[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13493-13494]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5384]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0029; FRL-9643-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina
and South Carolina; Charlotte; Determination of Attainment by
Applicable Attainment Date for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
Area (hereafter referred to as ``the bi-state Charlotte Area'' or ``the
Area'') has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) by its applicable attainment date of June 15, 2011.
The determination of attainment was made by EPA on November 15, 2011,
and was based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the
2008-2010 monitoring period. The bi-state Charlotte Area is comprised
of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion
of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) Counties in North
Carolina; and a portion of York County in South Carolina. In this
action EPA is determining to find that the above-identified Area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date.
EPA is finalizing this action because it is consistent with the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and its implementing regulations. Additionally, in this
action EPA is clarifying an inadvertent citation error in the proposed
approval for this action.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on April 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0029. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this
attainment determination, contact Mr. Sean Lakeman, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Telephone number:
(404) 562-9043; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding 8-hour ozone NAAQS, contact Ms. Jane Spann, Regulatory
Development Section, at the same address above. Telephone number: (404)
562-9029; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of this action?
III. What is EPA's final action?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    Based on EPA's review of the quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2008-2010, and in accordance with section 181(b)(2)
of the CAA and EPA's regulations, EPA is determining that the bi-state
Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of June 15, 2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated the bi-state
Charlotte Area as a moderate area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Moderate areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS had an applicable
attainment date of June 15, 2010, unless the Area qualified for an
extension. On May 31, 2011, EPA took final action to extend the
applicable attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte Area to June
15, 2011. See 76 FR 31245 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2011, EPA published a final rulemaking for the bi-
state Charlotte Area which served to suspend the requirements for the
State to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably
available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP)
plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 76 FR 70656. This final rulemaking also includes useful
background information on the 8-hour ozone NAAQS relevant to the bi-
state Charlotte Area. Today's action finalizes EPA's determination that
the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of June 15, 2011. Today's action is simply
focused on the date by which the Area had attaining data.
    Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale
for EPA's action are explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published on December 29, 2011 (76 FR 81901). The comment period
closed on January 30, 2012. No comments were received in response to
the NPR.
    Also, in the NPR, EPA stated that its obligations to determine if
an area attained the 1997 8-hour NAAQS by its applicable attainment
date were found under CAA section 179(c). See 76 FR 81902. The citation
to section 179(c) was incorrect. EPA notes that for an area such as
Charlotte, which is designated moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, the proper citation is CAA section 181(b)(2)(A).
Thus CAA section 181(b)(2) is the correct citation for the basis of
today's action.

II. What is the effect of this action?

    Today's action is a determination that the bi-state Charlotte Area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date
of June 15, 2011, consistent with CAA section 181(b)(2). Finalizing
this action does not constitute a redesignation of bi-state Charlotte
Area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section
107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further, finalizing this action does not involve
approving maintenance plans for the bi-state Charlotte Area as required
under section 175A of the CAA, nor would it find that the bi-state
Charlotte Area has met all other requirements for redesignation. The
designation status of the bi-state Charlotte Area remains nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that
the Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and
takes action to redesignate the Area.

III. What is EPA's final action?

    EPA is determining, based on quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for the 2008-2010 monitoring period, that the bi-state
Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of June 15, 2011. This action is being taken pursuant
to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA

and is consistent with the CAA and its implementing regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action makes a determination of attainment by the applicable
attainment date, based on air quality, and would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this determination of attainment by the attainment date
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS final approval for the bi-state
Charlotte Area does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
determination does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian
Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the
South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte nonattainment area.
Generally SIPs do not apply in Indian country throughout the United
States. However, for purposes of the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation
in Rock Hill, the South Carolina SIP does apply within the Reservation.
Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann.
27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and regulations
apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully
enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.''
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribes, in a letter dated October 13,
2011, EPA extended the opportunity for consultation between EPA and
Catawba. Consultation with the Catawba Tribe began on October 14, 2011,
and ended on October 31, 2011. The views and concerns raised by the
Catawba Indian Nation during consultation have been taken into account
in this final rule. Furthermore, EPA notes today's action will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 7, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of these final rules do not affect
the finality of these actions for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
 A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1779 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1779  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (b) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2008-2010, EPA determined that the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment Area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
of June 15, 2011. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 181(b)(2) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as
of the attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA
also determined that the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-
South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment Area is not subject to
the consequences of failing to attain pursuant to section 181(b)(2).

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
3. Section 52.2125 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2125  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (b) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2008-2010, EPA determined that the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment Area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
of June 15, 2011. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 181(b)(2) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as
of the attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA
also determined that the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-
South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment Area is not subject to
the consequences of failing to attain pursuant to section 181(b)(2).

[FR Doc. 2012-5384 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 72 (Friday, April 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20139-20140]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07835]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-29-001.
    Applicants: Greenidge Generation LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northeast Region
of Greenidge Generation LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5230.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2449-003; ER21-628-003.
    Applicants: Boulder Solar II, LLC, Harry Allen Solar Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Boulder Solar II, LLC,
et al.
    Filed Date: 4/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210408-5315.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1210-003.
    Applicants: Hazleton Generation LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Tariff--Compliance
Filing to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-632-001.
    Applicants: Toms River Merchant Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Toms River
Merchant Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210408-5318.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1136-001.
    Applicants: Union Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Co-Tenancy and Shared Facilities
Agreement to be effective 1/14/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1150-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2021-04-09_Amendment to Q1 Clean Up
Filing to be effective 6/12/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5240.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1644-000.
    Applicants: Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver, et al. of Rolling Hills
Generating, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210408-5313.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1645-000.
    Applicants: Buchanan County Solar Project, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver, et al. of Buchanan County
Solar Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210408-5316.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1646-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA No. 5999; Queue
No. AC2-012 to be effective 3/10/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1647-000.
    Applicants: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.,
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205 filing on behalf of
NYTOs re: TO Funding of Transmission Upgrades to be effective 6/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1648-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DSA, Bright Canyon Energy
Corporation--BCE Los Alamitos 1 SA No. 1140 to be effective 6/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1649-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DSA, Bright Canyon Energy
Corporation--BCE Los Alamitos 2 SA No. 1142 to be effective 6/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5219.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1650-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: NSTAR Electric Company; Order No.
864 Supplmental Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1651-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 388--
AES E&P Agreement to be effective 3/26/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5255.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1652-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-04-09 OATT-Transmn Svc
Study Filing to be effective 6/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1653-000.
    Applicants: Deer Creek Solar I LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Deer Creek Solar I LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 4/10/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5283.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1654-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., The Connecticut Light and Power
Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Connecticut Light and Power; Order
No. 864 Supplemental Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5291.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1656-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISA, SA
No. 4856; Queue No. AA2-121/AB2-104/AC1-003 to be effective 5/25/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210409-5313.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated April 9, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07835 Filed 4-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                               								6560-50-P

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                40 CFR Part 131
                         [EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095; FRL-	]
                                 RIN 2040-AF33
Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria
             Applicable to California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking final action to amend the federal regulations to withdraw certain human health and aquatic life water quality criteria applicable to waters of New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and California's San Francisco Bay.  In 1992, EPA promulgated the National Toxics Rule or NTR to establish numeric water quality criteria for 12 states and two Territories, including New Jersey, Puerto Rico and parts of California.  On May 18, 2000, EPA then promulgated a final rule known as the California Toxics Rule or  CTR in order to establish numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California that were not previously in the NTR.   These two states and one territory have now adopted, and EPA has approved, water quality criteria for certain pollutants included in the NTR. Since California, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico now have criteria that are applicable water quality standards for purposes of the Clean Water Act, EPA has determined that the federally promulgated criteria are no longer needed for these pollutants. In today's action, EPA is amending the federal regulations to withdraw those certain criteria applicable to California, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico as described in the April 5, 2012 proposed rule.  The withdrawal of the federally promulgated criteria will enable New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and California to implement their EPA-approved water quality criteria.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.  For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
 Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index.  Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.  Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at two Docket Facilities.  The Office of Water ("OW") Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the Docket address is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20004.  The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Publicly available docket materials are also available in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 2 and U.S. EPA Region 9 addresses.  Docket materials can be accessed from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For information with respect to New Jersey, contact Wayne Jackson, U.S. EPA, Region 2, Clean Water Division, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail: jackson.wayne@epa.gov).   For information with respect to Puerto Rico, contact Izabela Wojtenko  U.S. EPA, Region 2, Clean Water Division, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail: wojtenko.izabela@epa.gov).  For information with respect to California, contact Diane E. Fleck, P.E. Esq., U.S. EPA Region 9, WTR-2, 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco, CA 94105 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail: fleck.diane@epa.gov).  For general and administrative concerns, contact Bryan "Ibrahim" Goodwin, U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Science and Technology, 1200 Pennsylvania, Avenue NW, Mail Code 4305T, Washington, DC 20460 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail: goodwin.bryan@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information
No one is regulated by this rule.  This rule withdraws certain federal water quality criteria applicable to New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and California.    The withdrawal of the federal water quality criteria applicable to New Jersey and Puerto Rico in this action, in combination with previous federal withdrawal actions, results in the complete removal of New Jersey and Puerto Rico from the NTR.

Background
      In 1992, EPA promulgated the NTR to establish numeric water quality criteria for 12 states and two Territories, including New Jersey, Puerto Rico and parts of California (hereafter "States") that had failed to comply fully with Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act or CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)(B) (57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992).  The criteria codified at 40 CFR 131.36 became the applicable water quality standards in those 14 States for all purposes and programs under the CWA effective February 5, 1993.
      On May 18, 2000, EPA then promulgated a final rule known as the CTR at 40 CFR 131.38 in order to establish numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California that were not previously in the NTR, because the State had not complied fully with Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA (65 FR 31682).  At that time, any criteria promulgated as part of the NTR for California were codified in the criteria tables for the CTR at 40 CFR 131.38.
The water quality standards program was developed with an emphasis on state primacy. Although in the NTR and CTR EPA promulgated toxic criteria for the certain States, EPA prefers that states maintain primacy and revise their own standards to achieve full compliance with the CWA (see 57 FR 60860, December 22, 1992).  As described in the preamble to the final NTR and CTR, when a State adopts, and EPA approves, water quality criteria that meet the requirements of the CWA, EPA issues a rule amending the NTR and/or CTR to withdraw the federal criteria applicable to that State.  On April 5, 2012, EPA proposed the withdrawal of certain criteria for New Jersey, Puerto Rico and California's San Francisco Bay (see 77 FR 20585; April 5, 2012). EPA received comments for the proposed rule and a listing of the comments and EPA's responses are contained in the document "Response to Comments for Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico."  Today, EPA is taking final action on its proposal.  This rule does not remove any water quality protections. Rather, it removes a federal regulation that essentially duplicates State regulation.

New Jersey
      As discussed in the proposal (77 FR 20585; April 5, 2012), this final rule withdraws criteria for New Jersey related to two separate approval actions: August 16, 2002 and December 20, 2006.  EPA's action approving New Jersey's adopted criteria (including a rationale for approving criteria that are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria) can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
      Today, EPA is withdrawing the federal water quality criteria listed below, as the state's criteria have been determined to meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.
   * Arsenic (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Cadmium (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Chromium III (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic))

   * Chromium VI (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Copper (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Lead (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Mercury (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Nickel (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Selenium (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Silver (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute) and marine water (acute))

   * Zinc (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Chlorodibromomethane (human health  -   organisms only)

   * 1,1 - Dichloroethylene (human health -- organisms only).

   * 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane (human health -- organisms only).

   * 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane (human health -- organisms only).

   * Fluorene (human health  -  organisms only)

   * Hexachlorbutadiene (human health  -  organisms only)

   * Isophrone (human health  -  organisms only)

   * gamma-BHC (human health  -  organisms only)

   * PCBs (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

      The finalization of this action for New Jersey results in the complete removal of New Jersey from the NTR.

Puerto Rico
      As discussed in the proposal (77 FR 20585; April 5, 2012), this final rule withdraws criteria for Puerto Rico related to one approval action on August 4, 2010.  EPA's actions approving Puerto Rico's adopted criteria (including a rationale for approving criteria that are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria) can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
      Today, EPA is withdrawing the federal water quality criteria listed below, as Puerto Rico's criteria have been determined to meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.
   * Chromium VI (aquatic life  -  marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Mercury (aquatic life  -  freshwater (chronic) and marine water (chronic))

   * Thallium (human health  - water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Dioxin (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Dichlorobromomethane (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Benzo(a)Anthracene (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Benzo(a)Pyrene (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Benzo(b)Flouranthene (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Benzo(k)Flouranthene (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Chrysene (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Fluorene (human health  -  organisms only)

   * Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Isophrone (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * alpha-BHC (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * beta-BHC (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * gamma-BHC (aquatic life  -  freshwater (chronic))

   * alpha-Endosulfan (aquatic life  -   marine water (acute and chronic))

   * beta-Endosulfan (aquatic life  -   marine water (acute and chronic))

   * Endosulfan Sulfate (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Endrin (aquatic life  -  freshwater (chronic))

   * Endrin Aldehyde (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * Heptachlor Epoxide (aquatic life  -  freshwater (acute and chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic) (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

   * PCBs (aquatic life  -  freshwater (chronic) and marine water (chronic)) (human health  -  water & organisms and organisms only)

      The finalization of the proposed actions for Puerto Rico results in the complete removal of Puerto Rico from the NTR.

California
      As discussed in the proposal (77 FR 20585; April 5, 2012), this final rule withdraws cyanide criteria applicable to San Francisco Bay, California, which EPA approved on July 22, 2008, from the NTR and makes conforming edits to the CTR regulations found in 40 CFR 131.  EPA's actions which approve California's adopted objectives can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
      Today, EPA is withdrawing those federal water quality criteria for which California's criteria have been determined to meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131. This final rule will result in the withdrawal of saltwater aquatic life cyanide criteria for San Francisco Bay under the NTR (with conforming changes to the CTR).  However, other criteria for cyanide for waters in California that are currently part of the NTR or CTR will remain unchanged in the federal regulations.

 III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
	This action withdraws certain federal requirements applicable to California, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, 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 review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act
	This rule does not impose any new information-collection burden because it is administratively withdrawing federal requirements that are no longer needed in New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and California.  It does not include any information-collection, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.  The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") has, however, previously approved the information-collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR Part 131 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0049.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
	The Regulatory Flexibility Act or 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 any rule 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.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
      For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's or SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise, which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
      This 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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
	Title III of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or 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 rule contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 or UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.  The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.   Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA Sections 202 and 205 for a written statement and small government agency plan.  Similarly, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and is, therefore, not subject to UMRA Section 203.

E. 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 rule does not have federalism implications.  It will not 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 government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any state or local governments.  Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)
 	This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any tribal government.  It does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
	This 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 as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
	This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
	This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.  Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
	Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
	EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because: (1) New Jersey's, Puerto Rico's, and California's criteria apply to all marine waters in the State, and thus EPA does not believe that this action would disproportionately affect any one group over another, and (2) EPA has previously determined, based on the most current science and EPA's CWA Section 304(a) recommended criteria, that New Jersey's, Puerto Rico's, and California's adopted and EPA-approved criteria are protective of human health and aquatic life.

Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria
Applicable to California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico; Final Rule     Page 15 of 17

K. Congressional Review Act
   The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

Dated:
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.

* For the reasons set out in the preamble title 40, Chapter I, part 131 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 131 -- WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 131continues to read as follows:

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

§ 131.36 [Amended]

 2. Section 131.36 is amended as follows:

a. Removing and reserving paragraph (d) (3).

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d) (4).

c. Revising the table in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) as follows:

   (i) Under the heading "Water and use classification" add a new first line to read as follows:

   Waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta within Regional Water Board 5

   (ii) Under the heading "Applicable criteria" add a new first line to read as follows:

   These waters are assigned the criteria in:
      Column C1  -  pollutant 14
      Column C2  -  pollutant 14

   (iii) Under the heading "Applicable criteria", opposite the entry for "Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta", remove "Column C1  -  pollutant 14" and "Column C2  -  pollutant 14".

§ 131.38 [Amended]

   3. Section 131.38 is amended as follows:

   a. 	Revise footnote "r" in the "Footnotes to Table in Paragraph (b) (1)" to read as follows:

   r. These criteria were promulgated for specific waters in California in the NTR. The specific waters to which the NTR criteria apply include:  Waters of the State defined as bays or estuaries including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta within California Regional Water Board 5, but excluding the San Francisco Bay. This section does not apply instead of the NTR for these criteria.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 18 U.S.C. 824o(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the realities of the standards development and approval
process, we are likely years away from a supply chain standard being
implemented, even under the aggressive schedule contemplated in the
order. I believe that the Commission should endeavor to provide as
much advance guidance as possible before mandating the development
of a standard, to increase the likelihood that NERC develops a
standard that will be satisfactory to the Commission and reduce the
need for a remand. I worry that the limited process that preceded
the Final Rule and the expedited timetable will make it extremely
difficult for NERC to file a standard that the Commission can
cleanly approve. Had the Commission committed itself to conducting
adequate outreach, I believe we could have mitigated the likelihood
of that outcome, and more effectively and promptly addressed the
supply chain threat in the long term. ``Delaying'' action for a few
months thus would, in the long run, lead to prompter and stronger
protection for the grid.

II. Conclusion

    The choice the Commission faces today on supply chain risk
management is not between action and inaction. Rather, given the
importance of this issue, I believe that more considered action and
a more developed Commission order, even if delayed by a few months,
is better than a quick decision to ``do something.'' Ultimately, an
effective, auditable, and enforceable standard on supply chain
management will require thoughtful consideration of the complex
challenges of addressing cybersecurity threats posed through the
supply chain within the structure of the FERC/NERC reliability
process. In my view, the Commission gains very little and does not
meaningfully advance the security of the grid by proceeding straight
to a Final Rule, rather than taking the time to build a record to
support a workable standard.

    Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Cheryl A. LaFleur,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2016-17842 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P