1930 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 1996 / Notices

U.S. EPA would be reimbursed for all of

its outstanding past costs of

$2,545,773.63 incurred at the Ninth

Avenue Dump Site; (2) the Settling

Parties agree to reimburse the U.S. EPA

for all of its future response costs

incurred at the Site; (3) the Settling

Parties agree not to assert any claims or

causes of action against the United

States with respect to any matters

concerning the Site; and (4) the U.S.

EPA affords the Settling Parties a

covenant not to sue for past and future

response costs and contribution

protection as provided by CERCLA

Sections 113(f)(2) and 122(h)(4) upon

satisfactory completion of their

obligations under the Settlement.

However, U.S. EPA is free to pursue any

other necessary and appropriate judicial

and administrative relief against the

Settling Parties and any necessary and

appropriate judicial and administrative

relief against any other party. The Site

is on the National Priorities List

(‘‘NPL’’), and remedial response

activities at the Site are continuing. The

Attorney General has approved the

Settlement.

DATES: Comments on the proposed AOC

must be received by U.S. EPA on or

before February 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the proposed

AOC is available for review at U.S. EPA,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please contact

Mike Berman at (312) 886–6837 or Mike

Anastasio at (312) 886–7951, prior to

visiting the Region 5 office.

Comments on the proposed AOC

should be addressed to Mike Berman/

Mike Anastasio, Office of Regional

Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard (Mail Code CS–29A),

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Berman at (312) 886–6837 or Mike

Anastasio at (312) 886–7951, of the U.S.

EPA Region 5 Office of Regional

Counsel.

A 30-day period, commencing on the

date of publication of this notice, is

open pursuant to Section 122(i) of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), for

comments on the proposed AOC.

Comments should be sent to the

addressee identified in this notice.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 95–1050 Filed 1–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5402–3]

CWA 303(d): Establishment of Phased

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

for Copper, Mercury, Nickel and Lead

in New York-New Jersey Harbor

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Region II is

hereby issuing final public notice on the

establishment of Phased Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for

copper and mercury in New York-New

Jersey Harbor. The TMDLs are being

established in cooperation with the

States of New York and New Jersey.

DATES: January 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the

responsivenesss summary and TMDL

support documents can be obtained by

writing to Ms. Rosella T. O’Connor,

Technical Evaluation Section, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region II, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,

New York, New York 10006–1866 or

calling (212) 637–3711.

The administrative record containing

background technical information on

the TMDLs developed by EPA, in

conjunction with the States of NY and

NJ, is on file and may be inspected at

the U.S. EPA, Region II office between

the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except

holidays. Arrangements to examine the

administrative record may be made by

contacting Ms. Rosella O’Connor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosella O’Connor, telephone (212) 637–

3711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Final Determination

I. Background

The New York-New Jersey Harbor is

geographically defined as the Hudson

River from the Tappan Zee Bridge

extending out to the Outer Harbor and

including the Harlem River, East River

to the Throgs Neck Bridge, Jamaica Bay,

Newark Bay, Hackensack River below

the Oradell Dam, Passaic River below

the Dundee Dam, Kill Van Kull, Arthur

Kill, and the Raritan River/Bay below

the Fieldville Dam.

Under the auspices of the New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, the

States of New York and New Jersey and

EPA joined in a cooperative effort to

collect ambient and source data,

develop a water quality model to assess

relative loadings from all sources

(municipal and industrial discharges,

storm water, combined sewer overflows,

sediment flux, atmospheric deposition

and tributaries), and develop Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).

Due to the interstate nature of the

New York-New Jersey Harbor and the

desirability of consistency and equity

among dischargers, the State of New

Jersey requested that EPA promulgate

TMDLs for the New York-New Jersey

Harbor. EPA will, therefore, establish

TMDLs as a federal action. Except for

the Kill Van Kull, New York State has

already implemented the necessary

water quality-based effluent limits for

waterbodies within the Harbor by

issuing individual control strategies in

the form of modified permits. EPA is

establishing TMDLs for the remaining

waterbodies for which New York State

has not established TMDLs as well as

Harbor waterbodies in the State of New

Jersey. The EPA promulgation will

result in the incorporation of TMDLs

into State Water Quality Management

Plans. In the State of New Jersey, this

promulgation will amend the Northeast,

the Lower Raritan/ Middlesex County

and the Monmouth County Water

Quality Management Plans. In New

York State, this promulgation will

amend the New York State Water

Quality Management Plan.

II. Final Determination

In the proposed public notice (40 FR

41293, August 11, 1994), EPA indicated

that the basis of the TMDLs was the

most stringent of the applicable NJ or

NY standards for mercury (0.025 μg/L),

nickel (7.1 μg/L) and lead (8.5 μg/L),

expressed as the total recoverable form

of the metal. Since that time, EPA

issued an Interim Final Rule (60 FR

22228, May 4, 1995), amending the

National Toxics Rule. The Interim Final

Rule became effective on April 14, 1995.

This rule establishes dissolved criteria

for nickel and lead in New Jersey. Phase

I TMDLs are not being developed for

nickel and lead, at this time. Insufficent

data were available to determine if

TMDLs based on the dissolved nickel

and lead criteria were necessary. The

mercury criterion will continue to be

expressed as total recoverable since it is

a fish tissue based criterion. The copper

criterion used to develop TMDLs is 5.6

μg/L (expressed as dissolved metal).

This value is the most stringent of the

two proposed site-specific copper

criteria developed (7.9 [acute] and 5.6

[chronic] μg/L dissolved) for the Harbor

waters (for additional information

regarding the development of the sitespecific copper criteria, refer to EPA’s

document entitled ‘‘Development of a

Site-Specific Copper Criterion for the

NY/NJ Harbor Complex Using the

Indicator Species Procedure’’).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 1996 / Notices 1931

Based on ambient monitoring data

and/or water quality modeling efforts,

certain waterbodies within the Harbor

exceed or are projected to exceed

applicable water quality standards. In

such cases, the Clean Water Act requires

that the States calculate the maximum

amount of the pollutant that the

waterbody can assimilate and still meet

ambient water quality standards. This

amount, called the total maximum daily

load, is then used to allocate loads

among sources of pollutants. Loads

allocated to point sources (e.g.

municipal dischargers) are termed

Waste Load Allocations (WLAs). Loads

allocated to nonpoint sources (e.g.

atmospheric inputs) are termed Load

Allocations (LAs).

Waterbodies within the Harbor which

are known or projected to exceed

applicable water quality standards and

have been determined to require TMDLs

are denoted by an ‘‘X’’ in Table 1.

Certain waterbodies in the Harbor do

not require TMDLs for all the metals of

concern. For these waterbodies, no

further action is being proposed. The

‘‘#’’ notation indicates that the need for

TMDLs will be reassessed, based on

dissolved nickel and lead criteria, after

the completion of the Phase II

monitoring in these waterbodies.

TABLE 1.—WATERBODIES NEEDING TMDLS

Waterbody Copper Mercury Nickel Lead

Hudson River ................................................................................................ X

Inner Harbor .................................................................................................. X

Outer Harbor ................................................................................................. X

Arthur Kill/Kill Van Kull .................................................................................. X X # #

East R./Harlem R .......................................................................................... X

Jamaica Bay .................................................................................................. X

Raritan River/Bay .......................................................................................... X X # #

Hackensack R./Passaic R./Newark Bay ....................................................... X X # #

The TMDLs for copper, and mercury

use a phased TMDL approach. For

copper, the waterbodies listed in Table

1 exceed applicable water quality

standards based on concentrations

projected to occur by the water quality

model employed for this TMDL effort.

Due to the limited ambient and loading

data, the state of the model calibration

is uncertain for the Raritan River/Bay,

the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers, and

Newark Bay. Based on the available

ambient data, it has been determined

that existing loads are adequate to meet

applicable water quality standards. The

Phase I TMDLs for these waters will be

based on limiting municipal and

industrial point source dischargers to

existing loads. Additional data

collection and modeling for the

Hackensack River, Passaic River,

Newark Bay, Kill Van Kull, Arthur Kill,

and Raritan River/Bay will be required.

Once sufficient data have been collected

and the water quality model has been

adequately calibrated, Phase II TMDLs

will be developed, adopted and

implemented, as necessary, by the

States of New York and New Jersey with

assistance from EPA.

As indicated in Table 1, both ambient

and model projected exceedances of

mercury standards occur throughout the

Harbor. Water quality modeling for

mercury indicated that a significant

portion of the total mercury load was

not identified by the monitoring

conducted to support the TMDL effort.

This load, attributed to atmospheric

deposition, drives exceedances of water

quality standards. The Phase I TMDLs

for mercury are based on freezing

existing point source loads and reducing

atmospheric deposition loading by a

portion of the anticipated levels of

reduction resulting from the

implementation of the Clean Air Act.

Additional monitoring and water

quality modeling will be conducted to:

reassess the previously identified

sources; quantify loads from

atmospheric deposition and sediment

flux; recalibrate the mercury water

quality model; and to calculate Phase II

TMDLs.

Based on applicable water quality

standards and an assessment of loadings

to the Harbor, Phase I TMDLs were

calculated and allocated among

municipal dischargers, industrial

dischargers, combined sewer overflows,

storm water, atmospheric, and

tributaries. These TMDLs/WLAs/LAs

are shown in Table 2.

For copper, the Phase I TMDLs/

WLAs/LAs are based on existing loads

from: industrial/municipal dischargers

identified as contributing significant

loads of the above substances; combined

sewer overflows; storm water

dischargers; atmospheric deposition;

and tributary sources.

For mercury, Phase I TMDLs/WLAs/

LAs are based on existing loads for all

point sources and a projected reduction

in atmospheric loads due to

implementation of the Clean Air Act.

The TMDLs/WLAs/LAs listed in the

Tables below are not enforceable permit

limits. The enforceable permit limits for

municipal and industrial dischargers

will be developed by the States based on

the WLAs listed below. The Phase I

effluent limits for municipal and

industrial dischargers will be based on

existing effluent quality and will be

developed in accordance with ‘‘EPA

Region II’s Guidance for Calculating

Permit Effluent Limitations Based on

Existing Effluent Quality.’’ A copy of

this document may be obtained by

contacting the above mentioned person.

The tables below identify the Phase I

TMDLs/WLAs/LAs for copper and

mercury in the Harbor. Additional

information regarding the calculation of

the TMDLs/WLAs/LAs and a listing of

the individual WLA for each municipal

and industrial discharger may be found

in EPA’s document entitled ‘‘Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for

Copper, Mercury, Nickel and Lead in

NY-NJ Harbor.’’
1932 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 1996 / Notices

TABLE 2.—T4TMDLs/WLAs/LAs for New York-New Jersey Harbor

TMDL: Copper

Loading Zone

(loads in lbs/day

total recoverable

metal)

Hack/Pas/Newark

WLA/LA

Kills Raritan R/Bay

MUN./IND. ........................................................................................................................ 11.16 31.21 34.85

CSO ................................................................................................................................. 17.30 17.10 1.40

STORM WATER .............................................................................................................. 53.30 35.10 42.70

BOUNDARY ..................................................................................................................... 2.73 0.00 3.90

ATMOSPHERIC ............................................................................................................... 7.40 46.40 67.60

TMDL ................................................................................................................. 91.89 129.81 150.45

TMDL: Mercury

[Loads in lbs/day total recoverable metal]

Loading zones Mun./ind. CSOs 1 Storm water 2 Boundary 1 Atmospheric 3 TMDLs

Hudson River ............................ 0.185 0.057 0.481 0.138 0.245 1.106

Inner Harbor ............................. 0.183 0.034 0.007 0 0.054 0.278

Outer Harbor ............................ 0.000 0.026 0.010 0 1.139 1.175

Kills ........................................... 0.328 0.066 0.516 0 0.225 1.135

East & Harlem R. ..................... 1.005 0.216 1.260 0 0.679 3.16

Jamaica Bay ............................. 0.274 0.106 0.119 0. 0.093 0.592

Raritan Bay ............................... 0.442 0.005 0.628 0.003 0.328 1.406

Hack/Pas/ Newark B. ............... 0.215 0.060 0.784 0.002 0.036 1.097

1 Load includes a projected 10% reduction.

2 Load includes a projected 30% reduction.

3 Load includes a projected 60% reduction.

NOTES: Hack/Pas/Newark=Hackensack River, Passaic River and Newark Bay.

Mun./Ind.=Municipal and Industrial dischargers.

Dated: December 15, 1995.

William Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–1052 Filed 1–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CS Docket No. 95–61, FCC 95–491]

Annual Assessment of the Status of

Competition in the Market for the

Delivery of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Second Annual Report to

Congress.

SUMMARY: Section 628(g) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 548(g), requires the

Commission to report annually to

Congress on the status of competition in

the market for the delivery of video

programming. On December 11, 1995,

the Commission released its second

such annual report (‘‘1995 Report’’). The

1995 Report provides data and

information that summarize the status of

competition in the market for the

delivery of video programming and

update the Commission’s first Annual

Assessment of the Status of Competition

in the Market for the Delivery of Video

Programming (‘‘1994 Report’’),

summarized at 59 FR 64657 (December

15, 1994). The 1995 Report is based on

publicly available data, filings in

various Commission rulemaking

proceedings, and information submitted

by commenters in response to a Notice

of Inquiry in this docket, summarized at

60 FR 29533 (June 5, 1995).

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcia A. Glauberman, Cable Services

Bureau (202) 416–1184 or Martin L.

Stern, Office of the General Counsel

(202) 418–1880.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s 1995

Report in CS Docket No. 95–61, FCC 95–

491, adopted December 7, 1995, and

released December 11, 1995. The

complete text of the 1995 Report is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,

20554, and may also be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service

(‘‘ITS, Inc.’’), (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington,

D.C. 20037. In addition, the complete

text of the 1995 Report is available on

the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc95491.zip

Synopsis of the 1995 Report

1. The 1995 Report examines the

cable television industry, other existing

multichannel video programming

distributors (‘‘MVPDs’’), and other

existing and potential competitors to

cable television. In the 1995 Report, the

Commission also examines market

structure and competition, measures

horizontal concentration in the cable

television industry, and evaluates

vertical integration between cable

television systems and programming

services. In addition, the 1995 Report

provides information on issues of access

to programming and technical advances.

Finally, the 1995 Report assesses the

status of competition in the market for

the delivery of video programming by

examining the extent of competition,

evaluating market performance, and

reporting on existing and potential

impediments to entry and competition,

including strategic behavior that could

deter entry and regulatory, legal, and

other potential impediments.

2. Key Findings.