Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0015-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Federal Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Copper and Nickel Applicable to South San Francisco Bay, California;Proposed Rule.
Posted Date: 2003-06-25T04:00Z

Wednesday,

June
25,
2003
Part
III
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
131
Water
Quality
Standards;
Withdrawal
of
Federal
Aquatic
Life
Water
Quality
Criteria
for
Copper
and
Nickel
Applicable
to
South
San
Francisco
Bay,
California;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
24
Jun
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
25JNP2.
SGM
25JNP2
37926
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
122
/
Wednesday,
June
25,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
131
[
FRL
 
7519
 
4]

Water
Quality
Standards;
Withdrawal
of
Federal
Aquatic
Life
Water
Quality
Criteria
for
Copper
and
Nickel
Applicable
to
South
San
Francisco
Bay,
California
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
proposes
to
amend
the
Federal
regulations
to
withdraw
aquatic
life
water
quality
criteria
for
copper
and
nickel
applicable
to
south
San
Francisco
Bay,
California.
South
San
Francisco
Bay
is
the
area
of
San
Francisco
Bay
that
is
located
south
of
the
Dumbarton
Bridge.
On
May
18,
2000,
EPA
promulgated
Federal
regulations
establishing
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
the
State
of
California,
since
the
State
had
not
complied
with
the
Clean
Water
Act.
This
regulation
is
known
as
the
``
California
Toxics
Rule''
or
``
CTR.''
Thereafter,
on
May
22,
2002,
the
California
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
San
Francisco
Bay
Region
(
the
RWQCB),
adopted
amendments
to
its
Water
Quality
Control
Plan
for
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Basin
(
Basin
Plan).
The
amendments
contained
copper
and
nickel
aquatic
life
water
quality
criteria
for
south
San
Francisco
Bay.
The
State
of
California
calls
these
criteria
site­
specific
water
quality
objectives
or
site­
specific
objectives.
The
State
of
California's
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board
(
SWRCB)
and
Office
of
Administrative
Law
(
OAL)
then
reviewed
and
approved
the
Basin
Plan
amendments
containing
the
site­
specific
objectives.
On
January
9,
2003,
the
SWRCB
submitted
the
Basin
Plan
amendment
containing
the
sitespecific
objectives
to
EPA
Region
9
for
review
and
approval.
On
January
21,
2003,
EPA
Region
9
approved
the
copper
and
nickel
aquatic
life
sitespecific
objectives
for
south
San
Francisco
Bay.
Since
the
State
of
California
now
has
aquatic
life
site­
specific
objectives,
effective
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
for
copper
and
nickel
for
south
San
Francisco
Bay,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
Federally­
promulgated
copper
and
nickel
aquatic
life
criteria
are
no
longer
needed
for
south
San
Francisco
Bay.
In
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
proposing
to
withdraw
the
copper
and
nickel
aquatic
life
criteria
for
south
San
Francisco
Bay
from
the
CTR.
DATES:
All
written
comments
received
on
or
before
July
25,
2003,
will
be
considered
in
preparation
of
the
final
rule.
Comments
postmarked
after
this
date
may
not
be
considered.
ADDRESSES:
You
should
address
written
comments
to
Diane
E.
Fleck,
P.
E.,
Esq.,
Water
Division
(
WTR
 
2),
U.
S.
EPA
Region
9,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
California
94105,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2003
 
0015.
Please
send
an
original
and
three
copies
of
comments
and
enclosures
(
including
references).
You
may
also
submit
comments
electronically
or
through
hand­
delivery
or
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
under
``
How
and
To
Whom
to
Submit
Comments.''

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Diane
E.
Fleck,
P.
E.,
Esq.
(
WTR
 
2)
or
Nancy
Yoshikawa
(
WTR
 
5)
at
U.
S.
EPA
Region
9,
Water
Division,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105
(
tel:
415
 
972
 
3480
or
415
 
972
 
3535,
respectively,
fax:
415
 
947
 
3537
or
415
 
974
 
3545,
respectively)
or
e­
mail
at
Fleck.
Diane@
EPA.
gov
or
Yoshikawa.
Nancy@
EPA.
gov.
For
general
or
administrative
questions,
please
contact
Brian
Thompson
at
U.
S.
EPA
Headquarters,
Office
of
Water,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
(
tel:
202
 
566
 
0382,
fax:
202
 
566
 
0409)
or
e­
mail
at
Thompson.
Brian@
EPA.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Potentially
Regulated
Entities
No
one
is
regulated
by
this
proposed
rule.
This
proposed
rule,
if
adopted,
merely
withdraws
Federal
copper
and
nickel
aquatic
life
water
quality
criteria
applicable
to
south
San
Francisco
Bay,
California.

How
To
Obtain
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information
1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2003
 
0015.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
under,
``
Water
Quality
Standards;
Withdrawal
of
Federal
Aquatic
Life
Water
Quality
Criteria
for
Copper
and
Nickel
Applicable
to
South
San
Francisco
Bay,
California,''
at
U.
S.
EPA
Region
9,
Water
Division,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
California
94105,
phone:
415­
972
 
3480.
This
Docket
Facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
PST
to
4:
30
p.
m.
PST,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
A
reasonable
fee
will
be
charged
for
copies.
2.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
EPA
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
24
Jun
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
25JNP2.
SGM
25JNP2
37927
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
122
/
Wednesday,
June
25,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
through
the
docket
facility.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
visit
EPA
Dockets
online
or
see
67
FR
38102,
May
31,
2002.

How
and
To
Whom
To
Submit
Comments
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
While
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments,
we
will
make
every
attempt
to
consider
them.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
i.
EDOCKETS.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
``
Information
Sources,''
``
Dockets,''
and
``
EPA
Dockets.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
OW
 
2003
 
0015.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
Fleck.
Diane@
EPA.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2003
 
0015.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
email
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
address
identified
in
the
following
paragraph.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
2.
By
Mail.
Send
your
comments
to:
Diane
E.
Fleck,
P.
E.,
Esq.,
Water
Division
(
WTR
 
2),
U.
S.
EPA
Region
9,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
California
94105,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2003
 
0015.
3.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to
the
address
identified
in
the
preceding
paragraph,
attention
Docket
ID
OW
 
2003
 
0015.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
from
8:
30
a.
m.
PST
to
4:
30
p.
m.
PST,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.

Background
On
May
18,
2000,
EPA
promulgated
a
final
rule
known
as
the
``
California
Toxics
Rule''
or
``
CTR''
to
establish
numeric
water
quality
criteria
for
priority
toxic
pollutants
for
the
State
of
California,
since
the
State
had
not
complied
fully
with
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
(
65
FR
31682).
The
criteria,
codified
at
40
CFR
131.38,
became
the
applicable
water
quality
criteria
in
California
effective
May
18,
2000,
for
all
purposes
and
programs
under
the
CWA.
EPA
acknowledged
in
the
preamble
to
the
CTR
that
the
State
of
California
is
working
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
and
anticipated
that
the
Agency,
once
the
state
submitted
its
water
quality
standards
to
EPA,
would
approve
the
State­
adopted
water
quality
criteria
for
pollutants
included
in
the
CTR
(
65
FR
31684,
May
18,
2000).
The
State
of
California
calls
these
criteria
sitespecific
water
quality
objectives
or
sitespecific
objectives.
The
water
quality
standards
program
was
developed
with
an
emphasis
on
State
primacy.
Although
in
the
CTR
EPA
promulgated
toxic
criteria
for
the
State
of
California,
EPA
prefers
that
States
maintain
primacy,
revise
their
own
standards,
and
achieve
full
compliance
(
see
57
FR
60860,
December
22,
1992).
In
a
rulemaking
similar
to
the
CTR,
EPA
determined
that
if
the
State's
criteria
were
no
less
stringent
than
the
promulgated
Federal
criteria,
EPA
would
withdraw
its
criteria
without
notice
and
comment.
However,
if
the
State
adopted
criteria
that
were
less
stringent
than
the
Federallypromulgated
criteria,
but
in
the
Agency's
judgment
fully
met
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
EPA
would
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
before
withdrawing
the
Federally­
promulgated
criteria
(
see
57
FR
60860,
December
22,
1992).
As
described
in
detail
below
under
``
Site­
Specific
Aquatic
Life
Objectives
for
Copper
and
Nickel,''
the
State
of
California
recently
adopted
copper
and
nickel
aquatic
life
site­
specific
objectives
for
the
south
San
Francisco
Bay
which
EPA
subsequently
approved.
In
today's
action,
EPA
is
proposing
to
amend
the
CTR
by
withdrawing
aquatic
life
copper
and
nickel
criteria
applicable
to
south
San
Francisco
Bay,
California.

Site­
Specific
Aquatic
Life
Objectives
for
Copper
and
Nickel
On
May
22,
2002,
the
California
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
San
Francisco
Bay
Region,
adopted
sitespecific
water
quality
objectives
for
nickel
and
copper
to
protect
aquatic
life
in
the
south
San
Francisco
Bay
and
submitted
the
revised
Water
Quality
Control
Plan
to
EPA
on
January
9,
2003.
The
aquatic
life
water
quality
criteria
for
copper
contained
in
the
CTR
table
at
40
CFR
131.38(
b)(
1)
for
saltwater
are:
4.8
ug/
l
dissolved
acute
(
exposure
for
a
short
period
of
time)
and
3.1
ug/
1
dissolved
chronic
(
exposure
for
an
extended
[
4
day]
period
of
time).
The
aquatic
life
water
quality
criteria
for
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
24
Jun
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
25JNP2.
SGM
25JNP2
37928
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
122
/
Wednesday,
June
25,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
nickel
contained
in
the
CTR
table
at
40
CFR
131.38(
b)(
1)
for
saltwater
are:
74
ug/
l
dissolved
acute
(
exposure
for
a
short
period
of
time)
and
8.2
ug/
l
dissolved
chronic
(
exposure
for
an
extended
[
4
day]
period
of
time).
Both
the
copper
and
nickel
criteria
are
further
expressed
as
a
function
of
the
watereffect
ratio
(
or
WER).
The
WER
in
the
CTR
is
assumed
to
be
1
for
all
applicable
pollutants
but
may
be
otherwise
defined
by
the
State
using
appropriate
procedures
(
see
65
FR
31718).
The
aquatic
life
water
quality
objectives
for
copper
adopted
by
the
State
of
California
and
approved
by
EPA
for
south
San
Francisco
Bay
are:
10.8
ug/
l
dissolved
acute
(
exposure
for
a
1
hour
average
period
of
time)
and
6.9
ug/
l
dissolved
chronic
(
exposure
for
a
4
day
average
period
of
time).
The
aquatic
life
water
quality
objectives
for
nickel
adopted
by
the
State
of
California
and
approved
by
EPA
for
south
San
Francisco
Bay
are:
62.4
ug/
l
dissolved
acute
(
exposure
for
a
1
hour
average
period
of
time)
and
11.9
ug/
l
dissolved
chronic
(
exposure
for
a
4
day
average
period
of
time).
Under
the
procedures
set
out
in
the
National
Toxics
Rule,
published
December
22,
1992,
and
referenced
in
the
CTR,
when
a
state
adopts
and
EPA
approves
water
quality
criteria
that
meet
the
requirements
of
the
CWA,
EPA
will
issue
a
rule
amending
the
federal
regulations
to
withdraw
the
federally
applicable
criteria.
If
the
State's
criteria
are
no
less
stringent
than
the
promulgated
Federal
criteria,
EPA
will
withdraw
its
criteria
without
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
because
additional
comment
is
unnecessary.
However,
if
a
State
adopts
criteria
that
are
less
stringent
than
the
Federally
promulgated
criteria,
but
that
in
the
Agency's
judgement
fully
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
EPA
will
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
before
withdrawing
the
Federally
promulgated
criteria.
On
October
17,
2002,
the
State
Water
Resources
Board
adopted
the
sitespecific
objectives
for
copper
and
nickel
in
the
lower
south
San
Francisco
Bay.
The
objectives
were
subsequently
submitted
to
EPA
on
January
9,
2003,
for
its
review
and
approval.
EPA
recognizes
that
three
out
of
the
four
California
criteria
for
copper
and
nickel
are
less
stringent
than
the
federally
CTR
promulgated
criteria.
However,
the
sitespecific
objectives
were
developed
from
the
results
of
a
number
of
detailed
studies
and
technical
reports
that
were
the
subject
of
technical
peer
review
and
were
part
of
the
collaborative
stakeholder
process
known
as
the
``
Santa
Clara
Basin
Watershed
Management
Initiative.''
Based
on
this
additional
information,
EPA
determined
that
these
adopted
criteria
are
fully
protective
of
the
aquatic
life
designated
uses
of
California's
waters
in
the
south
San
Francisco
Bay
and
met
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
EPA
approved
California's
water
quality
objectives
on
January
21,
2003.
Therefore,
EPA
determined
that
the
federal
aquatic
life
water
quality
criteria
for
copper
and
nickel
in
these
waters
are
no
longer
necessary.
Because
three
out
of
the
four
California
criteria
for
copper
and
nickel
are
less
stringent
than
the
federally
promulgated
criteria,
EPA
is
requesting
comments
on
its
action
to
withdraw
copper
and
nickel
criteria
from
the
CTR.
EPA
will
address
public
comments
in
a
subsequent
final
rule
based
on
this
proposed
rule.
Any
parties
interested
in
commenting
must
do
so
at
this
time.

Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
1.
Executive
Order
12866
 
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
This
action
withdraws
specific
Federal
requirements
applicable
to
south
San
Francisco
Bay,
California
and
imposes
no
regulatory
requirements
or
costs
on
any
person
or
entity,
does
not
interfere
with
the
action
or
planned
action
of
another
agency,
and
does
not
have
any
budgetary
impacts
or
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues.
Thus,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993)
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review.

2.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
proposed
rule
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.)
because
it
is
administratively
proposing
to
withdraw
Federal
requirements
that
no
longer
need
to
apply
to
south
San
Francisco
Bay,
California.

3.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
a
rule
that
is
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
proposed
rule
imposes
no
regulatory
requirements
or
costs
on
any
small
entity.
Therefore,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

4.
Unfunded
Mandate
Reform
Act
Title
III
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)
(
Public
Law
104
 
4)
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
Tribal
and
local
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Today's
proposed
rule
contains
no
Federal
mandates
(
under
the
regulatory
provisions
of
Title
II
of
the
UMRA)
for
State,
Tribal,
or
local
governments
or
the
private
sector
because
it
imposes
no
enforceable
duty
on
any
of
these
entities.
Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
UMRA
section
202
and
205
for
a
written
statement
and
small
government
agency
plan.
Similarly,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
UMRA
section
203.

5.
Executive
Order
13132
 
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled,
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
State
and
local
government
officials
have
an
opportunity
to
provide
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
governments.
This
proposed
rule
imposes
no
regulatory
requirements
or
costs
on
any
State
or
local
governments,
therefore,
it
does
not
have
federalism
implications
under
Executive
Order
13132.

6.
Executive
Order
13175
 
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Again,
this
proposed
rule
imposes
no
regulatory
requirements
or
costs
on
any
Tribal
government.
It
does
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
Tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000).

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
24
Jun
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
25JNP2.
SGM
25JNP2
37929
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
122
/
Wednesday,
June
25,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
7.
Executive
Order
13045
 
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045,
entitled
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
because
it
is
not
economically
significant,
and
EPA
has
no
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.

8.
Executive
Order
13211
 
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
entitled
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
and
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001),
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.
9.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
The
requirements
of
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
do
not
apply
because
this
rule
does
not
involve
technical
standards.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
131
Environmental
protection,
Indianlands
Intergovernmental
Relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control.

Dated:
June
20,
2003.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
40
CFR
part
131
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
131
 
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
131
continues
to
read
as
follows:

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

Subpart
D
 
[
Amended]

2.
Section
131.38(
b)(
1)
is
amended
by
revising
Footnote
b
to
read
as
follows:
§
131.38
Establishment
of
Numeric
Criteria
for
Priority
Toxic
Pollutants
for
the
State
of
California.

*
*
*
*
*
(
b)(
1)
*
*
*
Footnotes
to
Table
in
Paragraph
(
b)(
1):
*
*
*
*
*
b.
Criteria
apply
to
California
waters
except
for
those
waters
subject
to
objectives
in
Tables
III
 
2A
and
III
 
2B
of
the
San
Francisco
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board's
(
SFRWQCB)
1986
Basin
Plan
that
were
adopted
by
the
SFRWQCB
and
the
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board,
approved
by
EPA,
and
which
continue
to
apply.
For
copper
and
nickel,
criteria
apply
to
California
waters
except
for
waters
south
of
Dumbarton
Bridge
in
San
Francisco
Bay
that
are
subject
to
the
objectives
in
the
SFRWQCB's
Basin
Plan
as
amended
by
SFRWQCB
Resolution
R2
 
2002
 
0061,
dated
May
22,
2002,
and
approved
by
the
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board.
EPA
approved
the
aquatic
life
site­
specific
objectives
on
January
21,
2003.
The
copper
and
nickel
aquatic
life
sitespecific
objectives
contained
in
the
amended
Basin
Plan
apply
instead.

*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
16231
Filed
6
 
24
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
24
Jun
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
25JNP2.
SGM
25JNP2