water quality standards for the

Bay/Delta and submitted them to EPA

for approval. On September 26, 1995,

the Regional Administrator for EPA

Region IX approved the state water

quality standards as protective of the

designated uses for the relevant

waterbodies. Currently, the State of

California is in the process of

implementing these state-adopted and

EPA-approved water quality standards

through a state water rights hearing
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 65615

1The State’s 1995 WQCP includes a description

of ‘‘beneficial uses’’ of the Bay/Delta waters and a

set of ‘‘objectives’’ that protect those beneficial uses.

In its review of the 1995 WQCP, and in keeping

with past practice, EPA is treating the State’s

beneficial uses and objectives as the ‘‘designated

uses’’ and ‘‘criteria’’ required under the federal

Clean Water Act. To avoid confusion, this

document will generally use the federal terms

‘‘designated uses’’ and ‘‘criteria.’’

process. Accordingly, EPA’s

promulgated water quality standards are

no longer needed to meet the

requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Therefore, EPA proposes to remove the

rule.

DATES: Comments on this proposal will

be accepted until March 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Palma Risler, Water

Management Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Palma Risler, Water Management

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, 415–744–

2017. The public record for this

rulemaking is available through this

contact at this same address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In December 1994, under the

authority of section 303 of the CWA,

EPA promulgated a rule establishing

four sets of water quality criteria to

protect the designated uses for the

surface waters of the Sacramento River,

San Joaquin River, and San Francisco

Bay and Delta of the State of California

(Bay/Delta)(60 FR 4664, January 24,

1995). These criteria consisted of

estuarine habitat criteria (consisting of a

salinity requirement measured at three

different locations in Suisun Bay for a

specified number of days during the

critical spring months), fish migration

criteria (consisting of an indexed value

representing successful fish migration

on the Sacramento River and the San

Joaquin River), fish spawning criteria on

the lower San Joaquin River (consisting

of a salinity requirement measured at

various points in April and May), and

narrative criteria protecting the brackish

tidal marshes in Suisun Marsh. A

description of these criteria are

provided in the preamble to the final

rule and in the rulemaking record.

Prior to federal promulgation of the

water quality standards for the Bay/

Delta, EPA, the Bureau of Reclamation

and Fish and Wildlife Service of the

U.S. Department of Interior, and the

National Marine Fisheries Service of the

U.S. Department of Commerce worked

with the State of California to attempt to

resolve the water quality issues in the

Bay/Delta underlying EPA’s rulemaking.

This effort led to an agreement,

informally called the ‘‘Bay Delta

Accords’’ signed by the federal agencies,

California state agencies, and interested

stakeholders. These Bay Delta Accords,

signed by all the parties in December

1994, articulate both substantive

measures and processes to protect the

Bay/Delta estuary, and laid out the

framework for the adoption, review, and

approval of the new State standards.

On May 22, 1995, the California State

Water Resources Control Board adopted

water quality standards for the Bay/

Delta in its water quality control plan

(1995 WQCP). After these revised

standards were approved by the

California Office of Administrative Law

in accordance with California law, the

revised standards were submitted to

EPA for its review under section 303(c)

of the CWA on July 27, 1995. On

September 26, 1995, the EPA Regional

Administrator for Region IX approved

these standards as protective of the

designated uses for the Bay/Delta. The

reasons for this approval are set forth in

the approval letter and are

supplemented by additional information

in the rulemaking record. Both the

approval letter and this supporting

information are included in the public

record for this rulemaking.

The CWA gives the states primary

responsibility for adopting water quality

standards. Throughout the rulemaking

process to promulgate federal water

quality standards for the Bay/Delta, EPA

has maintained that it would withdraw

the federal standards if the State adopts

and submits standards to the Agency

that meet the requirements of the Act.

EPA also indicated this intent in the Bay

Delta Accords.

EPA recognizes that with the

exception of the Suisun Bay narrative

criteria,1 the State’s 1995 WQCP

provisions are not precisely identical to

the federal promulgation. Nevertheless,

for the reasons set forth in EPA’s

approval, the Technical Support

Memorandum dated September 21,

1995, underlying the approval, and this

rulemaking record, EPA found that the

provisions in the 1995 WQCP protect

the designated uses of the estuary and

otherwise meet the requirements of the

CWA. The state is currently

implementing these standards.

Accordingly, the EPA rule is no longer

needed to meet the requirements of the

CWA, and EPA proposes to remove the

rule at 40 CFR 131.37.

EPA understands that the 1995 WQCP

is the subject of state court litigation

raising both procedural and substantive

challenges to the plan. Although EPA

believes that the State Board should

ultimately prevail in this litigation,

there is always a possibility in such

litigation for adverse court actions

affecting the 1995 WQCP. Should EPA

proceed to final withdrawal of the

federal water quality standards as

proposed in this notice, and the 1995

WQCP is subsequently rejected or

remanded, there would be no water

quality standards in effect in California

carrying out the Bay Delta Accords. EPA

intends to work with the State so that

if this situation were to arise, the

requirements of the Clean Water Act

and the purposes of the Bay Delta

Accords are achieved.

Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (56 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to all the requirements of the

order (i.e, Regulatory Impact Analysis

and review by the Office of Management

and Budget). Under section 3(f), the

order defines ‘‘significant’’ as those

actions likely to lead to a rule: (1)

Having an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more, or adversely

and materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities (also

known as ‘‘economically significant’’);

(2) creating serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfering with an action

taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially altering the budgetary

impacts of entitlements, grants, user

fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising

novel legal or policy issues arising out

of legal mandates, the President’s

priorities, or the principles set forth in

this order. Pursuant to the terms of this

order, EPA has determined that the

withdrawal of this rule would not be

‘‘significant.’’

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA is certifying

that a withdrawal of this rule would not

have significant impact on a substantial

number of small businesses.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no information collection

requirements associated with the

withdrawal of this rule that are covered

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.
65616 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

D. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year.

Today’s proposal contains no Federal

mandates under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA for

State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. In fact, removing the

federal water quality standards for the

Bay/Delta will facilitate the State of

California’s implementation of the state

adopted and EPA-approved water

quality standards for the Bay/Delta.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

Environmental protection, Indians—

lands, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water quality standards, Water quality

criteria.

Dated: December 14, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 131 of title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 131—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 131

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 131.37 [Removed and reserved]

2. Section 131.37 is removed and

reserved.

[FR Doc. 95–30985 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR PART 300

[FRL–5346–9]

Lewisburg Dump Superfund Site,

Lewisburg, TN

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Region IV, announces its

intent to delete the Lewisburg Dump

site from the National Priorities List

(NPL) and requests public comment on

this proposed action. The NPL

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part

300 which is the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), promulgated

by EPA, pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA and the State of Tennessee

Department of the Environment &

Conservation have determined that the

site no longer poses a significant threat

to public health or the environment and,

therefore, further CERCLA remedial

measures are not appropriate.

DATES: A 30-Day Public Comment

Period (December 11, 1995 to January

11, 1996) has been established for the

Lewisburg Dump site deletion proposal.

Comments concerning the proposal may

be submitted by January 11, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Femi Akindele, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 345 Courtland

Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30365.

Comprehensive information on this

site is available for review at the

following site information repositories.

Marshall County Memorial Library, 310

Farmington Pike, Lewisburg, TN

37091.

U.S. EPA Record Center, 345 Courtland

St., Atlanta, GA 30365.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Femi Akindele, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 345 Courtland

Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30365, 404–

347–3555 EXT. 2042 or 1–800–435–

9233 EXT 2042.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

This notice is to announce EPA’s

intent to delete the Lewisburg Dump

site from the NPL. It also serves to

request public comments on the

deletion proposal.

EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or environment and

maintains the NPL as the list of these

sites. Sites on the NPL qualify for

remedial responses financed by the

Hazardous Substances Response Trust

Fund (Fund). As described in

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site

warrant such actions. EPA accepts

comments on the proposal to delete a

site from the NPL for thirty days after

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria that

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.

In accordance with § 300.425(e) of the

NCP, sites may be deleted from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate. In making this

determination, EPA, in consultation

with the State, considers whether the

site has met any of the following criteria

for site deletion:

(i) Responsible or other parties have

implemented all appropriate response

actions required.

(ii) All appropriate response actions

under CERCLA have been implemented

and no further response actions are

deemed necessary.

(iii) Remedial investigation has

determined that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, no remedial

action is appropriate.

Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of this site:

(1) EPA Region IV issued a Final

Close Out Report in September 1993,

which addressed the site conditions,

quality assurance and control during

construction, and technical criteria for

satisfying the completion requirements.

(2) Concurrent with this

announcement, a notice has been

published in the local newspaper and

has been distributed to appropriate

federal, state, and local officials

announcing the commencement of a 30-

day public comment period on the

Notice of Intent to Delete.

(3) EPA has made all relevant

documents available for public review

at the information repositories.

Deletion of the site from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations. The

NPL is designed primarily for

information purposes and to assist EPA

management. As mentioned earlier,

Section 300.425(e)(30) of the NCP states

that deletion of a site from the NPL does

not preclude eligibility of the site for

future Fund-financed response actions.

For the deletion of this site, EPA will

accept and evaluate public comments

on this Notice of Intent to Delete before

finalizing the decision. If necessary, the

Agency will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary to address any significant

public comments received during the

comment period. The deletion is

finalized after the Regional

Administrator places a Notice of

Deletion in the Federal Register.