4–21–00 Friday Vol. 65 No. 78 Apr. 21, 2000 Pages 21301–21632
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:34 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\21APWS.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APWS
1 II Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000
The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Assistance with public subscriptions 512–1806 Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 512–1803 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 523–5243 Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523–5243 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see http://www.nara.gov/ fedreg. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and it includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. GPO Access users can choose to retrieve online Federal Register documents as TEXT (ASCII text, graphics omitted), PDF (Adobe Portable Document Format, including full text and all graphics), or SUMMARY (abbreviated text) files. Users should carefully check retrieved material to ensure that documents were properly downloaded. On the World Wide Web, connect to the Federal Register at http:/ /www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Those without World Wide Web access can also connect with a local WAIS client, by Telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, or by dialing (202) 512-1661 with a computer and modem. When using Telnet or modem, type swais, then log in as guest with no password. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team by E-mail at [email protected]; by fax at (202) 512–1262; or call (202) 512–1530 or 1–888–293–6498 (toll free) between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday, except Federal holidays. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $638, or $697 for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $253. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge for individual copies in paper form is $9.00 for each issue, or $9.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $2.00 for each issue in microfiche form. All prices include regular domestic postage and handling. International customers please add 25% for foreign handling. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard or Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 65 FR 12345.
.
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:34 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\21APWS.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APWS
2 III
Contents Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 78
Friday, April 21, 2000
Agriculture Department Shelby Yarn Co. et al., 21473–21476 See Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension NAFTA transitional assistance: Service Thaw Corp., 21476 See Food Safety and Inspection Service Employment Standards Administration Army Department NOTICES See Engineers Corps Minimum wages for Federal and federally-assisted Arts and Humanities, National Foundation construction; general wage determination decisions, 21476–21477 See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From Energy Department People Who Are See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or RULES Severely Disabled Acquisition regulation: Management and operating contracts, 21371–21376 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acquisition regulations: NOTICES Mentor-Protege Program, 21367–21371 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: NOTICES Cancer prevention and control activities, 21443–21446 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: U.S. chemical industry; Vision 2020 cost-shared research Children and Families Administration and technology development projects, 21405 See Refugee Resettlement Office Engineers Corps Commerce Department NOTICES See International Trade Administration Environmental statements; notice of intent: See National Institute of Standards and Technology Guadalupe river flood protection project, CA; flood and See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration environmental protection and recreation features, 21401–21404 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Environmental Protection Agency Procurement list; additions and deletions, 21395–21396 RULES Air pollutants, hazardous; national emission standards: Commodity Futures Trading Commission Major sources; requirements for control technology RULES determinations, 21363–21365 Commodity Exchange Act: Air programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for Minimum financial requirements for futures commission designated facilities and pollutants: merchants and introducting brokers, 21309–21311 Connecticut, 21354–21358 Idaho, 21358–21361 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Oregon, 21361–21363 Service Air quality implementation plans; approval and RULES promulgation; various States: Grants: California, 21347–21350 Land grant institutions (1890 and 1862); agricultural Indiana, 21351–21354 research and extension activities; matching funds Montana requirement for formula funds, 21630–21632 Correction, 21350–21351 Virginia, 21315–21347 Defense Department PROPOSED RULES See Engineers Corps Air programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for See Navy Department designated facilities and pollutants: Connecticut, 21383 Employment and Training Administration Idaho, 21383–21384 NOTICES Oregon, 21384 Adjustment assistance: Air quality implementation plans; approval and Thaw Corp., 21471 promulgation; various States: Timbergon, 21472 California, 21382 Tultex, Corp., et al., 21472 Indiana, 21382–21383 NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance: Virginia, 21381–21382 Ametek Aerospace, 21472 Air quality implementation plans: Court Metal Finishing, Inc., 21472–21473 Preparation, adoption, and submittal— Kellogg Co., 21473 Air quality models; guidelines, 21506–21546
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:44 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\21APCN.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Contents
Water pollution; effluent guidelines for point source Texas Surgeons, P.A. et al., 21441–21443 categories: Oil and gas extraction; synthetic-based and other non- Financial Management Service aqueous drilling fluids, 21548–21574 See Fiscal Service Water supply: National primary drinking water regulations— Fiscal Service Radionuclides; maximum contaminant level goals and NOTICES monitoring requirements, 21576–21628 Surety companies acceptable on Federal bonds: NOTICES Chatham Reinsurance Corp., 21503 Agency information collection activities: Minnesota Trust Co. of Austin, 21503 Proposed collection; comment request, 21415–21416 Fish and Wildlife Service Submission for OMB review; comment request, 21416– RULES 21417 Endangered and threatened species: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Coastal cutthroat trout; jurisdiction change, 21376–21377 Agency statements— NOTICES Comment availability, 21417–21418 Endangered and threatened species: Weekly receipts, 21418 Incidental take permits— Hazardous waste: Golden-cheeked warbler and Houston toad, 21468– Land disposal restrictions; exemptions— 21469 Exxon Mobil Corp., 21419–21422 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: South Municipal Wellfield Site, NH, 21469 CBI et al., 21422–21427 scommodities: BASF Corp., 21427–21432 Food and Drug Administration Water pollution; discharge of pollutants (NPDES): RULES Alaska— Food additives: General permit for seafood processors, 21432–21433 Adhesive coatings and components— Polyethylenepolyamines, 21311–21312 Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES RULES Human drugs and biological products: Class E airspace, 21304–21305 Prescription drugs; labeling requirements Restricted areas, 21306–21309 Republication, 21378–21381 NOTICES NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Harmonisation International Conference; guidelines Nevada Test Site, NV; commercial launch and reentry/ availability: recovery facilies; construction and operation, 21495– New drug substances and products; stability testing, 21498 21446–21453 Exemption petitions; summary and disposition, 21498– 21499 Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Meetings: NOTICES Codex Alimentarius Commission— Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21433 Fish and fish products, 21394–21395
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission General Services Administration RULES NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: Federal travel: ANP Bellingham Energy Co., et al., 21406–21410 Travel charge card; mandatory use, 21365–21367 Statoil Energy Trading, Inc., et al., 21410–21411 Health and Human Services Department Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corp., et al., 21411–21413 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21413–21415 See Food and Drug Administration Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: See Refugee Resettlement Office Cinergy Services, Inc., 21405–21406 See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Federal Railroad Administration PROPOSED RULES Housing and Urban Development Department Railroad safety: NOTICES Locomotive horns use at highway-rail grade crossings; Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: requirement for sounding Facilities to assist homeless— Technical conference, 21384–21385 Excess and surplus Federal property, 21464–21468 Federal Reserve System Immigration and Naturalization Service NOTICES NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21433–21434 Meetings: Immigration Matters District Advisory Council, 21470– Federal Trade Commission 21471 NOTICES Prohibited trade practices: Interior Department BP Amoco p.l.c. et al., 21434–21441 See Fish and Wildlife Service
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:44 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\21APCN.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCN Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Contents V
See Land Management Bureau National Institute of Standards and Technology See Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, Internal Revenue Service 21398–21399 RULES Meetings: Income taxes, etc.: Weights and Measures National Conference, 21399 Qualified retirement plans, etc.— Relief from disqualification for plans accepting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rollovers, 21312–21315 RULES Endangered and threatened species: International Trade Administration Coastal cutthroat trout; jurisdiction change, 21376–21377 NOTICES Fishery conservation and management: Antidumping: Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic fisheries— Industrial phosphoric acid from— Gulf of Mexico reef fish, 21377 Belgium, 21396 PROPOSED RULES Porecelain-on-steel cooking ware from— Fishery conservation and management: China, Mexico, and Taiwan; correction [Editorial Note: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— This document, listed in the table of contents of Scallop, 21385–21393 the Federal Register of April 18, 2000, was NOTICES inadvertently omitted from that issue.], 21504 Agency information collection activities: Export trade certificates of review, 21397–21398 Proposed collection; comment request, 21399–21400 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Meetings: University of— New England Fishery Management Council, 21400–21401 North Dakota, 21397 Permits: Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 21397 Marine mammals, 21401
International Trade Commission Navy Department NOTICES NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21470 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Base realignment and closure— Justice Department Naval Station Puget Sound, WA, 21404–21405 See Immigration and Naturalization Service See Prisons Bureau Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Labor Department Environmental statements; availability, etc.: See Employment and Training Administration Commonwealth Edison Co., 21491–21492 See Employment Standards Administration Meetings: See Labor Statistics Bureau Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee, 21492–21493 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Labor Statistics Bureau Carolina Power & Light Co., et al., 21481–21483 NOTICES CBS Corp., 21483–21484 Agency information collection activities: GPU Nuclear, Inc., 21484–21486 Proposed collection; comment request, 21477–21480 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., et al., 21486–21487 PP & L, Inc., 21487–21489 Land Management Bureau Western Soil, Inc., 21489–21491 NOTICES Oil and gas leases: Prisons Bureau Wyoming, 21469–21470 NOTICES Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Alaska, 21470 South Carolina; medium-security Federal correctional facility, 21471 Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Public Debt Bureau Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Civil legal services to poor, 21480–21481 See Fiscal Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Public Health Service NOTICES See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Meetings: See Food and Drug Administration President’s Committee on Arts and Humanities, 21481 See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Reclamation Bureau Meetings: NOTICES Safety performance standards; vehicle regulatory Environmental statements; availability, etc.: program, 21500 Salton Sea Restoration Project, CA, 21470
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:44 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\21APCN.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Contents
Refugee Resettlement Office Gateway Western Railway Co., 21502 NOTICES Union Pacific Railroad Co., 21502–21503 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Technical assistance to special programs, 21454–21464 Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration Securities and Exchange Commission See Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Agency information collection activities: See Surface Transportation Board Submission for OMB review; comment request, 21493– 21494 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21494 Treasury Department See Fiscal Service Small Business Administration See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Disaster loan areas: Alabama, 21494 Separate Parts In This Issue California, 21495 Texas, 21495 Part II State Department Environmental Protection Agency, 21505–21546 NOTICES Art objects; importation for exhibition: Part III Spirits of the Water: Art from Alaska and British Environmental Protection Agency, 21547–21574 Columbia, 21495 Part IV Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Environmental Protection Agency, 21575–21628 Administration NOTICES Part V Agency information collection activities: Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Submission for OMB review; comment request, 21464 Education, and Extension Service, 21629–21632 Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Reader Aids Union Pacific Railroad Co., 21500–21501 Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for Railroad services abandonment: phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, CSX Transportation, Inc., 21501 and notice of recently enacted public laws.
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:44 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\21APCN.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCN Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Contents VII
CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE
A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.
7 CFR 3419...... 21630 14 CFR 71 (8 documents) ...... 21301, 21302, 21303, 21304, 21305, 21306 73...... 21306 17 CFR 1...... 21309 21 CFR 175...... 21311 Proposed Rules: 10...... 21378 201...... 21378 250...... 21378 290...... 21378 310...... 21378 329...... 21378 341...... 21378 361...... 21378 369...... 21378 606...... 21378 610...... 21378 26 CFR 1...... 21312 31...... 21312 40 CFR 52 (4 documents) ...... 21315, 21347, 21350, 21351 62 (3 documents) ...... 21354, 21358, 21361 63...... 21363 Proposed Rules: 51...... 21506 52 (3 documents) ...... 21381, 21382 62 (3 documents) ...... 21383, 21384 141...... 21574 142...... 21574 435...... 21548 41 CFR 301±51...... 21365 301±52...... 21365 301±54...... 21365 301±70...... 21365 301±71...... 21365 301±76...... 21365 48 CFR 919...... 21367 952...... 21367 970...... 21371 49 CFR Proposed Rules: 222...... 21384 229...... 21384 50 CFR 17...... 21376 224...... 21376 226...... 21376 424...... 21376 622...... 21377 Proposed Rules: 679...... 21385
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:39 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\21APLS.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APLS 21301
Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 78
Friday, April 21, 2000
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Administration, Southwest Region, Comments Invited contains regulatory documents having general Room 414, Fort Worth, TX. Although this action is in the form of applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a final rule and was not preceded by a Federal Regulations, which is published under Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air notice of proposed rulemaking, 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. Traffic Division, Southwest Region, comments are invited on this rule. Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Interested persons are invited to The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by comment on this rule by submitting the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Worth, TX 76193–0520, telephone 817– 222–5593. such written data, views, or arguments new books are listed in the first FEDERAL as they may desire. Communications REGISTER issue of each week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This should identify the Rules Docket amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises number and be submitted in triplicate to the Class E airspace at Carrizo Springs, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the address specified under the caption Glass Ranch, TX. The development of a ADDRESSES. All communications Federal Aviation Administration GPS SIAP, at Indio-Faith Airport, received on or before the closing date Carrizo Springs, TX, has made this rule for comments will be considered, and 14 CFR Part 71 necessary. This action is intended to this rule may be amended or withdrawn provide adequate controlled airspace in light of the comments received. [Airspace Docket No. 2000±ASW±12] extending upward from 700 feet or more Factual information that supports the above the surface for IFR operations to commenter’s ideas and suggestions is Revision of Class E Airspace; Carrizo Indio-Faith Airport, Carrizo Springs, extremely helpful in evaluating the Springs, Glass Ranch, TX TX. effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional AGENCY: Federal Aviation Class E airspace designations are Administration (FAA), DOT. rulemaking action is needed. published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Comments are specifically invited on ACTION: Direct final rule; request for Order 7400.9G, dated September 1, the overall regulatory, economic, comments. 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, environmental, and energy aspects of which is incorporated by reference in 14 SUMMARY: This amendment revises the the rule that might suggest a need to CFR § 71.1. The Class E airspace modify the rule. All comments Class E airspace at Carrizo Springs, designation listed in this document will Glass Ranch, TX. The development of a submitted will be available, both before be published subsequently in the order. Global Positioning System (GPS) and after the closing date for comments, Standard Instrument Approach The Direct Final Rule Procedure in the Rules Docket for examination by Procedure (SIAP), at Indio-Faith interested persons. A report that Airport, Carrizo Springs, TX, has made The FAA anticipates that this summarizes each FAA-public contact this rule necessary. This action is regulation will not result in adverse or concerned with the substance of this intended to provide adequate controlled negative comment and therefore is action will be filed in the Rules Docket. airspace extending upward from 700 issuing it as a direct final rule. A Commenters wishing the FAA to feet or more above the surface for substantial number of previous acknowledge receipt of their comments Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations opportunities provided to the public to submitted in response to this rule must to Indio-Faith Airport, Carrizo Springs, comment on substantially identical submit a self-addressed, stamped TX. actions have resulted in negligible postcard on which the following statement is made: ‘‘Comments to DATES: adverse comments or objections. Unless Effective 0901 UTC, August 10, Docket No. 2000–ASW–12.’’ The 2000. a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit postcard will be date stamped and Comments must be received on or returned to the commenter. before June 5, 2000. an adverse or negative comment is ADDRESSES: Send comments on the rule received within the comment period, Agency Findings in triplicate to Manager, Airspace the regulation will become effective on The regulations adopted herein will Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal the date specified above. After the close not have substantial direct effects on the Aviation Administration, Southwest of the comment period, the FAA will States, on the relationship between the Region, Docket No. 2000–ASW–12, publish a document in the Federal national government and the States, or Forth Worth, TX 76193–0520. The Register indicating that no adverse or on the distribution of power and official docket may be examined in the negative comments were received and responsibilities among the various Office of the Regional Counsel, confirming the date on which the final levels of government. Therefore, it is Southwest Region, Federal Aviation rule will become effective. If the FAA determined that this final rule will not Administration, 2601 Meacham does receive, within the comment have federalism implications under Boulevard, Room 663, Forth Worth, TX, period, an adverse or negative comment, Executive Order 13132. between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday or written notice of intent to submit Further, the FAA has determined that through Friday, except Federal holidays. such a comment, a document this regulation is noncontroversial and An informal docket may also be withdrawing the direct final rule will be unlikely to result in adverse or negative examined during normal business hours published in the Federal Register, and comments and only involves an at the Airspace Branch, Air Traffic a notice of proposed rulemaking may be established body of technical Division, Federal Aviation published with a new comment period. regulations that require frequent and
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Adoption of the Amendment extending upward from 700 feet or more the Class E airspace at Kipnuk, AK, was above the surface of the earth. published in the Federal Register (64 In consideration of the foregoing, the * * * * * FR 69430). The proposal was necessary Federal Aviation Administration due to the establishment of a GPS amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: AAL AK E5 Holy Cross, AK [New] instrument approach procedure to PART 71Ð DESIGNATION OF CLASS Holy Cross Airport Runway 15 at Kipnuk, AK. Interested (Lat. 62°11′18″ N., long. 159°46′ 30″ W.) parties were invited to participate in A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; That airspace extending upward from this rulemaking proceeding by AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING 700 feet above the surface within 6.3- submitting written comments on the POINTS mile radius of the Holy Cross Airport proposal to the FAA. No public and that airspace extending upward comments to the proposal were 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR from 1,200 feet above the surface within received; thus, the rule is adopted as part 71 continues to read as follows: a 24-mile radius of the Holy Cross written. Airport; excluding that airspace within The area would be depicted on Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, the Anvik Class E airspace area. aeronautical charts for pilot reference. 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– * * * * * The coordinates for this airspace docket 1963 Comp., p. 389. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on April 14, are based on North American Datum 83. § 71.1 [Amended] 2000. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are Anthony M. Wylie, 2. The incorporation by reference in published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Order 7400.9G, Airspace Designations Alaskan Region. Administration Order 7400.9G, and Reporting Points, dated September [FR Doc. 00–10014 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Airspace Designations and Reporting 1, 1999, and effective September 16, BILLING CODE 4910±13±P Points, dated September 1, 1999, and 1999, which is incorporated by effective September 16, 1999, is reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E amended as follows: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION airspace designations listed in this document will be published * * * * * Federal Aviation Administration subsequently in the Order. Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending The Rule upward from 700 feet or more above the 14 CFR Part 71 surface of the earth. [Airspace Docket No. 99±AAL±20] This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 * * * * * establishes the Class E airspace at Establishment of Class E Airspace; Kipnuk, AK, through the establishment AAL AK E5 Kipnuk, AK [New] Kipnuk, AK of a GPS instrument approach to Kipnuk Airport, AK (Lat. 59°55′59″ N., long. 164°01′50″ W.) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Runway 15. The airport status changes from VFR to IFR. The area will be Kipnuk VOR/DME Administration (FAA), DOT. ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot (Lat. 59 56 34 N., long. 164 02 04 W.) ACTION: Final rule. reference. The intended effect of this That airspace extending upward from 700 SUMMARY: This action establishes Class rule is to provide controlled airspace for feet above the surface within 6.2-mile radius E airspace at Kipnuk, AK. The IFR operations at Kipnuk, AK. of the Kipnuk Airport and within 3 miles each side of the Kipnuk VOR/DME 168° establishment of a Global Positioning The FAA has determined that this radial extending from the 6.2-mile radius of System (GPS) instrument approach regulation only involves an established procedure at Kipnuk Airport made this the airport to 9.5 miles south of the airport body of technical regulations for which and within 4 miles east and 8 miles west of action necessary. The Kipnuk Airport frequent and routine amendments are the Kipnuk VOR/DME 348° radial extending status changes from Visual Flight Rules necessary to keep them operationally from the Kipnuk VOR/DME to 16 miles north (VFR) to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a of the VOR/DME; and that airspace extending This rule provides adequate controlled ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under upward from 1,200 feet above the surface airspace for aircraft flying IFR Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a within a 51-mile radius of the VOR/DME; procedures at Kipnuk, AK. ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT excluding that airspace within the Norton EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 15, Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Sound Low Offshore Airspace Area and the 2000. FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Bethel Class E airspace area. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob does not warrant preparation of a * * * * * Durand, Operations Branch, Federal regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a Issued in Anchorage, AK, on April 14, Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th 2000. Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513– routine matter that will only affect air 7587; telephone number (907) 271– traffic procedures and air navigation, it Anthony M. Wylie, 5898; fax: (907) 271–2850; email: is certified that this rule will not have Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan [email protected]. Internet address: a significant economic impact on a Region. http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at or at substantial number of small entities [FR Doc. 00–10013 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] address http://162.58.28.41/at. under the criteria of the Regulatory BILLING CODE 4910±13±P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Flexibility Act. History List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 On December 13, 1999, a proposal to Airspace, Incorporation by reference, amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Navigation (air).
VerDate 18
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION document will be published Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending subsequently in the Order. upward from 700 feet or more above the Federal Aviation Administration surface of the earth. The Rule * * * * * 14 CFR Part 71 This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 AAL AK E5 Scammon Bay, AK [New] [Airspace Docket No. 99±AAL±19] establishes the Class E airspace at Scammon Bay Airport Scammon Bay, AK, through the (Lat. 61°50′40″ N., long. 165°34′26″ W.) Establishment of Class E Airspace; establishment of GPS instrument Hooper Bay VOR Scammon Bay, AK approaches. The airport status changes (lat. 61° 30′ 52″ N., long. 166° 08′ 04″ W.) from VFR to IFR. The area will be That airspace extending upward from 700 AGENCY: Federal Aviation depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot feet above the surface within 6.3-mile radius Administration (FAA), DOT. reference. The intended effect of this of the Scammon Bay Airport and that ACTION: Final rule. airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet rule is to provide controlled airspace for above the surface within a 42-mile radius of SUMMARY: This action establishes Class IFR operations at Scammon Bay, AK. the Hooper Bay VOR extending clockwise E airspace at Scammon Bay, AK. The The FAA has determined that this between the 006° radial and 066° radial. establishment of Global Positioning regulation only involves an established * * * * * System (GPS) instrument approach body of technical regulations for which Issued in Anchorage, AK, on April 14, procedures at Scammon Bay Airport frequent and routine amendments are 2000. made this action necessary. The necessary to keep them operationally Anthony M. Wylie, Scammon Bay Airport status changes current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to Region. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). This rule Executive Order 12866; (2) Is not a [FR Doc. 00–10012 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] provides adequate controlled airspace ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT for aircraft flying IFR procedures at Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 BILLING CODE 4910±13±P Scammon Bay, AK. FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 15, Does not warrant preparation of a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2000. regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Aviation Administration Bob routine matter that will only affect air Durand, Operations Branch, Federal traffic procedures and air navigation, it 14 CFR Part 73 Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th is certified that this rule will not have Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513– a significant economic impact on a [Airspace Docket No. 95±ASW±6] 7587; telephone number (907) 271– substantial number of small entities RIN 2120±AA66 5898; fax: (907) 271–2850; email: under the criteria of the Regulatory [email protected]. Internet address: Flexibility Act. Establishment of Restricted Areas R± http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at or at 5117, R±5119, R±5121 and R±5123; NM address http://162.58.28.41/at. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Federal Aviation Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Administration (FAA), DOT. History Navigation (air). ACTION: Final rule. On November 22, 1999, a proposal to Adoption of the Amendment amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation SUMMARY: This action establishes four restricted areas in the West/Central New Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish In consideration of the foregoing, the Mexico area (Restricted Areas R–5117, the Class E airspace at Scammon Bay, Federal Aviation Administration and R–5121, Fort Wingate, NM; R–5119, AK, was published in the Federal amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: Register (64 FR 63765). The proposal Socorro, NM; and R–5123, Magdalena, was necessary due to the establishment PART 71Ð DESIGNATION OF CLASS NM). The FAA is taking this action to of GPS instrument approach procedures A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND provide an area for the United States at Scammon Bay, AK. Interested parties CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; Army (US Army), to conduct missile were invited to participate in this AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING and sensor tests associated with the rulemaking proceeding by submitting POINTS Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system. written comments on the proposal to the EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 15, FAA. No public comments to the 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 2000. proposal were received; thus, the rule is part 71 continues to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill adopted as written. Nelson, Airspace and Rules Division, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, The area would be depicted on ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– aeronautical charts for pilot reference. 1963 Comp., p. 389. Management, Federal Aviation The coordinates for this airspace docket Administration, 800 Independence are based on North American Datum 83. § 71.1 [Amended] Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; The Class E airspace areas designated as telephone: (202) 267–8783. 700/1200 foot transition areas are 2. The incorporation by reference in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: published in paragraph 6005 in FAA 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Order 7400.9G, Airspace Designations Administration Order 7400.9G, History and Reporting Points, dated September Airspace Designations and Reporting On May 15, 1995, the US Army 1, 1999, and effective September 16, Points, dated September 1, 1999, and requested that the FAA establish four 1999, which is incorporated by effective September 16, 1999, is restricted areas in West/Central New reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E amended as follows: Mexico to support the US Army Tactical airspace designations listed in this * * * * * Missile System projects.
VerDate 18
On February 2, 1996, the FAA deviate from the planned trajectory. point of debris impact at points along published in the Federal Register a Further, AOPA believes that all the trajectory to the planned impact in notice proposing to establish four alternatives must be explored prior to WSMR. Due to the high altitudes at restricted areas in West/Central, New the establishment of Special Use which the test missiles navigate, the Mexico (61 FR 3884). Interested parties Airspace (SUA). FAA has found that it is unlikely that were invited to participate in this The US Army Space and Strategic a missile malfunction and subsequent rulemaking effort by submitting written Defense Command and the WSMR termination outside of the designated comments on the proposal. In response analyst have conducted extensive restricted area will make the airspace to the notice, the FAA received research studying flight profiles of target underlying the missile flight path comments from New Mexico Tech and defense missiles. An analysis of this unsafe. (Langmuir Laboratory for Atmospheric research data led to the development of The US Army identified the minimum Research) and the Aircraft Owners and launch hazard areas (e.g. booster drop required airspace to contain the theater Pilots Association (AOPA). Comments zones, intercept debris impact zones) missile defense test operations in the received were considered before making and intact target vehicle and defensive national airspace system. Although the a determination on this final rule. An missile impact zones. Based on the US Army has attempted to mitigate the analysis of the comments received and analysis, the four restricted areas were impacts on civil operations by limiting the FAA’s responses are summarized identified to segregate these potentially the number, time of day, and flight time below. hazardous activities from of the missile, some aircraft operations nonparticipating aircraft. Discussion of Comments may be effected when the restricted Prior to each test missile launch, areas are activated. However, during a New Mexico Tech commented on range personnel will conduct impact standard 12-hour flying day, the limits proposed R–5119. It stated that it area analysis based on detailed launch and procedures established by the US currently uses R–5113 for thunderstorm planning and trajectory modeling. Test Army will allow flight through the research. Thus, it believes that R–5119 missile launches will be conducted only published restricted areas over 99 should not have an adverse effect on R– when the impact area analysis confirms percent of the time. The FAA will 5113 provided (1) the US Army that flight vehicles and debris would be activate the restricted airspace through completes its test activity by 9:00 a.m., contained within the predetermined a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) and will local time and (2) the designated areas. However, to further reduce risk provide 24 hours of notice prior to altitude of R–5119 does not extend and lessen any potential impact on civil activation. If a NOTAM is not below FL 350. or GA aviation, the US Army has agreed published, aircraft may navigate through The FAA finds that the restricted to (1) schedule testing to conclude by charted restricted areas, without airspace will not adversely effect New 9:00 a.m., local time, when the volume Mexico Tech’s thunderstorm research in of air traffic is normally low and, (2) concern. Therefore, there should be R–5113. The operational limits of the limit the number of tests per year little, if any, impact on aircraft two restricted areas are as follows: R– (estimated at 6 to 10 per year). Though operations. 5113 is designated as the airspace from it is anticipated to remain limited, in the Charting permanent restricted areas the surface to 45,000 feet mean sea level interest of national security the test on aeronautical charts provides users of (MSL); and R–5119 is designated as the program number, as published in the the navigable airspace important airspace from FL 350 to unlimited notice, may be exceeded. Further, each information concerning potential flight altitude. Due to the design of R–5119 a test from launch to impact is designed hazards. The legend on the aeronautical portion of R–5113 geographically to take less than 15 minutes. chart reflects these areas as active ‘‘By overlaps R–5119’s upper northwestern It is important to note that, in the NOTAM, 24 Hours in Advance.’’ area. However, the high operational past, the US Army has employed Charting of the restricted airspace altitude of the test missiles transiting R– successfully the boosters to be used on together with the use of the NOTAM 5119 make it unlikely that a trespass the test missiles and the boosters are system to publicize the effective date will occur in the upper limit of R–5113 considered highly reliable in the terms and activation times of restricted areas, at 45,000 feet MSL as the test missiles of safety and predictability. Therefore, remain the most efficient means to over-fly R–5113 in descent to the the FAA finds that the chances of a test notify the flying public and segregate adjacent White Sands Missile Range missile flight failure during launch these potentially hazardous activities (WSMR). After careful and thorough through impact is considered remote. from GA operations. consideration of the facts presented by However, the US Army has established The Rule the US Army, the FAA believes this safety procedures in the event of such final rule has little, if any, impact on the a failure. This amendment to 14 CFR part 73 research activities of New Mexico Tech. The US Army categorizes termination establishes four restricted areas in West/ The AOPA expressed concerns that into three potential mishap areas: (1) On Central New Mexico. Specifically, this the TMD program poses a significant the launcher; (2) flight shortly after action establishes four restricted areas: hazard to general aviation (GA) liftoff; and (3) flight after exiting the R–5117 and R–5121, Fort Wingate, NM; operations and that the proposed launch site. R–5117 and R–5121 are R–5119, Socorro, NM; and R–5123, restricted areas will require GA pilots to designed to contain the first two Magdalena, NM. These restricted areas circumnavigate the areas. AOPA potential mishap categories. In the event will provide an area for the US Army believes that increased restrictions on of an exceptional circumstance such as and designated joint-use agencies, to airspace are not an efficient use of a missile malfunction, the Range Safety conduct tests to validate the TMD airspace, will result in increased fuel Officer determines the safest point to system design and operational costs and will cause unnecessary initiate missile termination. This point effectiveness. Under the test program, changes to planned routes of flight. is determined by real time performance missile launches will be conducted from Additionally, as part of its comment, data collected form a variety of Fort Wingate Army Depot, near Gallup, AOPA asked what plan, if any, is in instruments (e.g. telemetry, radar, NM, and will terminate in the existing place to protect nonparticipating aircraft computer, etc.). This data provides restricted area of the WSMR, NM. The from missiles that malfunction and information on missile location and the FAA is taking this action to provide the
VerDate 18
US Army SUA in support of the TMD number of small entities under the WSMR, prohibited full validation of testing program. criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. system design and operational R–5117 is designated as the launch / effectiveness in realistic theater site and is located at Fort Wingate Army environments. As a result, the no action Environmental Review Depot, NM, southeast of Gallup, NM. R– alternative was eliminated as a prudent 5117 extends from the surface to The Department of Defense, Ballistic and feasible alternative because it did unlimited altitude and contains the Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), not satisfy the mandatory requirements missile launch area. It overlies issued the Theater Missile Defense identified by the BMDO as necessary to government-controlled land. R–5121 is Extended Test Range Final fulfill its TMD program needs. The designated adjacent to R–5117, and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) BMDO issued a Record of Decision in extends from FL 200 to unlimited in November 1994. Cooperating March 1995 that adopted all practicable altitude and contains missile ascent agencies for the EIS included the U.S. means to avoid or minimize harm. after the initial launch. Air Force, Navy, US Army, and the In February 2000, the FAA completed R–5123, located at Cibola National FAA. a written reevaluation of the EIS. The Forest, Magdalena, NM, extends from Initially, eleven candidate test range FAA adopted the EIS as final, pursuant the surface to unlimited altitude and areas were considered for TMD to 40 CFR 1506.3(c) and (b) 62 FR 43730 provides a booster drop zone to contain extended-range testing. Seven of these and 62 FR 44685. After careful and reentry and impact of missile boosters alternatives were eliminated from thorough consideration of the facts after launch from R–5117. R–5123 also further study due to inadequate features, contained herein and following overlies government-controlled land. such as lack of required consideration of the views of those R–5119 is designated as a missile instrumentation, absence of target Federal agencies having jurisdiction by reentry and planned termination area in launch land sites, prohibitive cold law and special expertise with respect weather, unacceptable schedule delays, the existing R–5107 within the WSMR. to the environmental impacts described, and inadequate land area for interceptor R–5119 extends from FL 350 to the undersigned finds that this Federal deployment. Four alternatives were unlimited altitude and is adjacent to the action is consistent with existing existing WSMR. retained for further consideration. national policies and objectives as set When activated, the restricted areas Extended range testing was considered forth in section 101(a) of the National may impact visual flight rules (VFR) at WSMR, NM, Eglin Air Force Base, FL, Environmental Policy Act of 1959, as and/or instrument flight rules (IFR) Western Range, CA, and Kwajalein amended. aircraft operations, along the vicinity of Missile Range, Republic of the Marshall This final rule constitutes final agency the Gallup (GUP), Socorro (ONM) and Islands. The Western Range alternative action under 49 USC 46110. Any person Truth or Consequences (TCS) was rejected because of soil erosion navigational aids because of the considerations and the costs of disclosing a substantial interest in this necessity to reroute planned flight preparing the impact area for analysis. order may appeal the order to the routes due to TMD testing. However, the The Eglin Air Force Base and Kwajalein United States Court of Appeals of the potential impact is significantly reduced alternatives were rejected because District of Columbia upon petition, filed by the limited number of planned test testing would be limited to ocean within 60 days after the order is issued. events (6 to 10 a year) anticipated, the impacts. Additionally, testing at List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 short duration of activity (15 minutes Kwajalein posed technical difficulties Airspace, Navigation (air). total) and the notification and and additional costs. Thus, the US coordination procedures in place. Army has determined that extended Adoption of the Amendment Additionally, the US Army has agreed range testing at WSMR is the preferred to complete test activity prior to 9:00 location as described in this rule In consideration of the foregoing, the a.m., local time, when the volume of air because there are no impacts to Federal Aviation Administration traffic in the area is normally low. wilderness study areas, recreation areas, amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: Except for editorial changes, this national monuments and nesting and PART 73ÐSPECIAL USE AIRSPACE amendment is the same as that proposed breading seasons of sensitive species. in the notice. Section 73.51 of part 73 The selection of WSMR included two 1. The authority citation for part 73 was republished in FAA Order 7400.8G off-range missile launch alternatives; continues to read as follows: dated September 1, 1999. Fort Wingate Army Depot, NM, and the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, This regulation is limited to an Green River Launch Complex, UT. The 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– established body of technical US Army selected the Fort Wingate 1963 Comp., p. 389. regulations for which frequent and Army Depot as the launch site. routine amendments are necessary to The No Action Alternative would § 73.51 [Amended] keep them operationally current. It, consist of the continuation of ongoing 2. § 73.51 is amended as follows: therefore—(1) is not a ‘‘significant activities and operations at the four * * * * * regulatory action’’ under Executive locations considered. The development Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant of ground-based TMD missile and R–5117 Fort Wingate, NM [New] rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies sensor systems would continue, with Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35°25′51″N., and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February missile flight tests and target intercepts long. 108°30′09″ W.; to lat. 35°28′46″ N., 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant being conducted utilizing existing test long. 108°37′14″W.; to lat. 35°28′46″ N., long. preparation of a regulatory evaluation as ranges. No construction and operations 108°37′39″ W.; to lat. 35°21′27″ N., long. ° ′ ″ the anticipated impact is so minimal. for missile launch programs at the 108 36 58 W.; to the point of beginning. Since it has been determined that this remote launch locations or use of sea Designated altitudes. Surface to unlimited. Time of designation. Intermittent by is a routine matter that will only affect launch capabilities would be conducted NOTAM 24 hours in advance. air traffic procedures and air navigation, to support these types of ground-based Controlling agency. FAA, Albuquerque it is certified that this rule, when TMD system tests. Test and training area ARTCC. promulgated, will not have a significant restrictions, particularly on shorter- Using agency. Commanding General, White economic impact on a substantial range missile flights conducted at Sands Missile Range, NM.
VerDate 18
R–5119 Socorro, NM [New] COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING adjusted net capital of an FCM or IB; Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 33°59′56″ N., COMMISSION and (3) delete a reference to a section of long. 106°43′29″ W.; to lat. 33°59′51″ N., the SEC’s capital rules that has been long. 106°56′27″ W.; to lat. 34°08′16″ N., 17 CFR Part 1 repealed. The comment period expired long. 107°05′17″ W.; to lat. 34°00′28″ N., RIN 3038±AB51 on March 13, 2000. No comments were long. 107°12′04″ W.; to lat. 33°46′04″ N., received. long. 107°02′38″ W.; to lat. 33°26′49″ N., Minimum Financial Requirements for After considering the issues, the long. 107°02′25″ W.; to lat. 33°26′49″ N., Futures Commission Merchants and Commission has determined to adopt long. 107°00′00″ W.; to lat. 33°32′44″ N., Introducing Brokers the amendments as proposed. A long. 106°58′47″ W.; to lat. 33°54′10″ N., discussion of the final rule amendments AGENCY: long. 106°46′24″ W.; to lat. 33°57′16″ N., Commodity Futures Trading is provided below. ° ′ ″ Commission. long. 106 43 58 W.; to the point of II. Rule Amendments beginning. ACTION: Final rules. Designated altitudes. FL 350 to unlimited. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures A. Restriction on the Withdrawal of Time of designation. Intermittent by Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is Equity Capital From an FCM NOTAM 24 hours in advance. amending Regulation 1.17, which Commission Regulation 1.17(e) Controlling agency. FAA, Albuquerque governs the minimum financial prohibits the withdrawal of equity ARTCC. requirements imposed upon futures capital from an FCM 3 to redeem or to Using agency. Commanding General, White commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) and repurchase shares of stock of the FCM, Sands Missile Range, NM. introducing brokers (‘‘IBs’’). The to pay dividends, or to make an R–5121 Ft. Wingate, NM [New] amendments will ease the restrictions unsecured advance or loan to a Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35°25′51″ N., imposed upon the withdrawal of equity stockholder, partner, sole proprietor or long. 108°30′09″ W.; to lat. 35°21′22″ N., capital from an FCM. The amendments employee of the FCM if, after giving long. 108°25′59″ W.; to lat. 35°19′18″ N., also increase the percentage deduction effect to the withdrawal and to certain long. 108°28′10″ W.; to lat. 35°17′48″ N., (i.e., ‘‘haircut’’) applied to the value of other specified withdrawals and long. 108°31′41″ W.; to lat. 35°21′27″ N., equity securities pledged as collateral payments, the FCM’s adjusted net long. 108°36′58″ W.; to the point of for secured demand notes that are capital would be less than the greatest beginning. included in the adjusted net capital of of: Designated altitudes. FL 200 to unlimited. an FCM or IB and delete a reference to (1) $300,000 (120 percent of the Time of designation. Intermittent by a section of the Securities and Exchange $250,000 minimum adjusted net capital NOTAM 24 hours in advance. Commission’s (‘‘SEC’’) capital rule that requirement); Controlling agency. FAA, Albuquerque has been repealed. (2) Seven percent of the customer ARTCC. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000. funds required to be segregated or set Using agency. Commanding General, White FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: aside pursuant to the Commodity Sands Missile Range, NM. Henry J. Matecki, Financial Audit and Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’) and Commission regulations, 4 (hereinafter collectively R–5123 Magdalena, NM [New] Review Branch, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 300 S. Riverside referred to as the ‘‘customer segregated ° ′ ″ Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34 22 30 N., Plaza, Room 1600–N, Chicago, IL 60606; and secured amount’’); long. 107°57′00″ W.; to lat. 34°25′00″ N., (3) 120 percent of the amount of ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ telephone (312) 886–3217; electronic long. 107 49 00 W.; to lat. 34 24 45 N., mail [email protected]: or Thomas J. adjusted net capital required by a long. 107°37′00″ W.; to lat. 34°18′00″ N., registered futures association of which ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ Smith, Special Counsel, Division of long. 107 30 00 W.; to lat. 34 15 08 N., Trading and Markets, Commodity the FCM is a member; or long. 107°37′00″ W.; to lat. 34°19′00″ N., (4) For an FCM that is also a securities ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ Futures Trading Commission, Three long. 107 40 00 W.; to lat. 34 15 08 N., Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., broker or dealer registered with the SEC, long. 107°45′20″ W.; to lat. 34°14′52″ N., Washington, DC 20581; telephone (202) the amount of net capital specified in long. 107°44′40″ W.; to lat. 34°13′00″ N., 5 418–5495; electronic mail SEC Rule 15c3–1(e). long. 107°48′00″ W.; to the point of [email protected]. beginning. 3 The prohibition against withdrawal of equity Designated altitudes. Surface to unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION capital set forth in Regulation 1.17(e) applies to Time of designation. Intermittent by both FCMs and IBs. The restriction requires I. Background consideration of both the minimum dollar amount NOTAM 24 hours in advance. On February 10, 2000, the of net capital required for both types of registrants Controlling agency. FAA, Albuquerque ($250,000 for FCMs and $30,000 for IBs) and, just ARTCC. Commission published in the Federal for FCMs, the amount of funds required to be Using agency. Commanding General, White Register 1 for public comment proposed segregated and set aside for FCMs’ customers. For Sands Missile Range, NM. amendments to Regulation 1.17, which purposes of this final rulemaking, only the governs the minimum financial restriction on FCMs need be addressed since the * * * * * amendments relate only to the percentage applied requirements imposed upon FCMs and to the amount of funds required to be segregated Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, IBs (the ‘‘Proposal’’).2 The Proposal was and set aside for customers. 2000. to: (1) Ease the restrictions imposed 4 Before applying the percentage capital factor, Reginald C. Matthews, upon the withdrawal of equity capital the amount required to be segregated or set aside is reduced by the market value of commodity Manager, Airspace and Rules Division. from an FCM; (2) increase the options purchased by customers on or subject to the [FR Doc. 00–10010 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] percentage deduction (i.e., ‘‘haircut’’) rules of a contract market or a foreign board of trade applied to the value of equity securities for which the full premiums have been paid: BILLING CODE 4910±13±P pledged as collateral for secured provided, however, that the option premium deduction for each customer is limited to the demand notes that are included in the amount of customer funds and the foreign futures and foreign options secured amounts in such 1 65 FR 6569 (February 10, 2000). customer’s account(s). 2 Commission rules cited herein can be found at 5 SEC rules cited herein can be found at 17 CFR 17 CFR Ch. I (1999). Part 240 (1999).
VerDate 18
The Commission is amending the An FCM that hits the early warning As stated in the Proposal, SEC capital restriction in (2) above to permit the trigger is also required to file a financial rules currently require brokers and withdrawal of equity capital from an report on Form 1–FR–FCM with the dealers to apply a 30 percent haircut to FCM provided that, after giving effect to Commission and its DSRO as of the equity securities collateralizing secured the withdrawal, the FCM’s adjusted net close of the month during which its demand notes included in the brokers’ capital is in excess of six percent of the adjusted net capital does not exceed the or dealers’ adjusted net capital.12 customer segregated and secured early warning level and for each month Uniform capital rules reduce the amount. The Commission believes that thereafter until three successive months regulatory burden imposed upon dually- easing this restriction is appropriate in have elapsed during which its adjusted registered FCMs (i.e., FCMs that are also net capital is at all times equal to or in light of other provisions of the SEC registered securities brokers or Commission’s regulations that provide excess of the early warning level.9 The dealers) by more readily permitting such adequate assurances against the early warning notices bring to the FCMs to comply with both the excessive withdrawal of equity capital. Commission’s and DSRO’s attention Commission’s and SEC’s capital rules. Generally, FCMs that carry customer firms that should be subjected to closer positions are required to maintain monitoring because of their minimal Furthermore, as more fully discussed minimum adjusted net capital of at least regulatory capital. in the Proposal, the Commission’s four percent of the customer segregated Furthermore, the Commission’s ‘‘debt- capital rules incorporate by reference and secured amount.6 FCMs that are equity ratio’’ requirement also provides the securities haircuts set forth in the members of self-regulatory organizations a limit on the amount of capital that SEC’s capital rules. In 1992, the SEC (‘‘SROs’’—that is, commodity exchanges may be withdrawn from an FCM. adopted several amendments to its and NFA) also must comply with the Regulation 1.17(d) prohibits the capital rules. One of the amendments minimum net capital requirements of withdrawal of capital from an FCM if, had the unintended consequence of those exchanges, which are required to after giving effect to the withdrawal, the reducing from 30 percent to 15 percent FCM’s equity capital would be less than be at least as stringent as the the haircut that an FCM was required to 7 30 percent of its debt-equity total.10 Commission’s. apply to equity securities collateralizing An FCM that fails to comply with the Finally, as noted in the Proposal, setting 13 the capital withdrawal limit at the a secured demand note. Brokers and minimum net capital requirement must dealers, however, were still required to transfer all customer accounts and Commission’s early warning level is apply a 30 percent haircut to such immediately cease doing business as an consistent with the capital withdrawal equity securities. The amendments FCM.8 Therefore, each FCM must rules adopted by the SEC for securities would restore the haircut to the 30 ensure that a capital withdrawal does brokers or dealers that compute their not cause the FCM’s adjusted net capital minimum net capital requirement in percent level. to fall below four percent of the accordance with the ‘‘alternative’’ C. Technical Amendment customer segregated and secured method.11 amount. B. Equity Securities Pledged as The Commission is amending In addition, as stated in the Proposal, Collateral for Secured Demand Notes Regulation 1.17(c)(5)(v) to delete a the Commission’s ‘‘early warning’’ reference to SEC Rule 15c3–1(f) which The Commission is amending notice and financial reporting has been repealed.14 The technical Regulation 1.17(h)(1)(iii) to increase requirements deter excessive equity amendment has no impact on the withdrawals. Regulation 1.12(b)(2) from 15 percent to 30 percent the haircut that is applied to equity Commission’s capital rule and will not requires an FCM to notify in writing the affect FCMs or IBs. Commission and its designated self- securities collateralizing secured regulatory organization (‘‘DSRO’’) if its demand notes that are included in an III. Related Matters FCM’s or IB’s adjusted net capital adjusted net capital does not equal or A. Regulatory Flexibility Act exceed six percent of the customer computation. The amendment will provide greater uniformity between the segregated and secured amount. The Commission’s and SEC’s capital rules. The Regulatory Flexibility Act early warning notices must be filed (‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–611, requires that within five business days of the FCM’s 9 Regulation 1.12(b)(4). agencies, in proposing rules, consider adjusted net capital falling below the 10 Equity capital is defined by Regulation the impact of those rules on small early warning level. Moreover, 1.17(d)(1) to include certain loans subject to businesses. The rule amendments Regulation 1.12(g)(2) requires an FCM to qualifying satisfactory subordination agreements discussed herein would affect FCMs and and the following: (1) In the case of a corporation, give the Commission written notice at IBs. The Commission has previously least two business days prior to a the sum of its par or stated value of capital stock, paid in capital in excess of par, retained earnings, determined that, based upon the planned withdrawal of equity capital if unrealized profit and loss, and other capital fiduciary nature of FCM/customer such withdrawal would reduce excess accounts; relationships, as well as the requirement net capital by 30 percent or more from (2) In the case of a partnership, the sum of its that FCMs meet minimum financial that most recently reported in a capital accounts of partners (inclusive of such financial report filed with the partners’ commodity interest and securities requirements, FCMs should be excluded accounts subject to the provisions of Rule 1.17(e) from the definition of small entity. Commission. concerning restrictions on withdrawals of equity capital), and unrealized profit and loss; and With respect to IBs, the Commission 6 Regulation 1.17(a)(1)(i). FCMs that are also (3) In the case of a sole proprietorship, the sum stated that it is appropriate to evaluate registered with the SEC as securities brokers or of its capital accounts and unrealized profit and within the context of a particular rule dealers are required to comply with the loss. Commission’s minimum adjusted net capital ‘‘Debt-equity total’’ is defined by Regulation whether some or all IBs should be requirement or the minimum adjusted net capital 1.17(d)(2) and encompasses equity capital as requirement established by SEC Rule 15c3–1(e), defined above plus loans subject to satisfactory 12 See Rule 15c3–1d(a)(2)(iii). whichever is greater. subordination agreements that do not qualify as 13 See 57FR 56984 (December 2, 1992). 7 Regulations 1.17(a)(2)(i) and 1.52. equity capital under Regulation 1.17(d)(1). 14 8 Regulation 1.17(a)(4). 11 See SEC Rule 15c3–1(a)(1)(ii). See 57 FR 56973 (December 2, 1992).
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
PART 1ÐINCOME TAXES contribution is a valid rollover reasonably conclude that Plan O is qualified contribution. While evidence that the and that the amount paid as a direct rollover Paragraph 1. The authority citation for distributing plan is the subject of a is an eligible rollover distribution. part 1 continues to read in part as determination letter from the Example 2. (i) The facts are the same as follows: Example 1, except that, instead of the letter Commissioner indicating that the provided in paragraph (ii) of Example 1, Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * distributing plan is qualified would be Employee A provides the plan administrator Par. 2. Section 1.401(a)(31)–1 is useful to the receiving plan of Plan M with a letter from the plan amended as follows: administrator in reasonably concluding administrator of Plan O representing that 1. Under the heading ‘‘List of that the contribution is a valid rollover Plan O satisfies the requirements of section Questions,’’ redesignating Q–14 through contribution, it is not necessary for the 401(a) (or representing that Plan O is Q–18 as Q–15 through Q–19, distributing plan to have such a intended to satisfy the requirements of determination letter in order for the section 401(a) and that the administrator of respectively, and adding new Q–14. Plan O is not aware of any Plan O provision 2. Under the heading ‘‘Questions and receiving plan administrator to reach or operation that would result in the Answers,’’ removing the paragraph that conclusion. Second, if the plan disqualification of Plan O). designation (a) and the paragraph administrator of the receiving plan later (ii) Based upon such a letter, absent facts heading, and removing paragraph (b) determines that the contribution was an to the contrary, a plan administrator may from A–13. invalid rollover contribution, the reasonably conclude that Plan O is qualified 3. Under the heading ‘‘Questions and amount of the invalid rollover and that the amount paid as a direct rollover Answers,’’ redesignating Q&A–14 contribution, plus any earnings is an eligible rollover distribution. through Q&A–18 as Q&A–15 through attributable thereto, is distributed to the Example 3. (i) Same facts as Example 1, Q&A–19, respectively, and adding new except that Employee A elects to receive the employee within a reasonable time after distribution from Plan O and wishes to make Q&A–14. such determination. a rollover contribution described in section 4. Under the heading ‘‘Questions and (b) Definitions. For purposes of this 402 rather than a direct rollover. Answers,’’ removing the language Q&A–14: (ii) When making the rollover contribution, ‘‘Q&A–15’’ in the fourth sentence of the (1) An invalid rollover contribution is Employee A certifies that, to the best of newly designated A–16 and adding an amount that is accepted by a plan as Employee A’s knowledge, Employee A is ‘‘Q&A–16’’ in its place. a rollover within the meaning of entitled to the distribution as an employee 5. Under the heading ‘‘Questions and § 1.402(c)–2, Q&A–1 (or as a rollover and not as a beneficiary, the distribution Answers,’’ removing the language contribution within the meaning of from Plan O to be contributed to Plan M is ‘‘Q&A–17’’ in the first sentence of the section 408(d)(3)(A)(ii)) but that is not not one of a series of periodic payments, the newly designated A–18 and adding distribution from Plan O was received by an eligible rollover distribution from a Employee A not more than 60 days before the ‘‘Q&A–18’’ in its place. qualified plan (or an amount described date of the rollover contribution, and the The additions read as follows: in section 408(d)(3)(A)(ii)) or that does entire amount of the rollover contribution § 1.401(a)(31)±1 Requirement to offer not satisfy the other requirements of would be includible in gross income if it direct rollover of eligible rollover section 401(a)(31), 402(c), or 408(d)(3) were not being rolled over. distributions; questions and answers. for treatment as a rollover or a rollover (iii) As support for these certifications, contribution. Employee A provides the plan administrator * * * * * (2) A valid rollover contribution is a of Plan M with two statements from Plan O. List of Questions contribution that is accepted by a plan The first is a letter from the plan * * * * * administrator of Plan O, as described in as a rollover within the meaning of Example 1, stating that Plan O has received Q–14. If a plan accepts an invalid rollover § 1.402(c)–2, Q&A–1 or as a rollover a determination letter from the Commissioner contribution, whether or not as a direct contribution within the meaning of indicating that Plan O is qualified. The rollover, how will the contribution be treated section 408(d)(3) and that satisfies the second is the distribution statement that for purposes of applying the qualification accompanied the distribution check. The requirements of section 401(a) or 403(a) to requirements of section 401(a)(31), distribution statement indicates that the the plan? 402(c), or 408(d)(3) for treatment as a rollover or a rollover contribution. distribution is being made by Plan O to * * * * * (c) Examples. The provisions of Employee A, indicates the gross amount of Questions and Answers paragraph (a) of this Q&A–14 are the distribution, and indicates the amount withheld as Federal income tax. The amount * * * * * illustrated by the following examples: withheld as Federal income tax is 20 percent Q–14. If a plan accepts an invalid Example 1. (i) Employer X maintains for of the gross amount of the distribution. rollover contribution, whether or not as its employees Plan M, a profit sharing plan Employee A contributes to Plan M an amount a direct rollover, how will the qualified under section 401(a). Plan M not greater than the gross amount of the contribution be treated for purposes of provides that any employee of Employer X distribution stated in the letter from Plan O applying the qualification requirements may make a rollover contribution to Plan M. and the contribution is made within 60 days Employee A is an employee of Employer X, of the date of the distribution statement from of section 401(a) or 403(a) to the plan? will not have attained age 7001⁄2 by the end Plan O. A–14. (a) Acceptance of invalid of the year, and has a vested account balance (iv) Based on the certifications and rollover contribution. If a plan accepts in Plan O (a plan maintained by Employee documentation provided by Employee A, an invalid rollover contribution, the A’s prior employer). Employee A elects a absent facts to the contrary, a plan contribution will be treated, for single sum distribution from Plan O and administrator may reasonably conclude that purposes of applying the qualification elects that it be paid to Plan M in a direct Plan O is qualified and that the distribution requirements of section 401(a) or 403(a) rollover. otherwise satisfies the requirements of to the receiving plan, as if it were a valid (ii) Employee A provides the plan section 402(c) for treatment as a rollover rollover contribution, if the following administrator of Plan M with a letter from the contribution. plan administrator of Plan O stating that Plan Example 4. (i) The facts are the same as two conditions are satisfied. First, when O has received a determination letter from in Example 3, except that, rather than accepting the amount from the the Commissioner indicating that Plan O is contributing the distribution from Plan O to employee as a rollover contribution, the qualified. Plan M, Employee A contributes the plan administrator of the receiving plan (iii) Based upon such a letter, absent facts distribution from Plan O to IRA P, an reasonably concludes that the to the contrary, a plan administrator may individual retirement account described in
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 52, but is ‘‘incorporated by reference’’. approved source-specific permit, and Region III, 1650 Arch Street, This means that EPA has approved a each nonregulatory SIP provision. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the given state regulation with a specific this action, EPA is publishing the tables Air and Radiation Docket and effective date. This format allows both summarizing Parts one and two for each Information Center, U.S. Environmental EPA and the public to know which State. The table of identifying Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, measures are contained in a given SIP, information in the compilation Washington, DC 20460; and the Virginia and insures that the State is enforcing corresponds to the table of contents Department of Environmental Quality, the regulations. It also allows EPA and published in 40 CFR Part 52 for these 629 East Main Street, Richmond, the public to take enforcement action, states. EPA will publish the summary Virginia, 23219. should a State not enforce its SIP- list of Part Three SIP provisions for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: approved regulations. Virginia in a separate action. EPA Harold A. Frankford, (215) 814–2108 or How the State and EPA Update the SIP Regional Offices have the primary by e-mail at [email protected]. responsibility for ensuring accuracy and The SIP is a living document which SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: updating the compilations. the state can revise as necessary to Throughout this document, whenever address the unique air pollution Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP ‘‘we’’ ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean problems in the state. Therefore, EPA Compilation EPA. from time to time must take action on EPA Region III developed and will I. Revised IBR Document SIP revisions containing new and/or maintain the compilation for Virginia. A The supplementary information is revised regulations as being part of the copy of the full text of each state’s organized in the following order: SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), regulatory and source-specific SIP EPA revised the procedures for What a SIP Is compilation will also be maintained at incorporating by reference Federally- the OFR and EPA’s Air Docket and How EPA Enforces SIPs approved SIPs, as a result of How the State and EPA Updates the SIP Information Center. consultations between EPA and OFR. How EPA Compiles the SIPs The Format of the New Identification of How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation We began the process of developing: Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP (1) A revised SIP document for each Plan Section Compilation state that would be IBR under the In order to better serve the public, The Format of the New Identification of Plan provisions of 1 CFR Part 51; (2) a EPA revised the organization of the Section revised mechanism for announcing EPA ‘‘Identification of Plan’’ section and When a SIP Revision Become Federally approval of revisions to an applicable Enforceable included additional information to SIP and updating both the IBR clarify the enforceable elements of the The Historical Record of SIP Revision document and the CFR; and (3) a Approvals SIP. The revised Identification of Plan What EPA Is Doing In This Action revised format of the ‘‘Identification of section contains five subsections: Plan’’ sections for each applicable How This Document Complies With the 1. Purpose and scope subpart to reflect these revised IBR Federal Administrative Requirements for 2. Incorporation by reference Rulemaking procedures. The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, 3. EPA-approved regulations What a SIP Is and ‘‘Identification of Plan’’ format are 4. EPA-approved source-specific Each state has a SIP containing the discussed in further detail in the May permits control measures and strategies used to 22, 1997, Federal Register document. 5. EPA-approved nonregulatory attain and maintain the national provisions such as transportation ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). How EPA Compiles the SIPs control measures, statutory The SIP is extensive, containing such The Federally-approved regulations, provisions, control strategies, elements as air pollution control source-specific permits, and monitoring networks, etc. regulations, emission inventories, nonregulatory provisions (entirely or When a SIP Revision Becomes Federally monitoring network, attainment portions of) submitted by each state Enforceable demonstrations, and enforcement agency have been compiled by EPA into mechanisms. a ‘‘SIP compilation.’’ The SIP All revisions to the applicable SIP compilation contains the updated become Federally enforceable as of the How EPA Enforces SIPs regulations, source-specific permits, and effective date of the revisions to Each state must formally adopt the nonregulatory provisions approved by paragraphs (c), (d), or (e) of the control measures and strategies in the EPA through previous rulemaking applicable Identification of Plan section SIP after the public has had an actions in the Federal Register. The found in each subpart of 40 CFR Part 52. opportunity to comment on them. They compilations are contained in three-ring The Historical Record of SIP Revision are then submitted to EPA as SIP binders and will be updated, primarily Approvals revisions on which EPA must formally on an annual basis. act. To facilitate enforcement of Once these control measures and How EPA Organizes the SIP previously approved SIP provisions and strategies are approved by EPA, after Compilation provide a smooth transition to the new notice and comment, they are Each compilation contains three parts. SIP processing system, EPA retains the incorporated into the Federally Part one contains the regulations, part original Identification of Plan section, approved SIP and are identified in Part two contains the source-specific previously appearing in the CFR as the 52 (Approval and Promulgation of requirements that have been approved first or second section of Part 52 for Implementation Plans), Title 40 of the as part of the SIP and part three contains each state subpart. After an initial two- Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR nonregulatory provisions that have been year period, EPA will review its Part 52). The full text of the state EPA approved. Each part consists of a experience with the new system and regulation approved by EPA is not table of identifying information for each enforceability of previously approved reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR Part SIP-approved regulation, each SIP- SIP measures and will decide whether
VerDate 18
Group type 9 VAC 5 heading VR±120±01 heading
Main Division ...... Chapter ...... Part. First Subdivision ...... Part ...... Second Subdivision ...... Article ...... Rule (Part IV) or Section (Part VIII). Third Subdivision ...... Section ...... Section or Subsection [Part VIII rules].
Virginia Regulation 9 VAC 5 contains Article 4 General Process Operations Article 30 Metal Coil Coating 10 chapters (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, Article 5 Synthesized Pharmaceutical Application Systems 80, 160, and 170), as described below: Products Manufacturing Operations Article 31 Paper and Fabric Coating Chapter 10 General Definitions Article 6 Rubber Tire Manufacturing Application Systems Chapter 20 General Provisions Operations Article 32 Vinyl Coating Application Chapter 30 Ambient Air Quality Article 7 Incinerators Systems Standards Article 8 Fuel Burning Equipment Article 33 Metal Furniture Coating Chapter 40 Existing Stationary Sources Article 9 Coke Ovens Application Systems Chapter 50 New and Modified Article 10 Asphalt Concrete Plants Article 34 Miscellaneous Metal Parts Stationary Sources Article 11 Petroleum Refinery and Products Coating Application Chapter 70 Air Pollution Episode Operations Systems Prevention Article 12 Chemical Fertilizer Article 35 Flatwood Paneling Coating Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Manufacturing Operations Application Systems Sources Article 13 Kraft Pulp Mills Article 36 Graphic Arts Printing Chapter 91 Regulations for the Control Article 14 Sand and Gravel Processing of Motor Vehicle Emissions in Processes Operations and Stone Quarrying and Article 37 Petroleum Liquid Storage Northern Virginia Processing Operations Chapter 160 General Conformity Rules and Transfer Operations Article 15 Coal Preparation Plants Article 38 Dry Cleaning Systems Chapter 170 Regulation for General Article 16 Portland Cement Plants Administration Article 39 Asphalt Paving Operations Article 17 Woodworking Operations Article 40 Open Burning Within 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, there are Article 18 Primary and Secondary Article 41 Mobile Sources two major parts— Special Provisions Metal Operations Article 45 Lithographic Printing (Part I) and Emissions Standards (Part Article 19 Lightweight Aggregate Processes II). Part I consists of provisions covering Process Operations the following topics: Article 20 Feed Manufacturing Within each article, there are about 16 —Applicability Operations to 20 sections. The general section titles —Compliance (consisting of compliance Article 21 Sulfuric Acid Production for the SIP-approved rules consist of the schedules and methods for Plants following topics: interpreting compliance of emissions Article 22 Sulfur Recovery Operations 1. Applicability and Designation of standards based on process weight Article 23 Nitric Acid Production Facility tables) Units 2. Definitions —Emissions testing Article 24 Solvent Metal Cleaning 3. Specific emission standards for —Source monitoring Operations various pollutants (generally, there is —Notification, records, and reporting Article 25 Volatile Organic Compound one separate section for each Part II consists of articles which Storage and Transfer Operations pollutant) contain general provisions governing Article 26 Large Coating Application 4. Control technology guidelines visible emissions and fugitive dust/ Systems (whenever the article contains emissions, open burning, mobile Article 27 Magnet Wire Costing emission standards for volatile sources, and designated source Application Systems organic compounds) categories. These articles are listed Article 28 Automobile and Light Duty 5. Standard for visible emissions below: Truck Coating Application Systems 6. Standard for fugitive dust/emissions Article 1 Visible Emissions and Article 29 Can Coating Application 7. Compliance Fugitive Dust/emissions Systems 8. Test methods and procedures
VerDate 18
9. Monitoring C. Administrative Revisions to the State 4. Virginia Air Pollution Control Law 10. Notification, records, and reporting Regulations Reflecting Revisions or Additions to Certain Definitions of Old: Title 10, Chapter 1.2 of the Code of 11. Registration Terms Virginia (1950), as amended 12. Facility and control equipment Revised: Chapter 13 (§ 10.1–1300 et seq.) Virginia has added or revised certain of Title 9 of the Code of Virginia maintenance or malfunction definitions to reflect: (1) A restructuring 13. Permits of the Virginia Administrative Code: (2) 5. Virginia Register Act (Added) the use of the Virginia Register to B. Revisions to Appendices Chapter 1.2 (§ 9–6.15 et seq.) of Title officially announce proposed and 9 of the Code of Virginia EPA’s approval Virginia has incorporated Appendices adopted Commonwealth rules and of the recodified Virginia air pollution A through S under the old VR–120 regulations; and (3) the creation of the control regulations also includes format into the regulatory structure of Virginia Department of the revisions to the text of definitions and the 9 VAC 5 format. The citation of the Environment. These definitions are regulations found in Chapters 10 SIP-approved Appendices that are cited described below: through 200 to reflect: (1) References to under the VR–120 format are 1. Administrative Process Act revised regulatory citations described in redesignated as follows: Old: Title 9, Section 1.1:1 of the Code the current Administrative Process Act, of Virginia (1950), as amended Virginia Register Act, and Virginia Air New SIP cita- Pollution Control Law; and (2) Old SIP citation (VR±120) tion Revised: Chapter 1.1:1 (§ 9–6.14:1 et (9VAC 5) seq.) of Title 9 of the Code of Virginia references to the Department [of Environmental Quality] or Department Appendix A ...... 5±10±30 2. Department (Added) Director Appendix B ...... 5±20±200 Any employee or other representative D. Revised Structure of 9 VAC 5, Appendix G ...... 5±20±202 of the Virginia Department of Chapter 80 Appendix H ...... 5±20±203 Environmental Quality, as designated by Appendix J ...... 5±40±41 the Director On June 7, 1999, Virginia submitted a Appendix K ...... 5±20±204 revised and restructured numbering Appendix M ...... 5±20±21 3. Director (Revised) systems for 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80, Article Appendix N ...... 5±40±21 Refers to the Director of the Virginia 9 (permits for major sources and major Appendix P ...... 5±20±206 Department of Environmental Quality, modifications locating in nonattainment Appendix Q ...... 5±40±22 replacing the old term Executive areas). This SIP revision submittal will Appendix R ...... 5±80±11 Appendix S ...... 5±20±121 Director [of the Virginia State Air restructure the following SIP-approved Pollution Control Board]. regulations:
Former SIP Last EPA approval State citation State effective citation date (VR±120±08± (9 VAC 5) Title/subject date (120±08± 03Ðeffective 1/1/ 03X) 93)
Article 9 Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications locating in Nonattainment Areas 5±80±2000 Applicability ...... 1/1/93 .03A ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2010 Definitions ...... 1/1/93 .03B ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2020 General ...... 1/1/93 .03C ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2030 Applications ...... 1/1/93 .03D ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2040 Information required ...... 1/1/93 .03E ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2050 Standards/conditions for granting permits ...... 1/1/93 .03F 9/21/99 64 FR 51047 4/1/99 5±80±2060 Action on permit application ...... 1/1/93 .03G ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2070 Public Participation ...... 1/1/93 .03H ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2080 Compliance determination and verification by performance test- 1/1/93 .03I ...... 9/21/99 ing. 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2090 Application review and analysis ...... 1/1/93 .03J ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2100 Circumvention ...... 1/1/93 .03K ...... 9/21/99 4/199 64 FR 51047 5±80±2110 Interstate pollution abatement ...... 1/1/93 .03L ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2120 Offsets ...... 1/1/93 .03M ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2130 De minimis increases and stationary source modification alter- 1/1/93 .03N ...... 9/21/99 natives for ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 severe in 9 VAC 5±20±204. 5±80±2140 Exception ...... 1/1/93 .03O ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2150 Compliance with local zoning requirements ...... 1/1/93 .03P ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047
VerDate 18
Former SIP Last EPA approval State citation State effective citation date (VR±120±08± (9 VAC 5) Title/subject date (120±08± 03Ðeffective 1/1/ 03X) 93)
5±80±2160 Reactivation and Permit Shutdown ...... 1/1/93 .03Q ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2170 Transfer of Permits ...... 1/1/93 .03R ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2180 Revocation of permit ...... 1/1/93 .03S ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047 5±80±2190 Existence of permit no defense ...... 1/1/93 .03T ...... 9/21/99 4/1/99 64 FR 51047
Virginia’s June 7, 1999 submittal violations pursuant to a voluntary regulation, permit, or administrative which restructures the major new compliance evaluation and voluntarily order is granted immunity from source and modification permitting discloses such violations to the administrative or civil penalty. The requirements applicable to Commonwealth and takes prompt and Attorney General’s January 12, 1997 nonattainment areas consists of appropriate measures to remedy the opinion states that the quoted language administrative and format changes; violations. Virginia’s Voluntary renders this statute inapplicable to there are no substantive wording Environmental Assessment Privilege enforcement of any federally authorized changes to the current federally- Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be enforceable provisions. a privilege that protects from disclosure afforded from administrative, civil, or Public Hearings held: December 4, documents and information about the criminal penalties because granting 1998, in Richmond content of those documents that are the such immunity would not be consistent In a separate action, EPA will review product of a voluntary environmental with federal law, which is one of the additional revisions to Virginia’s assessment. The Privilege Law does not criteria for immunity.’’ administrative provisions (9 VAC 5–20 extend to documents or information: (1) Therefore, EPA has determined that and 9 VAC 5–170) submitted on That are generated or developed before Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity February 18, 1998 and March 4, 1998, the commencement of a voluntary statutes will not preclude the as well as Part II of Virginia’s general environmental assessment; (2) that are Commonwealth from enforcing its conformity provisions (9 VAC 5–160), prepared independently of the program consistent with the federal submitted by Virginia on April 20, 1998. assessment process; (3) that demonstrate requirements. In any event, because III. EPA Evaluation of Recodification a clear, imminent and substantial EPA has also determined that a state Submittals danger to the public health or audit privilege and immunity law can environment; or (4) that are required by affect only state enforcement and cannot EPA’s action will have no adverse law. have any impact on federal enforcement impact on the NAAQS for the various On January 12, 1997, the authorities, EPA may at any time invoke criteria pollutants governed by its authority under the Clean Air Act, Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Virginia’s revised rules. EPA concludes including, for example, sections 113, Attorney General provided a legal that the recodification of Virginia’s 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the opinion that states that the Privilege regulations and revised administrative requirements or prohibitions of the state law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes provisions have no direct impact on plan, independently of any state granting a privilege to documents and current ambient air quality. For the most enforcement effort. In addition, citizen information ‘‘required by law,’’ part, EPA will be able to cite the same enforcement under section 304 of the including documents and information regulatory citations used by Virginia in Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by ‘‘required by federal law to maintain the event of a federal enforcement this, or any, state audit privilege or program delegation, authorization or action. Differences between the immunity law. Federally enforceable Virginia SIP approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce regulatory citations and those of the federally authorized environmental What EPA Is Doing in This Action Virginia’s which are not Federally programs in a manner that is no less EPA is approving the recodified enforceable are noted in the chart of stringent than their federal counterparts. Virginia provisions submitted on regulations listed in revised 40 CFR * * *’’ The opinion concludes that January 13, 1998 and June 7, 1999 by § 52.2420(c). ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, the Virginia Department of In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation documents or other information needed Environmental Quality as revisions to that provides, subject to certain for civil or criminal enforcement under the Virginia SIP. EPA is also revising the conditions, for an environmental one of these programs could not be format of 40 CFR part 52 for materials assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for privileged because such documents and submitted by Virginia that are voluntary compliance evaluations information are essential to pursuing incorporated by reference (IBR) into performed by a regulated entity. enforcement in a manner required by their respective SIPs. The legislation further addresses the federal law to maintain program EPA has reviewed the submitted relative burden of proof for parties delegation, authorization or approval.’’ revisions, but has not fully reviewed the either asserting the privilege or seeking Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code substance of recodified regulations that disclosure of documents for which the Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the were approved into the SIP in previous privilege is claimed. Virginia’s extent consistent with requirements rulemaking actions. EPA is now merely legislation also provides, subject to imposed by Federal law,’’ any person approving the renumbering system certain conditions, for a penalty waiver making a voluntary disclosure of submitted by Virginia. To the extent that for violations of environmental laws information to a state agency regarding we have issued any SIP calls to Virginia when a regulated entity discovers such a violation of an environmental statute, with respect to the adequacy of any of
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
U.S.C. 7410, and 1 CAR part 51 to meet Federal Register. Entries in paragraphs State implementation plan as of March national ambient air quality standards. (c) and (d) of this section with EPA 1, 2000. (b) Incorporation by reference. approval dates after March 1, 2000 will (3) Copies of the materials (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) be incorporated by reference in the next incorporated by reference may be and (d) of this section with an EPA update to the SIP compilation. inspected at the Region 3 EPA Office at approval date prior to March 1, 2000 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA (2) EPA Region 3 certifies that the was approved for incorporation by 19103; the Office of the Federal Register, rules/regulations provided by EPA in reference by the Director of the Federal 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. the SIP compilation at the addresses in 700, Washington, DC.; or at EPA, Air 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an and Radiation Docket and Information incorporated as it exists on the date of exact duplicate of the officially Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, the approval, and notice of any change promulgated State rules/regulations S.W., Washington, DC. in the material will be published in the which have been approved as part of the (c) EPA approved regulations.
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIP
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
Chapter 10 General Definitions [Part I]
5±10±10 ...... General ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±01±01. eral Register cite] 5±10±20 ...... Terms DefinedÐDefinitions of Ad- 4/1/96 3/12/97 § 52.2465(c)(113) (i)(B)(1). ministrator, Federally Enforce- 62 FR 11334 able, Implementation Plan, Po- tential to Emit, State Enforce- able, Volatile Organic Com- pound. 5±10±20 ...... Terms Defined-Added Terms-De- 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- partment, Virginia Register Act eral Register cite] Revised Terms-Administrative Process Act, Director (replaces Executive Director), Virginia Air Pollution Control Law. 5±10±20 ...... Terms Defined [all other SIP-ap- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±01±02. proved terms not listed above]. eral Register cite] VR120±01±02 ...... Terms Defined-Definitions of ``Per- 2/1/85 2/25/93 VA DEQ has submitted revised son'' and ``Special Order''. 58 FR 11373 definitions; EPA will review in a separate action. 5±10±30 ...... Abbreviations ...... 7/1/97 [Insert publication date and Fed- Appendix A. eral Register cite]
Chapter 20 General Provisions
5±20±10A.±C ...... Applicability ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±01. eral Register cite] 5±20±30A.±D ...... Enforcement of regulations, per- 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±03. mits, and orders. eral Register cite] 5±20±60 ...... Local ordinances ...... 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±06. eral Register cite] 5±20±70 ...... Circumvention ...... 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±07. eral Register cite] 5±20±80 ...... Relationship of state regulations to 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±08. federal regulations. eral Register cite] 5±20±100 ...... Right of entry ...... 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±10. eral Register cite] 5±20±110 ...... Conditions on approvals ...... 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±11. eral Register cite] 5±20±121 ...... Air Quality Program Policies and 7/1/97 [insert publication date and Fed- Appendix S. Procedures. eral Register cite] 5±20±140 ...... Considerations for Approval Ac- 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±14. tions. eral Register cite] 5±20±150 ...... Availability of Information ...... 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±30. eral Register cite] 5±20±160 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±31. 7/1/97 eral Register cite] 5±20±170 ...... Control Programs ...... 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±32. 7/1/97 eral Register cite] 5±20±180 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [insert publication date and Fed- 120±02±34. Maintenance or Malfunction. 7/1/97 eral Register cite] 5±20±200 ...... Air Quality Control Regions 7/1/97 [insert publication date and Fed- Appendix B. (AQCR). eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±20±202 ...... Metropolitan Statistical Areas ...... 7/1/97 [insert publication date and Fed- Appendix G. eral Register cite] 5±20±203 ...... Air Quality Maintenance Areas 7/1/97 [insert publication date and Fed- Appendix H. (AQMA). eral Register cite] 5±20±204 ...... Nonattainment Areas ...... 7/1/97 [insert publication date and Fed- Appendix K. eral Register cite] 5±20±205 ...... Prevention of Significant Deterio- 2/1/97 3/23/98 Former Appendix LÐEffective 2/1/ ration Areas. 63 FR 13795 92. 5±20±206 ...... Volatile Organic Compound and 7/1/97 Insert publication date and Fed- Appendix P. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions eral Register cite] Control Areas. VR120±02±02 ...... Establishment of Regulations and 2/1/85 2/25/93 EPA has informed VA that except Orders. 58 FR 11373 for the Appeals rule, these pro- visions no longer need to be part of the SIP. VA has with- drawn 2/93 and 2/98 revisions to the Appeals rule from SIP re- view. Last substantive SIP change became State-effective on 8/6/79 [§ 52.2465 (c) (55)]. VR120±02±04 ...... Hearings and Proceedings ...... 2/1/85 2/25/93 58 FR 11373 VR120±02±05A ...... VariancesÐGeneral ...... 2/1/85 2/25/93 58 FR 11373 VR120±02±09 ...... Appeals ...... 2/1/85 2/25/93 58 FR 11373 VR120±02±12 ...... Procedural information and guid- 2/1/85 2/25/93 ance. 58 FR 11373 Appendix E ...... Public Participation Guidelines ..... 2/1/85 2/25/93 58 FR 11373 Appendix F ...... Delegation of Authority ...... 2/1/85 2/25/93 58 FR 11373 VR120±02±14B ...... Considerations for Approval Ac- 2/1/85 2/25/93 Codified at 52.2465(c)(74) VA has tions. 58 FR 11373 formally requested that this pro- vision be removed from the SIP. EPA will review in a separate action.
Chapter 30 Ambient Air Quality Standards [Part III]
5±30±10 ...... General ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±03±01. eral Register cite] 5±30±20 ...... Particulate Matter (TSP) ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±03±02. eral Register cite] 5±30±30 ...... Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±03±03. eral Register cite] 5±30±40 ...... Carbon Monoxide 4/17/95 ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±03±04. eral register cite] 5±30±50 ...... Ozone ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±03±05. eral Register cite] 5±30±60 ...... Particulate Matter (PM10) ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±03±06. eral Register cite] 5±30±70 ...... Nitrogen Dioxide ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±03±07. eral Register cite] 5±30±80 ...... Lead ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±03±08. eral Register cite]
Chapter 40 Existing Stationary Sources [Part IV] Part I Special Provisions
5±40±10 ...... Applicability ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±01. eral Register cite] 5±40±20 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±02. eral Register cite] 5±40±21 ...... Compliance Schedules ...... 7/1/97 [Insert publication date and Fed- Appendix N. eral Register cite] 5±40±22 ...... Interpretation of Emissions Stand- 7/1/97 [Insert publication date and Fed- Appendix Q. ards Based on Process Weight- eral Register cite] Rate Tables.
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±30 ...... Emission Testing ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±03. eral Register cite] 5±40±40 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±04. eral Register cite] 5±40±41 ...... Emission Monitoring Procedures 7/1/97 [Insert publication date and Fed- Appendix J. for Existing Sources. eral Register cite] 5±40±50 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 7/1/97 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±05. ing. eral Register cite]
Part II Emission Standards Article 1 Visible Emissions and Fugitive Dust/Emissions [Rule 4±1]
5±40±60 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0101. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±70 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0102. eral Register cite] 5±40±80 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0103. eral Register cite] 5±40±90 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0104. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±100 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0105. eral Register cite] 5±40±110 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0106. eral Register cite] 5±40±120 ...... Waivers ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0107. eral Register cite]
Article 4 General Process Operations [Rule 4±4]
5±40±240 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0401. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±250 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0402. eral Register cite] 5±40±260 ...... Standard for Particulate Mat- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0403. ter(AQCR 1±6). eral Register cite] 5±40±270 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0404. (AQCR 7). eral Register cite] 5±40±280 ...... Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0405. eral Register cite] 5±40±300 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/1/96 3/12/97 Compounds. 62 FR 11332 5±40±310A.±E ...... Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide ...... 1/1/93 4/28/99 120±04±0408. 64 FR 22792 5±40±311 ...... Reasonably available control tech- 7/1/97 4/28/99 52.2420(c)(132); Exceptions: nology guidelines for stationary 64 FR 22792 311C.3.a, C.3.c, D. sources of nitrogen dioxide. 5±40±320 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0409. eral Register cite] 5±40±330 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0410. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±360 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0413 eral Register cite] 5±40±370 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0414. eral Register cite] 5±40±380 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0415. eral Register cite] 5±40±390 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0416. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±400 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0417. eral Register cite] 5±40±410 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0418. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±420 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0419. eral Register cite]
Article 5 Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturing Operations [Rule 4±5]
5±40±430 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0501. Affected Facility. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±440 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0502. eral Register cite] 4±40±450 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0503. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±460 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0504. eral Register cite] 5±40±470 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0505. eral Register cite] 5±40±480 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0506. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±510 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0509. eral Register cite] 5±40±520 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0510. eral Register cite] 5±40±530 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0511. eral Register cite] 5±40±540 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0512. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±550 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0513 eral Register cite] 5±40±560 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0514. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±570 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0515. eral Register cite]
Article 6 Rubber Tire Manufacturing Operations [Rule 4±6]
5±40±580 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0601. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±590 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0602. eral Register cite] 5±40±600 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0603. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±610 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0604. eral Register cite] 5±40±620 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0605. eral Register cite] 5±40±630 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0606. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±660 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0609. eral Register cite] 5±40±670 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0610. eral Register cite] 5±40±680 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0611. eral Register cite] 5±40±690 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0612. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±700 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0613. eral Register cite] 5±40±710 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±614. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±720 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0613. eral Register cite]
Article 7 Incinerators [Rule 4±7]
5±40±730 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0701. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±740 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0702. eral Register cite] 5±40±750 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0703. eral Register cite] 5±40±760 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0704. eral Register cite] 5±40±770 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0705. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±800 ...... Prohibition of Flue-Fed Inciner- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0708. ators. eral Register cite] 5±40±810 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0709. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±820 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0710. eral Register cite] 5±40±830 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0711. eral Register cite] 5±40±840 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0712. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±850 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0713. eral Register cite] 5±40±860 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0714. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±870 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0715. eral Register cite]
Article 8 Fuel Burning Equipment [Rule 4±8]
5±40±880 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0801. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±890 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0802. eral Register cite] 5±40±900 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0803. eral Register cite] 5±40±910 ...... Emission Allocation System ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0804. eral Register cite] 5±40±920 ...... Determination of Collection Equip- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0805. ment Efficiency Factor. eral Register cite] 5±40±930 ...... Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0806. eral Register cite] 5±40±940 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0807. eral Register cite] 5±40±950 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0808. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±980 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0811. eral Register cite] 5±40±990 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0812. eral Register cite] 5±40±1000 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0813. eral Register cite] 5±40±1010 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0814. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±1020 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0815. eral Register cite] 5±40±1030 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0816. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±1040 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0817. eral Register cite]
Article 9 Coke Ovens [Rule 4±9]
5±40±1050 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0901. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±1060 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0902. eral Register cite] 5±40±1070 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0903. eral Register cite] 5±40±1080 ...... Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0904. eral Register cite] 5±40±1090 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0905. eral Register cite] 5±40±1100 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0906. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±1130 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0909. eral Register cite] 5±40±1140 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0910. eral Register cite] 5±40±1150 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0911. eral Register cite] 5±40±1160 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0912. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±1170 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0913. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±1180 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0914. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±1190 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±0915. eral Register cite]
Article 10 Asphalt Concrete Plants [Rule 4±10]
5±40±1200 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1001. Affected Family. eral Register cite] 5±40±1210 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1002. eral Register cite] 5±40±1220 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1003. eral Register cite] 5±40±1230 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1004. eral Register cite] 5±40±1240 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1005. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±1270 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1008. eral Register cite] 5±40±1280 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1009. eral Register cite] 5±40±1290 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1010. eral Register cite] 5±40±1300 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1011. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±1310 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1012. eral Register cite] 5±40±1320 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1013. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±1330 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1014. eral Register cite]
Article 11 Petroleum Refinery Operations [Rule 4±11]
5±40±1340 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1101. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±1350 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1102. eral Register cite] 5±40±1360 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1103. eral Register cite] 5±40±1370 ...... Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1104. eral Register cite] 5±40±1390 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1106. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±1400 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1107. eral Register cite] 5±40±1410 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1108. eral Register cite] 5±40±1420 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1109. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±1450 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1112. eral Register cite] 5±40±1460 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1113. eral Register cite] 5±40±1470 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1114. eral Register cite] 5±40±1480 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1115. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±1490 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1116. eral Register cite] 5±40±1500 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1117. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±1510 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1118. eral Register cite]
Article 12 Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Operations [Rule 4±12]
5±40±1520 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1201. Affected Facility. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±1530 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1202. eral Register cite] 5±40±1540 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1203. eral Register cite] 5±40±1550 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1204. eral Register cite] 5±40±1560 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1205. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±1590 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1208. eral Register cite] 5±40±1600 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1209. eral Register cite] 5±40±1610 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1210. eral Register cite] 5±40±1620 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1211. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±1630 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1212. eral Register cite] 5±40±1640 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1213. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±1650 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1214. eral Register cite]
Article 13 Kraft Pulp Mills [Rule 4±13]
5±40±1660 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1301. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±1670 ...... Definitions of cross recovery 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1302. Remaining defini- furnance, kraft pulp mill, lime eral Register cite] tions are federally enforceable kiln, recovery furnace, smelt dis- as part of the Section 111(d) solving tank. plan for kraft pulp mills (see, § 62.11610). 5±40±1680 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1303. eral Register cite] 5±40±1700 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1305. eral Register cite] 5±40±1710 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1306. eral Register cite] 5±40±1720 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1307. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±1750A ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1310A. Note: Sections 5± eral Register cite] 40±1750B. through D. are Reg- ister enforceable as part of the Section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills (see, § 62.11610). 5±40±1760 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1311. eral Register cite] 5±40±1770A ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1312A. Note: Sections 5± eral Register cite] 40±1770B. and C. are federally enforceable as part of the Sec- tion 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills (see, § 62.11610). 5±40±1780A ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1313A. Note: Sections 5± ing. eral Register cite] 40±1780B. through D. are fed- erally enforceable as part of the Section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills (see, § 62.11610). 5±40±1790 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1314. eral Register cite] 5±40±1800 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1315. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±1810 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1316. eral Register cite]
Article 14 Sand Gravel Processing Operations and Stone Quarrying and Processing Operations [Rule 4±14]
5±40±1820 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1401. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±1830 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1402. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±1840 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1403. eral Register cite] 5±40±1850 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1404. eral Register cite] 5±40±1860 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1405. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±1890 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1408. eral Register cite] 5±40±1900 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1409. eral Register cite] 5±40±1910 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1410. eral Register cite] 5±40±1920 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1411. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±1930 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1412. eral Register cite] 5±40±1940 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1413. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±1950 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1414. eral Register cite]
Article 15 Coal Preparation Plants [Rule 4±15]
5±40±1960 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1501. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±1970 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1502. eral Register cite] 5±40±1980 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1503. eral Register cite] 5±40±1990 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1504. eral Register cite] 5±40±2000 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1505. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±2030 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1508. eral Register cite] 5±40±2040 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1509. eral Register cite] 5±40±2050 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1510. eral Register cite] 5±40±2060 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1511. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±2070 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1512. eral Register cite] 5±40±2080 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1513. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±2090 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1514. eral Register cite]
Article 16 Portland cement Plants [Rule 4±16]
5±40±2100 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1601. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±2110 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1602. eral Register cite] 5±40±2120 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1603. eral Register cite] 5±40±2130 ...... Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1604. eral Register cite] 5±40±2140 ...... Standard for Visible emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1605. eral Register cite] 5±40±2150 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1606. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±2180 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1609. eral Register cite] 5±40±2190 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1610. eral Register cite] 5±40±2200 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1611. eral Register cite] 5±40±2210 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1612. ing. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±2220 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1613. eral Register cite] 5±40±2230 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1614. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±2240 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1615. eral Register cite]
Article 17 Woodworking Operations [Rule 4±17]
5±40±2250 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1701. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±2260 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1702. eral Register cite] 5±40±2270 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1703 eral Register cite] 5±40±2280 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1704. eral Register cite] 5±40±2290 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1705. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±2320 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1708. eral Register cite] 5±40±2330 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±4±1709. eral Register cite] 5±40±2340 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1710. eral Register cite] 5±40±2350 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1711. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±2360 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1712. eral Register cite] 5±40±2370 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1713. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±2380 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1714. eral Register cite]
Article 18 Primary and Secondary Metal Operations [Rule 4±18]
5±40±2390 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1801. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±2400 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1802. eral Register cite] 5±40±2410 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1803. eral Register cite] 5±40±2420 ...... Standard for Sulfur Oxides ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1804. eral Register cite] 5±40±2430 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1805. eral Register cite] 5±40±2440 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1806. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±2470 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1809. eral Register cite] 5±40±2480 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1810. eral Register cite] 5±40±2490 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1811. eral Register cite] 5±40±2500 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1812. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±2510 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1813. eral Register cite] 5±40±2520 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1814. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±2530 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1815. eral Register cite]
Article 19 Lightweight Aggregate Process Operations [Rule 4±19]
5±40±2540 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1901. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±2541 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1902. eral Register cite] 5±40±2542 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1903. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±2543 ...... Standard for Sulfur Oxides ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1904. eral Register cite] 5±40±2544 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1905. eral Register cite] 5±40±2590 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1906. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±2620 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1909. eral Register cite] 5±40±2630 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1910. eral Register cite] 5±40±2640 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1911. eral Register cite] 5±40±2650 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1912. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±2660 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1913. eral Register cite] 5±40±2670 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1914. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±2680 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±1915. eral Register cite]
Article 20 Feed Manufacturing Operations [Rule 4±20]
5±40±2690 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2001. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±2700 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2002. eral Register cite] 5±40±2710 ...... Standard for Particulate Matter ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2003. eral Register cite] 5±40±2720 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2004. eral Register cite] 5±40±2730 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2005. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±2760 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2008. eral Register cite] 5±40±2770 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2009. eral Register cite] 5±40±2780 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2010. eral Register cite] 5±40±2790 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2011. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±2800 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2012. eral Register cite] 5±40±2810 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2013. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±2820 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2014. eral Register cite]
Article 21 Sulfuric Acid Production Plants [Rule 4±21]
5±40±2830 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2101. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±2840 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2102. eral Register cite] 5±40±2850 ...... Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2103. eral Register cite] 5±40±2870 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2105. eral Register cite] 5±40±2880 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2106. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±2910 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2109. eral Register cite] 5±40±2920 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2110. eral Register cite] 5±40±2930 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2111. eral Register cite] 5±40±2940 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2112. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±2950 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2113. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±2960 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2114. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±2970 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2115. eral Register cite]
Article 22 Sulfur Recovery Operations [Rule 4±22]
5±40±2980 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2201. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±2990 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2202. eral Register cite] 5±40±3000 ...... Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2203. eral Register cite] 5±40±3010 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2204. eral Register cite] 5±40±3020 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2205. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±3050 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2208. eral Register cite] 5±40±3060 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2209. eral Register cite] 5±40±3070 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2210. eral Register cite] 5±40±3080 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2211. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±3090 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2212. eral Register cite] 5±40±3100 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2213. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±3110 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2214. eral Register cite]
Article 23 Nitric Acid Production Units [Rule 4±23]
5±40±3120 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2301. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±3130 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2302. eral Register cite] 5±40±3140 ...... Standard for Nitrogen Oxides ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2303. eral Register cite] 5±40±3150 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2304. eral Register cite] 5±40±3160 ...... Standard fof Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2305. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±3190 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2308. eral Register cite] 5±40±3200 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2309. eral Register cite] 5±40±3210 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2310. eral Register cite] 5±40±3220 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2311. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±3230 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2312. eral Register cite] 5±40±3240 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2313. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±3250 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2314. eral Register cite]
Article 24 Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations [Rule 4±24]
5±40±3260 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/1/97 11/3/99 Affected Facility. 64 FR 59635 5±40±3270 ...... Definitions ...... 4/1/97 11/3/99 64 FR 59635 5±40±3280 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/1/97 11/3/99 Compounds. 64 FR 59635 5±40±3290 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/1/97 11/3/99 64 FR 59635 5±40±3300 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/1/97 11/3/99 64 FR 59635
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±3310 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/1/97 11/3/99 sions. 64 FR 59635 5±40±3340 ...... Compliance ...... 4/1/97 11/3/99 64 FR 59635 5±40±3350 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/1/97 11/3/99 64 FR 59635 5±40±3360 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/1/97 11/3/99 64 FR 59635 5±40±3370 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/1/97 11/3/99 ing. 64 FR 59635 5±40±3380 ...... Registration ...... 4/1/97 11/3/99 64 FR 59635 5±40±3390 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/1/97 11/3/99 Maintenance or Malfunction. 64 FR 59635 5±40±3400 ...... Permits ...... 4/1/97 11/3/99 64 FR 59635
Article 25 Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Transfer Operations [Rule 4±25]
5±40±3410 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2501. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±3420 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2502. eral Register cite] 5±40±3430 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2503. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±3440 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2504. eral Register cite] 5±40±3450 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2505. eral Register cite] 5±40±3460 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2506. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±3490 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2509. eral Register cite] 5±40±3500 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2510. eral Register cite] 5±40±3510 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2511. eral Register cite] 5±40±3520 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2512. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±3530 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2513. eral Register cite] 5±40±3540 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2514. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±3550 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2515. eral Register cite]
Article 26 Large Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±26]
5±40±3560 ...... Applicability and Desgination of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2601. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±3570 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2602. eral Register cite] 5±40±3580 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2603. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±3590 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2604. eral Register cite] 5±40±3600 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2605. eral Register cite] 5±40±3610 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2606. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±3640 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2609. eral Register cite] 5±40±3650 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2610. eral Register cite] 5±40±3660 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2611. eral Register cite] 5±40±3670 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2612. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±3680 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2613. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±3690 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2614. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±3700 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2615. eral Register cite]
Article 27 Magnet Wire Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±27]
5±40±3710 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2701. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±3720 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2702. eral Register cite] 5±40±3730 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2703. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±3740 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2704. eral Register cite] 5±40±3750 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2705. eral Register cite] 5±40±3760 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2706. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±3790 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2709. eral Register cite] 5±40±3800 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2710. eral Register cite] 5±40±3810 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2711. eral Register cite] 5±40±3820 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2712. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±3830 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2713. eral Register cite] 5±40±3840 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2714. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±3850 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2715. eral Register cite]
Article 28 Automobile and Light Duty Truck Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±28]
5±40±3860 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2801. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±3870 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2802. eral Register cite] 5±40±3880 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2803. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±3890 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2804. eral Register cite] 5±40±3900 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2805. eral Register cite] 5±40±3910 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2806. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±3940 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2809. eral Register cite] 5±40±3950 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2810. eral Register cite] 5±40±3960 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2811. eral Register cite] 5±40±3970 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2812. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±3980 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2813. eral Register cite] 5±40±3990 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2814. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±4000 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2815. eral Register cite]
Article 29 Can Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±29]
5±40±4010 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2901. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±4020 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2902. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±4030 ...... Standards for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2903. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±4040 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2904. eral Register cite] 5±40±4050 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2905. eral Register cite] 5±40±4060 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2906. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±4090 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2909. eral Register cite] 5±40±4100 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2910. eral Register cite] 5±40±4110 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2911. eral Register cite] 5±40±4120 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2912. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±4130 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2913. eral Register cite] 5±40±4140 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±2914. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite]
Article 30 Metal Coil Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±30]
5±40±4160 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3001. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±4170 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3002. eral Register cite] 5±40±4180 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3003. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±4190 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3004. eral Register cite] 5±40±4200 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3005. eral Register cite] 5±40±4210 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3006. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±4240 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3009. eral Register cite] 5±40±4250 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3010. eral Register cite] 5±40±4260 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3011. eral Register cite] 5±40±4270 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3012. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±4280 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3013. eral Register cite] 5±40±4290 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3014. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±4300 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3015. eral Register cite]
Article 31 Paper and Fabric Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±31]
5±40±4310 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3101. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±4320 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3102. eral Register cite] 5±40±4330 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3103. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±4340 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3104. eral Register cite] 5±40±4350 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3105. eral Register cite] 5±40±4360 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3106. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±4390 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3109. eral Register cite] 5±40±4400 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3110. eral Register cite] 5±40±4410 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3111. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±4420 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3112. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±4430 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3113. eral Register cite] 5±40±4440 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3114. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±4450 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3115. eral Register cite]
Article 32 Vinyl Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±32]
5±40±4460 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3201. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±4470 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3202. eral Register cite] 5±40±4480 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3203. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±4490 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3204. eral Register cite] 5±40±4500 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3205. eral Register cite] 5±40±4510 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3206. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±4540 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3209. eral Register cite] 5±40±4550 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3210. eral Register cite] 5±40±4560 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3211. eral Register cite] 5±40±4570 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3212. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±4580 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3213. eral Register cite] 5±40±4590 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3214. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±4600 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3215. eral Register cite]
Article 33 Metal Furniture Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±33]
5±40±4610 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3301. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±4620 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3302 eral Register cite] 5±40±4630 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3303. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±4640 ...... Control Technology ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3304. eral Register cite] 5±40±4650 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3305. eral Register cite] 5±40±4660 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3306. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±4690 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3309. eral Register cite] 5±40±4700 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3310. eral Register cite] 5±40±4710 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3311. eral Register cite] 5±40±4720 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3312. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±4730 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3313. eral Register cite] 5±40±4740 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3314. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±4750 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3315. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
Article 34 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±34]
5±40±4760 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3401. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±4770 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3402. eral Register cite] 5±40±4780 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3403. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±4790 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3404. eral Register cite] 5±40±4800 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3405. eral Register cite] 5±40±4810 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3406. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±4840 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3409. eral Register cite] 5±40±4850 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3410. eral Register cite] 5±40±4860 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3411. eral Register cite] 5±40±4870 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3412. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±4880 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3413. eral Register cite] 5±40±4890 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3414. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±4900 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3415. eral Register cite]
Article 35 Flatwood Paneling Coating Application Systems [Rule 4±35]
5±40±4910 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3501. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±4920 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3502. eral Register cite] 5±40±4930 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3503. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±4940 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3504. eral Register cite] 5±40±4950 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3505. eral Register cite] 5±40±4960 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3506. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±4990 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3509. eral Register cite] 5±40±5000 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3510. eral Register cite] 5±40±5010 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3511. eral Register cite] 5±40±5020 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3512. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±5030 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3513. eral Register cite] 5±40±5040 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3514. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±5050 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3515. eral Register cite]
Article 36 Graphic Arts Printing Process [Rule 4±36]
5±40±5060 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/1/96 3/12/97 § 52.2465(c)(113)(i)(B)(4) Affected Facility. 62 FR 11334 5±40±5070 ...... Definitions ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±5080 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/1/96 3/12/97 Compounds. 62 FR11334 5±40±5090 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±5100 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/1/96 3/12/97 sions. 62 FR 11334
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±5130 ...... Compliance ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±5140 ...... Test Methods and Procedure ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±5150 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±5160 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/1/96 3/12/97 ing. 62 FR 11334 5±40±5170 ...... Registration ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±5180 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/1/96 3/12/97 Maintenance or Malfunction. 62 FR 11334 5±40±5190 ...... Permits ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334
Article 37 Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations [Rule 4±37]
5±40±5200 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3701. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±5210 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3702. eral Register cite] 5±40±5220 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3703. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±5230 ...... Control Technology Guidelines ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3704. eral Register cite] 5±40±5240 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3705. eral Register cite] 5±40±5250 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3706. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±5280 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3709. eral Register cite] 5±40±5290 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3710. eral Register cite] 5±40±5300 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3711. eral Register cite] 5±40±5310 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3712. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±5320 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3713. eral Register cite] 5±40±5330 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3714. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±40±5340 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3715. eral Register cite]
Article 38 Dry Cleaning Systems [Rule 4±38]
5±40±5350 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3801. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±5360 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3802. eral Register cite] 5±40±5370 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3803. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±5380 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3804. eral Register cite] 5±40±5490 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3805. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±5420 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3808. eral Register cite] 5±40±5430 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3809. eral Register cite] 5±40±5440 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3810. eral Register cite] 5±40±5450 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3811. ing. eral Register cite] 5±40±5460 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3812. eral Register cite] 5±40±5470 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3813. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
Article 39 Asphalt Paving Operations [Rule 4±39]
5±40±5490 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3901. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±5500 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3902. eral Register cite] 5±40±5510 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3903. Compounds. eral Register cite] 5±40±5520 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3904. eral Register cite] 5±40±5530 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3905. sions. eral Register cite] 5±40±5560 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3908. eral Register cite] 5±40±5570 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3909. eral Register cite] 5±40±5580 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3910. eral Register cite] 5±40±5590 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±3911. ing. eral Register cite]
Article 40 Open Burning [Rule 4±40]
5±40±5600 ...... Applicability ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 Provisions of Article 40 are appli- 62 FR 11332 cable only in Northern Va and Richmond Emissions Control Areas as defined in 9 VAC 5± 20±206. 5±40±5610 ...... Definitions of ``refuse'', ``household 4/1/96 3/12/97 refuse'', ``clean burning waste'', 62 FR 11332 ``landfill'', ``local landfill'', ``sani- tary landfill'', ``special inciner- ation device''. 5±40±5610 ...... All definitions not listed above ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±4002. eral Register cite] 5±40±5620 ...... Open Burning Prohibitions ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11332 5±40±5630 ...... Permissible Open Burning ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11332 5±40±5631 ...... Forest Management and Agricul- 7/1/97 3/12/97 Former Appendix D, Effective 4/1/ tural Practices. 62 FR 11332 96.
Article 41 Mobile Sources [Rule 4±41]
5±40±5650 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±4101. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±40±5660 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±4102. eral Register cite] 5±40±5670 ...... Motor Vehicles ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±4103. eral Register cite] 5±40±5680 ...... Other Mobile Sources ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±4104. eral Register cite] 5±40±5690 ...... Export/Import of Motor Vehicles ... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±04±4105. eral Register cite]
Article 45 Lithographic Printing Processes
5±40±7800 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/1/96 3/12/97 Affected Facility. 62 FR 11334 5±40±7810 ...... Definitions of ``alcohol'', ``cleaning 4/1/96 3/12/97 solution'', fountain solution'', 62 FR 11334 ``lithographic printing'', ``print- ing'', ``printing process''. 5±40±7820 ...... Standard for Volatile Organic 4/1/96 3/12/97 Compounds. 62 FR 11334 5±40±7840 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±7850 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust Emis- 4/1/96 3/12/97 sions. 62 FR 11334
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±40±7880 ...... Compliance ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±7890 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±7900 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±7910 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/1/96 3/12/97 ing. 62 FR 11334 5±40±7920 ...... Registration ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334 5±40±7930 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/1/96 3/12/97 Maintenance and Malfunction. 62 FR 11334 5±40±7940 ...... Permits ...... 4/1/96 3/12/97 62 FR 11334
Chapter 50 New and Modified Stationary Sources [Part V] Part I Special Provisions
5±50±10 ...... Applicability ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±01. eral Register cite] 5±50±20 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±02. eral Register cite] 5±50±30 ...... Performance Testing ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±03. eral Register cite] 5±50±40 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±04. eral Register cite] 5±50±50 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±05. ing. eral Register cite]
Part II Emission Standards Article 1 Visible Emissions and Fugitive Dust/Emissions [Rule 5±1]
5±50±60 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0101. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±50±70 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0102. eral Register cite] 5±50±80 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0103. eral Register cite] 5±50±90 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0104. sions. eral Register cite] 5±50±100 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0105. eral Register cite] 5±50±110 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0106. eral Register cite] 5±50±120 ...... Waivers ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0107. eral Register cite]
Article 4 Stationary Sources [Rule 5±4]
5±50±240 ...... Applicability and Designation of 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0401. Affected Facility. eral Register cite] 5±50±250 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0402. eral Register cite] 5±50±260 ...... Standard for Stationary Sources .. 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0403. eral Register cite] 5±50±270 ...... Standard for Major Stationary 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0404. Sources (Nonattainment Areas). eral Register cite] 5±50±280 ...... Standard for Major Stationary 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0405. Sources (Prevention of signifi- eral Register cite] cant Deterioration Areas). 5±50±290 ...... Standard for Visible Emissions ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0406. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±50±300 ...... Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emis- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0407. sions. eral Register cite] 5±50±330 ...... Compliance ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0410. eral Register cite] 5±50±340 ...... Test Methods and Procedures ..... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0411 eral Register cite] 5±50±350 ...... Monitoring ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0412 eral Register cite] 5±50±360 ...... Notification, Records and Report- 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0413 ing. eral Register cite] 5±50±370 ...... Registration ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0414 eral Register cite] 5±50±380 ...... Facility and Control Equipment 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0415. Maintenance or Malfunction. eral Register cite] 5±50±390 ...... Permits ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±05±0416. eral Register cite]
Chapter 70 Air Pollution Episode Prevention [Part VII]
5±70±10 ...... Applicability ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±07±01. eral Register cite] 5±70±20 ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±07±02. eral Register cite] 5±70±30 ...... General ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±07±03. eral Register cite] 5±70±40 ...... Episode Determination ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±07±04. eral Register cite] 5±70±50 ...... Standby Emission Reduction 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±07±05. Plans. eral Register cite] 5±70±60 ...... Control Requirements ...... 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±07±06. eral Register cite] 5±70±70 ...... Local Air Pollution Control Agency 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±07±07. Participation. eral Register cite]
Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII]
5±80±10/Article 6.... New and Modified Stationary 4/17/95 [Insert publication date and Fed- 120±08±01 Sources. eral Register cite] 10A ...... Applicability ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01A. eral Register cite] 10B ...... Definitions ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01B. eral Register cite] 10C. (Exc.C.1.b ...... General ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01C. (Exec.C.1.b. eral Register cite] 10D ...... Applications ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01D. eral Register cite] 10E ...... Information required ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01E. eral Register cite] 10F ...... Action on permit application ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01F. eral Register cite] 10G ...... Public participation ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01G.; Exceptions: 10.G.1 and eral Register cite] .01G.4.b. VR120±08±01C.1.a; Public Participation public recodi- 4/31/81; 5/4/82 47 FR 19134; recodified 2/ See § 52.2423(o). .01C.4.b through fied hearing requirements for recodified 25/93, 58 FR 11373 .d. major modifications. 2/1/85 10H.2. and 10H.3 ... Standards for granting permits ..... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01H.2. and 01H.3. eral Register cite] 10I.1. and 10I.3 ...... Application review and analysis .... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01I.1. and 01I.3. eral Register cite] 10J ...... Compliance determination and 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01J. verification by performance test- eral Register cite] ing. 10K ...... Permit invalidation, revocation and 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01K. enforcement. eral Register cite] 10L ...... Existence of permit no defense .... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01L. eral Register cite] 10M ...... Compliance with local zoning re- 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 01M. quirements. eral Register cite] 10N ...... Reactivation and permanent shut- 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- N. down. eral Register cite]
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State citation (9 State effec- VAC 5) Title/subject tive date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation]
10O Transfer of permits ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- O. eral Register cite] 10P Circumvention ...... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- P. eral Register cite] 5±80±11 Stationary source permit exemp- 7/1/97 Insert publication date and Fed- Appendix R. tion levels. eral Register cite] 5±80±40 Permits-operating (all sections) .... 4/17/95 Insert publication date and Fed- 120±08±04 (§ 52.2465(c)(94). eral Register cite]
Article 8 Permits-Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas
5±80±1700 Applicability ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1710 Definitions ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1720 General ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1730 Ambient Air Increments ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1740 Ambient Air Ceilings ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1750 Applications ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1760 Compliance with Local Zoning 1/1/97 3/23/98 Requirements. 63 FR 13795 5±80±1770 Compliance Determination and 1/1/97 3/23/98 Verification by Performance 63 FR 13795 Testing. 5±80±1780 Stack Heights ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1790 Review of Major Stationary 1/1/97 3/23/98 Sources and Major Modifica- 63 FR 13795 tionsÐSource Applicability and Exemptions. 5±80±1800 Control Technology Review ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1810 Source Impact Analysis ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1820 Air Quality Models ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1830 Air Quality Analysis ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1840 Source Information ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1850 Additional Impact Analysis ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1860 Sources Impacting Federal Class 1/1/97 3/23/98 I AreasÐAdditional Require- 63 FR 13795 ments. 5±80±1870 Public Participation ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1880 Source Obligation ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1890 Environmental Impact Statements 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1900 Disputed Permits ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1910 Interstate Pollution Abatement ..... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1920 Innovative Control Technology ..... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1930 Reactivation and Permanent 1/1/97 3/23/98 Shutdown. 63 FR 13795 5±80±1940 Transfer of Permits ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795 5±80±1950 Permitt Invalidation, Revocation, 1/1/97 3/23/98 and Enforcement. 63 FR 13795 5±80±1960 Circumvention ...... 1/1/97 3/23/98 63 FR 13795
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±80±1970 ...... Review and Confirmation of this 1/1/97 3/23/98 Chapter by Board. 63 FR 13795
Article 9 PermitsÐMajor Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Nonattainment Areas 120±08±03.
5±80±2000 ...... Applicability ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- 03A. (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2010 ...... Definitions ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03B (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2020 ...... General ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03C (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2030 ...... Applications ...... 1/1/93 .03D (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 5±80±2040 ...... Information required ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03E (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Registercite] 5±80±2050 ...... Standards/conditions for granting 1/1/93 [Insert publications date and Fed- .03F (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). permits. 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2060 ...... Action on permit application ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03G (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2070 ...... Public Participation ...... 1/1/83 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03H (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2080 ...... Compliance determination and 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03I. (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). verification by performance test- 4/1/99 eral Register cite] ing. 5±80±2090 ...... Application review and analysis .... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03J (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2100 ...... Circumvention ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03K (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2110 ...... Interstate pollution abatement ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03L (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2120 ...... Offsets ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03M (9/21/99), 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2130 ...... De minimis increases and sta- 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03N (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). tionary source modification al- 4/1/99 eral Register cite] ternatives for ozone nonattain- ment areas classified as serious or severe in 9 VAC 5±20±204. 5±80±2140 ...... Exception ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03O (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2150 ...... Compliance with local zoning re- 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03P (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). quirements. 4/1/99 eral Registercite] 5±80±2160 ...... Reactivation and Permit Shutdown 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03Q (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2170 ...... Transfer of Permits ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03R (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2180 ...... Revocation of permit ...... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03S (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite] 5±80±2190 ...... Existence of permit no defense .... 1/1/93 [Insert publication date and Fed- .03T (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 4/1/99 eral Register cite]
Chapter 91 Regulations for the Control of Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Northern Virginia Area Part I Definitions
5±91±10 ...... General ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±20 ...... Terms Defined ...... 1/1/98 9/1/99 ExceptionÐ``Northern Virginia pro- 64 FR 47670 gram area'' does not include Fauquier County.
Part II General Provisions
5±91±30 ...... Applicability and authority of the 1/24/97 9/1/99 department. 64 FR 47670
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±91±50 ...... Documents Incorporated by Ref- 1/24/97 9/1/99 erence. 64 FR 47670 5±91±60 ...... Hearings and Proceedings ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±70 ...... Appeal of Case Decisions ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±80 ...... Variances ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±90 ...... Right of entry ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±100 ...... Conditions on approvals ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±110 ...... Procedural information and guid- 1/24/97 9/1/99 ance. 64 FR 47670 5±91±120 ...... Export and import of motor vehi- 1/24/97 9/1/99 cles. 64 FR 47670 5±91±130 ...... Relationship of state regulations to 1/24/97 9/1/99 federal regulations. 64 FR 47670 5±91±140 ...... Delegation of authority ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±9±150 ...... Availability of information ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part III Emission Standards for Motor Vehicle Air Pollution
5±91±160 ...... Exhaust emission standards for 1/24/97 9/1/99 two-speed idle testing in en- 64 FR 47670 hanced emissions inspection programs. 5±91±170 ...... Exhaust emission standards for 1/24/97 9/1/99 ASM testing in enhanced emis- 64 FR 47670 sions inspection programs. 5±91±180 ...... Exhaust emission standards for 1/24/97 9/1/99 on-road testing through remote 64 FR 47670 sensing. 5±91±190 ...... Emissions control systems stand- 1/24/97 9/1/99 ards. 64 FR 47670 5±91±200 ...... Evaporative emissions standards 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±210 ...... Visible emissions standards ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part IV Permitting and Operation of Emissions Inspection Stations
5±91±220 ...... General provisions ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±230 ...... Applications ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±240 ...... Standards and conditions for per- 1/24/97 9/1/99 mits. 64 FR 47670 5±91±250 ...... Action on permit application ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±260 ...... Emissions inspection station per- 1/24/97 9/1/99 mits, categories. 64 FR 47670 5±91±270 ...... Permit renewals ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±280 ...... Permit revocation, surrender of 1/24/97 9/1/99 materials. 64 FR 47670 5±91±290 ...... Emission inspection station oper- 1/24/97 9/1/99 ations. 64 FR 47670 5±91±300 ...... Emissions inspection station 1/24/97 9/1/99 records. 64 FR 47670 5±91±310 ...... Sign and permit posting ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±320 ...... Equipment and facility require- 1/24/97 9/1/99 ments. 64 FR 47670 5±91±330 ...... Analyzer system operation ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±340 ...... Motor vehicle inspection report; 1/24/97 9/1/99 certificate of emission inspection. 64 FR 47670
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
5±91±350 ...... Data media ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±360 ...... Inspection number and access 1/24/97 9/1/99 code usage. 64 FR 47670 5±91±370 ...... Fleet emissions inspection sta- 1/24/97 9/1/99 tions; mobile fleet emissions in- 64 FR 47670 spection stations.
Part V Emissions Inspector Testing and Licensing
5±91±380 ...... Emissions inspector licenses and 1/24/97 9/1/99 renewals. 64 FR 47670 5±91±390 ...... Qualification requirements for 1/24/97 9/1/99 emissions inspector licenses. 64 FR 47670 5±91±400 ...... Conduct of emissions inspectors .. 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part VI Inspection Procedures
5±91±410 ...... General ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±420 ...... Inspection procedure; rejection, 1/24/97 9/1/99 pass, fail, waiver. 64 FR 47670 5±91±430 ...... ASM test procedure ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±440 ...... Two-speed idle test procedure ..... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 4±91±450 ...... Fuel test evaporative pressure test 1/24/97 9/1/99 and gas cap pressure test pro- 64 FR 47670 cedure. 4±91±460 ...... Fuel system evaporative purge 1/24/97 9/1/99 test procedure. 64 FR 47670 5±91±470 ...... Short test standards for warranty 1/24/97 9/1/99 eligibility. 64 FR 47670 5±91±480 ...... Emissions related repairs ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±490 ...... Engine and fuel changes ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part VII Vehicle Emissions Repair Facility Certification
5±91±500 ...... Applicability and Authority ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±510 ...... Certification Qualifications ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±520 ...... Expiration, reinstatement, renewal, 1/24/97 9/1/99 and requalification. 64 FR 47670 5±91±530 ...... Emissions repair facility operations 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±540 ...... Sign Posting ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part VIII Emissions Repair Technician Certification and Responsibilities
5±91±550 ...... Applicability and authority ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±560 ...... Certification qualifications for 1/24/97 9/1/99 emissions repair technicians. 64 FR 47670 5±91±570 ...... Expiration, reinstatement, renewal 1/24/97 9/1/99 and requalification. 64 FR 47670 5±91±580 ...... Certified emissions repair techni- 1/24/97 9/1/99 cian responsibilities. 64 FR 47670
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
Part IX Enforcement Procedures
5±91±590 ...... Enforcement of regulations, per- 4/2/97 9/1/99 mits, licenses, certifications and 64 FR 47670 orders. 5±91±600 ...... General enforcement process ...... 4/2/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±600 ...... General enforcement process ...... 4/2/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±610 ...... Consent orders and penalties for 4/2/97 9/1/99 violations. 64 FR 47670 5±91±620 ...... Major violations ...... 4/2/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±630 ...... Minor violations ...... 4/2/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part X Analyzer System Certification and Specifications for Enhanced Emissions Inspections Programs
5±91±640 ...... Applicability ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±650 ...... Design goals ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±660 ...... Warranty; service contract ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±670 ...... Owner provides services ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±680 ...... Certification of analyzer systems .. 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±690 ...... Span gases; gases for calibration 1/24/97 9/1/99 purposes. 64 FR 47670 5±91±700 ...... Calibration of exhaust gas ana- 1/24/97 9/1/99 lyzers. 64 FR 47670 5±91±710 ...... Upgrade of analyzer system ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part XI Manufacturer Recall
5±91±720 ...... Vehicle manufacturer recall ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±730 ...... Exemptions; temporary extensions 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part XII On-Road Testing
5±91±740 ...... General Requirements ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±750 ...... Operating Procedures; violation of 1/24/97 9/1/99 standards. 64 FR 47670 5±91±760 ...... Schedule of civil charges ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part XIII Federal Facilities
5±91±770 ...... General requirements ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±780 ...... Proof of compliance ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
Part XIV ASM Exhaust Emission Standards
5±91±790 ...... ASM start-up standards ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670 5±91±800 ...... ASM final standards ...... 1/24/97 9/1/99 64 FR 47670
VerDate 18
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE VIRGINIA SIPÐContinued
State ef- State citation Title/subject fective EPA approval date Explanation [Former SIP citation] (9 VAC 5) date
Chapter 160 General Conformity Rules 1/24/97 Part I General Definitions
5±160±10 ...... General ...... 1/24/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±20 ...... Terms Defined ...... 1/24/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585
Part II General Provisions
5±160±30 ...... Applicability...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±40 ...... Authority of Board and department 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±50 ...... Establishment of regulations and 1/2/97 10/21/97 orders. 62 FR 54585 5±160±60 ...... Enforcement of regulations and 1/1/97 10/21/97 order. 62 FR 54585 5±160±70 ...... Hearings and proceedings ...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±80 ...... Relationship of state regulations to 1//97 10/21/97 federal regulations. 62 FR 54585 5±160±90 ...... Appeals ...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±100 ...... Availability of information ...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585
Part III Criteria and Procedures for Making Conformity Determinations
5±160±110 ...... General ...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 § 52.2465(c)(118). 62 FR 54585 5±160±120 ...... Conformity analysis ...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±130 ...... Reporting requirements ...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±140 ...... Public participation ...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±150 ...... Frequency of conformity deter- 1/1/97 10/21/97 minations. 62 FR 54585 5±160±160 ...... Criteria for determining conformity 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±170 ...... Procedures for conformity deter- 1/1/97 10/21/97 minations. 62 FR 54585 5±160±180 ...... Mitigation of air quality impacts .... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±190 ...... Savings provision ...... 1/1/97 10/21/97 62 FR 54585 5±160±200 ...... Review and confirmation of this 1/1/97 10/21/97 chapter by board. 62 FR 54585
Chapter 200 National Low Emission Vehicle Program
5±200±10 ...... Definitions ...... 4/14/99 12/28/99 SIP Effective Date: 2/28/00. 64 FR 72564 5±200±20 ...... Participation in national LEV ...... 4/14/99 12/28/99 SIP Effective Date: 2/28/00. 64 FR 72564 5±200±30 ...... Transition from national LEV re- 4/14/99 12/28/99 SIP Effective Date: 2/28/00. quirements to a Virginia Sec. 64 FR 72564 177 program.
2 VAC 5ÐChapter 480 Regulation Governing the Oxygenation of Gasoline
5±480±20 Applicability ...... 11/1/96 2/17/00 SIP Effetive Date: 4/3/00. 65 FR
VerDate 18
(d) EPA approved State Source- Specific Requirements.
EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Permit/order or reg- State effec- Source name istration number tive date EPA approval date 40 CFR part 52 citation
Norfolk Naval Base-Exchange Service Station ...... [NONE] 8/6/79 8/17/81 52.2465(c)(41). 46 FR 41499 Reynolds Metal Co.ÐRolling Mill ...... DSE±597±87 9/30/87 8/20/90 52.2465(c)(92). 55 FR 33904 Aqualon (Hercules) Company ...... 50363 9/26/90 11/1/91 52.2465(c)(93). 56 FR 56159 Nabisco Brands, Inc ...... DTE±179±91 4/24/91 3/6/92 52.2465(c)(95). 57 FR 8080 Burlington Industries ...... 30401 11/19/91 3/18/92 52.2465(c)(96). 57 FR 9388 Reynolds Metals Co.ÐBellwood ...... DSE±413A±86 10/31/86 6/13/96 52.2465(c)(110). 61 FR 29963 Reynolds Metals Co.ÐSouth ...... DSE±412A±86 Philip Morris, Inc.ÐBended Leaf Facility ...... 50080 2/27/86 10/14/97 52.2465(c)(120). 62 FR 53277 Philip Morris, Inc.ÐPark 500 Facility ...... 50722 3/26/97 Philip Morris, Inc.ÐRichmond Manufacturing Center ...... 50076 7/13/96 Virginia Electric and Power Co.ÐInnsbrook Technical 50396 5/30/96 Center. Hercules, Inc.ÐAqualon Division ...... V±0163±96 7/12/96 City of HopewellÐRegional Wastewater Treatment Facil- 50735 5/30/96 ity. Allied Signal, Inc.ÐHopewell Plant ...... 50232 3/26/97 10/14/97 52.2465(c)(121). 62 FR 53277 Allied Signal, Inc.ÐChesterfield Plant ...... V±0114±96 5/20/96 Bear Island Paper Co. L.P ...... V±135±96 7/12/96 Stone Container Corp.ÐHopewell Mill ...... 50370 5/30/96 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co.ÐSpruance Plant ...... V±0117±96 5/30/96 10/14/97 52.2465(c)(121). 62 FR 53277 ICI Americas Inc.ÐFilms DivisionÐHopewell Site ...... 50418 5/30/96 Tuscarora, Inc ...... 71814 6/5/96 1/22/99 52.2465(c)(128). 64 FR 3425
(e) [Reserved] throughput. This approval action will available for inspection at the following [FR Doc. 00–9535 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] incorporate these rules into the locations: BILLING CODE 6560±50±P federally-approved SIP. The intended Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air effect of approving these rules is to Division, U.S. Environmental regulate emissions of PM in accordance Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION with the requirements of the Clean Air Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA AGENCY Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA). Thus, 94105. EPA is finalizing the approval of these Environmental Protection Agency, Air 40 CFR Part 52 rules into the California SIP under Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, [CA 031±0174a; FRL±6580±3] provisions of the CAA regarding EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., action on SIP submittals, SIPs for Washington, DC 20460. Approval and Promulgation of national primary and secondary ambient California Air Resources Board, Implementation Plans; California State air quality standards, and plan Stationary Source Division, Rule Implementation Plan Revision, Lake requirements for attainment and Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street, County Air Quality Management nonattainment areas. Sacramento, CA 95812. District and San Joaquin Valley Unified Lake County Air Quality Management DATES: Air Pollution Control District This rule is effective on June 20, District, 883 Lakeport Boulevard, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA Lakeport, CA 95453. AGENCY: Environmental Protection receives relevant adverse comments by Agency (EPA). San Joaquin Valley Unified Air May 22, 2000. If EPA receives such Pollution Control District, 1990 East ACTION: Direct final rule. comments, then it will publish a timely Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726. withdrawal in the Federal Register SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al EPA is taking direct final informing the public that this rule will Petersen, Rulemaking Office, (AIR–4), action on revisions to the California not take effect. State Implementation Plan. The Air Division, U.S. Environmental revisions concern rules from the ADDRESSES: Comments must be Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 following: Lake County Air Quality submitted in writing to Andrew Steckel Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA Management District (LCAQMD) and at the Region IX office listed below. 94105, Telephone: (415) 744–1135. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Copies of the rules and EPA’s evaluation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). report for the rules are available for The rules control particulate matter public inspection at EPA’s Region IX I. Applicability (PM) emissions from open burning or office during normal business hours. The rules being approved into the processes identified by a weight rate Copies of the submitted rules are California SIP include: LCAQMD
VerDate 18
Section (Rule) 226.5, Fire Season-Burn sources of PM–10. Section 189(b) of the strengthen or maintain the SIP’s control Ban; LCAQMD Section (Rule) 431.5, CAA requires serious nonattainment strategy. (Non-Agricultural Burning); LCAQMD areas to adopt best available control The statutory provisions relating to Section (Rule) 433, (Exemption- measures (BACM) for significant sources RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT are Residential); Lake County Section (Rule) of PM–10, including best available discussed in EPA’s ‘‘General Preamble,’’ 1150, Wildland Vegetation Management control technology (BACT). Therefore, which give the Agency’s preliminary Burning; and SJVUAPCD Rule 4202, SJVUAPCD must at a minimum meet views on how EPA intends to act on Particulate Matter-Emission Rate. These the requirements of RACM. SJVUAPCD SIPs submitted under Title I of the CAA. rules were submitted by the California must also adopt BACM. However, EPA See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), 57 FR Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on is deferring decision on the specific 18070 (April 28, 1992) and 59 FR 41998 July 23, 1999, March 26, 1990, March BACM requirements until EPA acts on (August 16, 1994). In this rulemaking 10, 1998, February 7, 1989, and SJVUAPCD’s BACM plan 2 at a later date action, EPA is applying these policies to September 28, 1994, respectively. and will evaluate the rule by the this submittal, taking into consideration requirements of RACM. II. Background the specific factual issues presented. In response to section 110(a) and part EPA previously reviewed rules from On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated D of the Act, the State of California LCAQMD and SJVUAPCD and a list of total suspended particulate submitted many PM–10 rules for incorporated them into the federally (TSP) nonattainment areas under the incorporation into the California SIP, approved SIP pursuant to section provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act, including the rules being acted on in 110(k)(3) of the CAA. that included the San Joaquin Valley Air this document. This document There is currently no version of Basin (43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305). On addresses EPA’s direct-final action for LCAQMD Section (Rule) 226.5, Fire July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672) EPA replaced the following: Season-Burn Ban, in the SIP. This is a the TSP standards with new PM LCAQMD Sections (Rules) 226.5, new rule that strengthens the SIP by standards applying only to PM up to 10 431.5, 433, and 1150 were adopted prohibiting open burning from June 1 microns in diameter (PM–10).1 On September 13, 1988, June 13, 1989, July through the end of the fire season. November 15, 1990, amendments to the 15, 1997, and December 6, 1988, On October 23, 1989, EPA approved 1977 CAA were enacted (Public Law respectively; submitted by the State of into the SIP a version of LCAQMD 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 California for incorporation into the SIP Section (Rule) 431.5, (Non-Agricultural U.S.C. 7401–7671q). On the date of on July 23, 1999, March 26, 1990, March Burning). Submitted Section (Rule) enactment of the 1990 CAA 10, 1998, and February 7, 1989, 431.5 replaces the SIP-approved rule Amendments, PM–10 areas meeting the respectively; and found to be complete and includes the following significant qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria change that strengthens the SIP: the Act were designated nonattainment that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, • Extends the prohibition against by operation of law and classified as appendix V 3 on August 24, 1999, June non-agricultural open burning from June moderate or serious pursuant to section 20, 1990, May 21, 1998, and May 5, 1 to the end of the fire season to include 188(a). Lake County was not among the 1989, respectively. No-Burn Days designated by the APCO areas designated nonattainment. On SJVUAPCD Rule 4202, Particulate or by the CARB. February 8, 1993, EPA classified four Matter-Emission Rate, was adopted On October 23, 1989, EPA approved nonattainment areas as serious December 17, 1992, submitted by the into the SIP a version of LCAQMD nonattainment, including the San State of California for incorporation into Section (Rule) 433, (Non-Agricultural Joaquin Valley Planning Area, which the SIP on September 28, 1994, and Burning). Submitted Section (Rule) 433 now comprises the SJVUAPCD. found to be complete on November 22, replaces the SIP-approved rule and Section 189(a) of the CAA requires 1994. includes the following significant moderate and above PM–10 PM emissions can harm human health change that strengthens the SIP: nonattainment areas to adopt reasonably and the environment. These rules were • Adds a prohibition against using available control measures (RACM), adopted as part of LCAQMD and ‘‘burn barrels’’ for residential open including reasonably available control SJVUAPCD efforts to maintain the burning. technology (RACT) for stationary National Ambient Air Quality Standard There is currently no version of (NAAQS) for PM–10. The following is LCAQMD Section (Rule) 1150, Wildland 1 On July 18, 1997 EPA promulgated revised and EPA’s evaluation and final action for Vegetation Management Burning, in the new standards for PM–10 and PM–2.5 (62 FR SIP. This is a new rule that strengthens 38651). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. these rules. Circuit in American Trucking Assoc., Inc., et al. v. the SIP by regulating wildland USEPA, No. 97–1440 (May 14, 1999) issued an III. EPA Evaluation and Action vegetation management burning, opinion that, among other things, vacated the new In determining the approvability of a including requiring a burn plan for over standards for PM–10 that were published on July PM–10 rule, EPA must evaluate the rule 20 acres. 18, 1997 and became effective September 16, 1997. However, the PM–10 standards promulgated on July for consistency with the requirements of On various dates, EPA approved into 1, 1987 were not an issue in this litigation, and the the CAA and EPA regulations, as found the SIP versions of Particulate Matter- Court’s decision does not affect the applicability of in section 110 and part D of the CAA Emission Rate rules for the eight those standards in this area. Codification of those counties that now comprise the standards continue to be recorded at 40 CFR 50.6. and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for In the notice promulgating the new PM–10 Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of SJVUAPCD. Submitted Rule 4202, standards, the EPA Administrator decided that the Implementation Plans). EPA must also Particulate Matter-Emission Rate, previous PM–10 standards that were promulgated ensure that rules are enforceable and replaces these rules and includes no on July 1, 1987, and provisions associated with them, would continue to apply in areas subject to significant changes from the SIP the 1987 PM–10 standards until certain conditions 2 The present submittal of the SJVUAPCD PM–10 versions from the eight counties. EPA specified in 40 CFR 50.6(d) are met. See 62 FR at Attainment Demonstration Plan, May 15, 1997, has determined that submitted Rule 38701. EPA has not taken any action under 40 CFR must be revised in order to be approved by EPA. 3 4202 meets the requirements of RACM. 50.6(d) for this area. Today’s proposed action EPA adopted the completeness criteria on EPA has evaluated the submitted relates only to the CAA requirements concerning February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to the PM–10 standards as originally promulgated in section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria rules and has determined that they are 1987. on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216). consistent with the CAA, EPA
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
(2) Section (Rule) 1150, adopted on EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on significantly or uniquely affect small December 6, 1988. April 21, 2000. governments or impose a significant * * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: intergovernmental mandate, as (179) * * * Laurie Ostrand, EPA, Region VIII, (303) described in sections 203 and 204 of (i) * * * 312–6437. UMRA. This rule also does not (F) * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: significantly or uniquely affect the (2) Section (Rule) 431.5, adopted on Throughout this document wherever communities of tribal governments, as June 13, 1989. ‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean EPA. specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 * * * * * Our December 6, 1999 (64 FR 68034) FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will (199) * * * rulemaking indicated that on November not have substantial direct effects on the (i) * * * 3, 1995 (60 FR 55792) we approved States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or (D) * * * revisions to Montana’s prevention of (7) Rule 4202, adopted on December on the distribution of power and significant deterioration (PSD) 17, 1992. responsibilities among the various regulations. With the November 3, 1995 levels of governments, as specified by * * * * * document we inadvertently codified the Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, (254) * * * revisions into 40 CFR 52.1320(c)(42) in August 10, 1999). This rule also is not (i) * * * lieu of CFR 52.1370(c)(42). Our (J) * * * subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR December 6, 1999 document indicated (2) Sections (Rules) 433, adopted on 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not that we were removing these revisions July 15, 1997. economically significant. from 40 CFR 52.1320(c)(42) and adding This technical correction action does * * * * * them to 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(42). (268) * * * not involve technical standards; thus However, when we published the (i) * * * the requirements of section 12(d) of the (C) Lake County Air Quality December 6, 1999 rule, we did not National Technology Transfer and Management District. realize that on June 29, 1999 (64 FR Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. (1) Section (Rule) 226.5, adopted on 34717) 40 CFR 52.1320 had been 272 note) do not apply. The rule also September 13, 1988. redesignated as 40 CFR 52.1322. does not involve special consideration Therefore, our December 6, 1999 * * * * * of environmental justice related issues document should have removed 40 CFR [FR Doc. 00–9650 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] as required by Executive Order 12898 52.1322(c)(42) and not 40 CFR (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In BILLING CODE 6560±50±P 52.1320(c)(42). issuing this rule, EPA has taken the Section 553 of the Administrative necessary steps to eliminate drafting Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION errors and ambiguity, minimize provides that, when an agency for good AGENCY potential litigation, and provide a clear cause finds that notice and public legal standard for affected conduct, as 40 CFR Part 52 procedure are impracticable, required by section 3 of Executive Order unnecessary or contrary to the public 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). [SIP NOS. MT±001±0012; MT±001±0013; interest, the agency may issue a rule EPA has complied with Executive Order MT±001±0014; MT±001±0015 FRL±6582±4] without providing notice and an 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by opportunity for public comment. We Approval and Promulgation of Air examining the takings implications of have determined that there is good Quality Implementation Plans; the rule in accordance with the cause for making today’s rule final Montana; Emergency Episode Plan, ‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental without prior proposal and opportunity Columbia Falls, Butte and Missoula Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk for comment because we are merely Particulate Matter State and Avoidance of Unanticipated correcting an incorrect citation in a Implementation Plans, Missoula Takings’’ issued under the executive previous action. Thus, notice and public Carbon Monoxide State order. This rule does not impose an procedure are unnecessary. We find that Implementation Plan; Correction information collection burden under the this constitutes good cause under 5 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 AGENCY: Environmental Protection U.S.C. 553(b)(B). U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act (5 Agency (EPA). Administrative Requirements ACTION: Direct final rule; correction. U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement SUMMARY: The EPA published in the (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Federal Register on December 6, 1999, action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory that before a rule may take effect, the a document that, among other things, action’’ and is therefore not subject to agency promulgating the rule must approved updates to Montana’s State review by the Office of Management and submit a rule report, which includes a Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to Budget. Because the agency has made a copy of the rule, to each House of the the Emergency Episode Plan; Columbia ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action is Congress and to the Comptroller General Falls, Butte and Missoula Particulate not subject to notice-and-comment of the United States. Section 808 allows Matter [particulate matter with an requirements under the Administrative the issuing agency to make a rule aerodynamic diameter less than or equal Procedure Act or any other statute as effective sooner than otherwise to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10)] indicated in the Supplementary provided by the CRA if the agency SIPS; and the Missoula Carbon Information section above, it is not makes a good cause finding that notice Monoxide (CO) Plan. In the December 6, subject to the regulatory flexibility and public procedure is impracticable, 1999, rule, EPA inadvertently provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility unnecessary or contrary to the public referenced an incorrect citation to Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), or to sections interest. This determination must be Missouri’s SIP in the Code of Federal 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. Regulations. EPA is correcting the Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA had citation with this document. 104–4). In addition, this action does not made such a good cause finding,
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Wood Products No. 1 are changed from receptor’s 5 year arithmetic mean preferable to other potentially effective 2.1 tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr, and from annual PM concentration exceeds the and reasonably feasible alternatives 0.140 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. annual PM standard of 50 µg/m3. considered by the Agency. For Jasper Laminates, Plant #1— Indiana’s modeling analysis indicated This rule is not subject to Executive Division of Kimball, the short-term limit that the highest arithmetic mean annual Order 13045 because it does not involve for boiler No. 1 was changed from 0.10 PM concentration predicted by the decisions intended to mitigate lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU and modeling for the Dubois County area environmental health or safety risks. µ 3 the limits for boiler #2 were changed to was 33.6 g/m . Therefore, the modeling C. Executive Order 13084 add limits of 0.2 tons/yr and 0.01 analysis predicts that the annual PM grains/dscf in addition to the NAAQS will be met. Under Executive Order 13084, EPA previously-existing limit of 0.003 lbs/ may not issue a regulation that is not IV. What Are the Environmental Effects MMBTU. For Jasper Cabinets required by statute, that significantly of This Action? Corporation, a new 6.7 MMBTU/hr affects or uniquely affects the Wood Boiler was added to the rule. This As stated above, the air quality communities of Indian tribal boiler has limits of 7.6 tons/yr and 0.60 modeling analysis conducted by IDEM governments, and that imposes lbs/MMBTU. The limits for Coal-Wood shows that the maximum daily and substantial direct compliance costs on Boiler No. 1 at Jasper Wood Products annual PM concentrations in Dubois those communities, unless the Federal were changed from 1.04 tons/yr to 9.0 County should stay below the NAAQS. government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance tons/yr and from 0.060 lbs/MMBTU to V. EPA Rulemaking Action 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. The limits for Coal- costs incurred by the tribal Wood Boiler No. 2 at Jasper Wood We are approving, through direct final governments, or EPA consults with Products were changed from 3.1 tons/yr rulemaking, revisions to particulate those governments. If EPA complies by to 9.0 tons/yr and from 0.070 lbs/ matter (PM) emissions regulations for consulting, Executive Order 13084 MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. Limits for Dubois County, Indiana. We are requires EPA to provide to the Office of Artec’s Wood Chip Boiler were changed publishing this action without prior Management and Budget, in a separately from 2.8 tons/yr to 12.0 tons/yr and proposal because we view this as a identified section of the preamble to the from 0.060 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/ noncontroversial revision and anticipate rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s MMBTU. no adverse comments. However, in a prior consultation with representatives separate document in this Federal of affected tribal governments, a III. Air Quality Modeling Analysis Register publication, we are proposing summary of the nature of their concerns, The general criteria used by the EPA to approve the SIP revision should and a statement supporting the need to to evaluate such emissions trades, or adverse written comments be filed. This issue the regulation. In addition, ‘‘bubbles’’, under the Clean Air Act and action will be effective without further Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to applicable regulations are set out in the notice unless we receive relevant develop an effective process permitting EPA’s Emissions Trading Policy adverse written comment by May 22. elected officials and other Statement (ETPS) (see 51 FR 43814). 2000. Should we receive such representatives of Indian tribal Emissions trades such as this, which comments, we will publish a final rule governments ‘‘to provide meaningful result in an overall increase in allowable informing the public that this action and timely input in the development of emissions, require a ‘‘Level III’’ will not take effect. Any parties regulatory policies on matters that modeling analysis under the ETPS to interested in commenting on this action significantly or uniquely affect their ensure that the National Ambient Air should do so at this time. If no such communities.’’ Quality Standards (NAAQS) will be comments are received, you are advised Today’s rule does not significantly or protected. A Level III analysis is a full that this action will be effective on June uniquely affect the communities of dispersion modeling analysis which 20, 2000. Indian tribal governments. This action must consider all sources affecting the VI. Administrative Requirements does not involve or impose any trade’s area of impact. requirements that affect Indian Tribes. The submitted modeling analysis A. Executive Order 12866 Accordingly, the requirements of includes emissions from all sources The Office of Management and Budget section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 with revised SIP limits, and uses a (OMB) has exempted this regulatory do not apply to this rule. conservative background concentration action from Executive Order 12866, D. Executive Order 13132 to account for other, nearby sources. entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and In the submitted modeling analysis, Review.’’ Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, which uses 5 years of meteorological 1999) revokes and replaces Executive data, a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS B. Executive Order 13045 Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 is indicated when six exceedances of Protection of Children from (Enhancing the Intergovernmental the 24-hour standard are predicted. Environmental Health Risks and Safety Partnership). Executive Order 13132 Each receptor’s predicted 6th highest Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires EPA to develop an accountable 24-hour value is, therefore, compared to applies to any rule that: (1) Is process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and the standard. The 24-hour PM standard determined to be ‘‘economically timely input by State and local officials is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/ significant’’ as defined under Executive in the development of regulatory m3). Indiana’s modeling indicated that Order 12866, and (2) concerns an policies that have federalism the highest, sixth highest predicted 24- environmental health or safety risk that implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have hour PM concentration at any receptor EPA has reason to believe may have a federalism implications’’ is defined in in the Dubois County area was 132.5 µg/ disproportionate effect on children. If the Executive Order to include m3. Thus, the modeling analysis the regulatory action meets both criteria, regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct predicts that the 24-hour NAAQS will the Agency must evaluate the effects on the States, on the relationship be protected. environmental health or safety effects of between the national government and A modeled violation of the annual PM the planned rule on children, and the States, or on the distribution of standard is indicated when any explain why the planned regulation is power and responsibilities among the
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
(i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana appointment with the appropriate office Register that will withdraw this final Administrative Code Title 326: Air at least 24 hours before the day of the action. EPA will address all public Pollution Control Board, Article 6: visit. comments received in a subsequent Particulate Rules, Rule 1: Environmental Protection Agency— final rule based on the parallel proposed Nonattainment Area Limitations, New England, Region 1, Air Permits rule published in today’s Federal Section 9: Dubois County. Added at 22 Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Register. EPA will not begin a second In. Reg. 423. Effective October 18, 1998. Suite 1100, One Congress Street, Boston, comment period on this action. Any [FR Doc. 00–9920 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Massachusetts 02114–2023. parties interested in commenting on this Connecticut Department of action should do so at this time. If EPA BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air receives no comments, this action will Management, Planning and Standards be effective June 20, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, EPA’s approval of CTDEP’s State Plan AGENCY Connecticut 06106–5127, (860) 424– is based on our findings that: 3026. (1) CTDEP provided adequate public 40 CFR Part 62 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John notice of public hearings for the [Docket No. CT±055±7214a; FRLÐ6577±3] Courcier at (617) 918–1659. proposed rule-making that allows SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Connecticut to carry out and enforce Approval and Promulgation of State provisions that are at least as protective Plans for Designated Facilities and Table of Contents as the EGs for large MWCs, and Pollutants: Connecticut; Plan for I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? (2) CTDEP demonstrated its legal II. When Did These Requirements First Controlling MWC Emissions From authority to adopt emission standards Existing MWC Plants Become Known? III. When Does the State Plan Become and compliance schedules applicable to AGENCY: Environmental Protection Effective? the designated facilities; enforce Agency (EPA). IV. What Happens to the Federal Plan After applicable laws, regulations, standards the Effective Date of the State Plan? and compliance schedules; seek ACTION: Direct final rule. V. Who Must Comply With the injunctive relief; obtain information Requirements? SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection necessary to determine compliance; VI. By What Date Must MWCs in Connecticut Agency (EPA) approves the sections require record keeping; conduct Achieve Compliance? inspections and tests; require the use of 111(d)/129 State Plan submitted by the VII. MWC Operators Must Control Which Connecticut Department of Pollutants? monitors; require emission reports of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) on VIII. What Emission Controls Are Necessary owners and operators; and make October 1, 1999. This State Plan To Achieve Compliance? emission data publicly available. implements and enforces provisions at IX. What Happens if an MWC Does Not/ II. When Did These Requirements First Cannot Meet the Requirements by the Final least as protective as the Emissions Become Known? Guidelines (EGs) applicable to existing Compliance Date? Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs) X. What Did the State Submit as Part of Its Some form of the EGs was first State Plan? published in the Federal Register in units with capacity to combust more XI. How Did the State Show That its Plan is than 250 tons/day of municipal solid Approvable? 1989. On December 19, 1995, according waste (MSW). XII. What is Connecticut’s Nitrogen Oxides to sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air DATES: This direct final rule is effective (NOX) Emissions Trading Program? Act (Act), the EPA published the current on June 20, 2000, without further notice XIII. Is Connecticut’s NOX Emissions Trading form of the EGs applicable to existing unless EPA receives significant, material Program Approvable? MWCs. The EGs are at 40 CFR part 60, and adverse comment by May 22, 2000. XIV. When Did EPA Publish the Rules? subpart Cb. See 60 FR 65387 and the XV. Why Does EPA Need to Approve State Background section. If EPA receives adverse comment, we Plans? will publish a timely withdrawal of the XVI. Administrative Requirements III. When Does the State Plan Become direct final rule in the Federal Register Effective? and inform the public that the rule will I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? not take effect. EPA is approving the above This direct final rule is effective on June 20, 2000, without further notice ADDRESSES: You should address your referenced State Plan. EPA is publishing written comments to: Mr. John Courcier, this approval action without a prior unless as explained under I. above, EPA Acting Manager, Air Permits Unit, proposal because the Agency views this receives adverse comment by May 22, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. as a noncontroversial action and 2000. EPA—New England, Region 1, One anticipates no adverse comments. IV. What Happens to the Federal Plan Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP), However, in the proposed rules section After the Effective Date of the State Boston, Massachusetts 02114–2023. of this Federal Register publication, Plan? Documents which EPA has EPA is publishing a separate document incorporated by reference are available that will serve as the proposal to The Federal Plan is an interim action. for public inspection at the Air and approve the State Plan should anyone On the effective date of this action, the Radiation Docket and Information file relevant adverse comments. If EPA Federal Plan will no longer apply to Center, Environmental Protection receives no significant, material, and MWC units covered by the State Plan. Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, adverse comments by May 22, 2000, this V. Who Must Comply With the DC 20460. You may examine relevant action will be effective June 20, 2000. Requirements? copies of materials the DEP submitted to If EPA receives significant, material, EPA during normal business hours at and adverse comments by the above The State Plan affects all MWCs: the following locations. The interested date, we will withdraw this action 1. With a combustion capacity greater persons wanting to examine these before the effective date by publishing a than 250 tons per day of municipal solid documents should make an subsequent document in the Federal waste (large MWC units), and
VerDate 18
2. Which commenced construction on Limitations; Compliance Schedule; compliance tests; (8) require the use of or before September 20, 1994 (existing MWC Emissions and MWC Plant/Unit monitors; (9) require emission reports; MWC units). Inventories; Procedures for Testing and and (10) make emissions data available CTDEP submitted its Plan after the Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants; to the public. Court of Appeals vacated 40 CFR part Source Surveillance, Compliance In Section III of the State Plan, CTDEP 60, subpart Cb as it applies to small Assurance and Enforcement; identifies a new regulation, Regulations MWC units. Thus, the Connecticut State Demonstration That the Public Had of Connecticut State Agencies (R.S.C.A.) Plan, as approved by EPA, covers only Adequate Notice and Opportunity to section 22a–174–38 for Municipal large, existing MWC units. Small and Submit Written Comments and Public Waste Combustors (Appendix A of the new units are not subject to the Hearing Summary; and applicable State Plan) and the part 70, Title V permit as requirements of subpart Cb and not regulations (CTDEP regulations section the enforceable mechanisms. EPA is subject to this approval. 22a–174–38). approving the standards and limitations The State excluded from the State under section 22a–174–38 for being at VI. By What Date Must MWCs in Plan the provision requiring compliance least as protective as the Federal Connecticut Achieve Compliance? with a mercury emission limit of 0.028 requirements contained in subpart Cb All existing large MWC units in the mg/dscm, or 85% reduction by weight. for existing large MWC units. state of Connecticut must comply with Accordingly, only the limit of 0.080 mg/ In its State Plan and MWC these emission standards by December dscm, or 85% reduction by weight is regulations, CTDEP established a 19, 2000. included in the State Plan. compliance schedule and legally Also, as part of its MWC regulations, enforceable increments of progress for VII. MWC Operators Must Control CT included a nitrogen oxides (NOX) each large MWC. EPA has reviewed and Which Pollutants? emissions trading program. Basically, approved this portion of the State Plan Subpart Cb regulates the following the program allows MWCs that for being at least as protective as Federal pollutants: particulate matter, opacity, commenced construction before requirements for existing large MWC sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, December 20, 1989, and therefore are units. oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, not subject to the NSPS, to use NOX In Section IV of the State Plan, CTDEP lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxin credits to comply with the NOX listed the five Designated Facilities that and dibenzofurans. emission limits of subsection (c) of the make up the MWC unit inventory for regulation. The regulation allows MWCs Connecticut. CTDEP also included a VIII. What Emission Controls Are constructed after December 20, 1989 to Table 2 in its Plan that contains the Necessary To Achieve Compliance? participate in the NOX credit trading emissions data for Connecticut’s MWCs. The basis for control of each pollutant program. However, such sources may EPA reviewed and approved this is as follows: not use credits to meet the NOX limits portion of the Plan as meeting the a. for PM, opac- GCP and SD/ESP/ but may only generate credits if Federal requirements for existing large ity, Cd, Pb, CI, or GCP and emissions are below the applicable MWC units. Although section 22a–174– and Hg SD/FF/CI; limits and lower than the source’s 38 regulates both existing MWCs and b. for dioxin/ GCP and SD/ESP, trading baseline. MWCs constructed after September 20, furan or GCP and SD/ The trading program regulations 1994, this action approves the State Plan FF; define the methodology and formulas only for the purpose of regulating c. for SO2 and GCP and SD/ESP, for determining, on a daily basis, the existing large MWC units. The HCl or GCP and SD/ quantity of credit that a unit generates provisions of section 22a–174–38 which FF; or uses, including the recordkeeping apply to new units (constructed after d. for NOX SNCR. and reporting requirements. The trading September 20, 1994) are not approved as program regulations define the trading part of the State Plan. GCP—good combustion practice baseline as well as the credit In Section V of the State Plan, CTDEP SD—spray dryer ESP—electrostatic precipitator quantification procedures. The program describes the emission limits and other FF—fabric filter regulations also define violations and requirements of R.S.C.A. Section 22a– CI—carbon injection penalty provisions for MWC sources 174–38. EPA has determined that the SNCR—selective noncatalytic that do not meet the NOX emission applicable requirements of Section 22a– reduction limits or fail to acquire sufficient credits 174–38 are at least as protective as the to meet the limits on a daily basis. EGs. IX. What Happens if an MWC Does Not/ In section V of the State Plan, CTDEP Cannot Meet the Requirements by the XI. How Did the State Show That Its states that section 22a–174–38(m) Final Compliance Date? Plan is Approvable? requires MWC owners and operators to Any existing large MWC unit that fails In section II of Connecticut’s Plan, comply with any compliance schedules. to meet the requirements by December CTDEP states that the Connecticut In section VII of the State Plan, 19, 2000 must shut down. The unit General Assembly has granted the CTDEP describes its legal authority to cannot start up until the owner/operator Commissioner of the CTDEP broad require owners and operators of installs the controls necessary to meet general authority to carry out his duties designated facilities to maintain records the requirements. to protect the environment. In addition, and report to the State the nature and this section documents the CTDEP’s amount of emissions and any other X. What Did the State Submit as Part of authority to: (1) Adopt emission information necessary to enable the Its State Plan? standards and compliance schedules; (2) State to judge the compliance status of The CTDEP submitted to EPA on enforce applicable laws, regulations, the affected facilities. Section 22a–174– October 1, 1999 the following sections standards and compliance schedules; (3) 38 differs significantly from the EGs in 111(d)/129 State Plan components for seek injunctive relief; (4) obtain that the State requires quarterly, rather carrying out and enforcing the EGs for information necessary to determine than semiannual, reports of instances in existing MWCs in the State: Legal compliance; (5) require recordkeeping; which an MWC exceeds emission Authority; Emission Standards and (6) conduct inspections; (7) conduct standards. CTDEP also cites its legal
VerDate 18
authority to provide periodic inspection XIII. Is Connecticut’s NOX Emissions Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d 1395 and testing and provisions for making Trading Program Approvable? (D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108 F.3d reports of MWC emissions data, In EPA’s guidelines, EPA allowed 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a result, correlated with applicable emission subparts Eb and Cb apply only to MWC states to include a NOX emission credit standards, available to the public. EPA units with individual capacity to trading program as part of the NOX reviewed and approved these State control portion of its MWC regulations. combust more than 250 tons/day of requirements for being at least as municipal solid waste (large MWC The guideline states that such NOX protective as the Federal requirements emissions trading must be approved by units). for existing large MWC units. EPA. In section VIII of the State Plan, XV. Why Does EPA Need To Approve EPA has reviewed subsection (d) of CTDEP describes the record of the State Plans? section 22a–174–38. EPA finds CT’s public hearing process. Appendix D of NO emissions trading program Under section 129 of the Act, EGs are the State Plan contains the pertinent X approvable as an emissions trading not federally enforceable. Section information. EPA reviewed and program for MWCs according to the 129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to approved this portion of the Plan as EPA’s EIP rules, 40 CFR part 51, subpart submit State Plans to EPA for approval. meeting the minimum Federal public Each state must show that its State Plan hearing requirements for a State Plan. 51.490 through 51.493. The regulations under section 22a–174–38(d) adequately will carry out and enforce the EGs. State In section IX of the State Plan, CTDEP Plans must be at least as protective as states it commitment to provide annual define the applicability of the program; the state program requirements, such as the EGs, and they become federally progress reports to EPA. The reports enforceable upon EPA’s approval. will include such things as the the program scope; source specific requirements, such as credit calculation The procedures for adopting and compliance status, enforcement actions, submitting State Plans are in 40 CFR increments of progress, identification of procedures, emissions monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and part 60, subpart B. EPA originally issued sources that have ceased operation or the subpart B provisions on November started operation, contingency plan compliance requirements; as well as the administrative requirements, schedule, 17, 1975. EPA amended subpart B on actions, any plan revisions, emission December 19, 1995, to allow the inventory information for sources that and the enforcement and penalty mechanisms. Additionally, CTDEP subparts developed under section 129 to have started operation, updated include specifications that supersede emission inventory and compliance currently conducts annual trading program audits which include an the general provisions in subpart B information, and copies of technical regarding the schedule for submittal of reports on all performance testing and accounting of the credits created and used by MWCs. Furthermore, EPA finds State Plans, the stringency of the monitoring, including concurrent emission limitations, and the process data. that the emissions quantification protocols for credit creation and use compliance schedules. See 60 FR 65414. XII. What is Connecticut’s Nitrogen under subsection (d)(4) are fully XVI. Administrative Requirements Oxides (NOX) Emissions Trading approvable as generic protocols for Program? A. Executive Order 12866 MWC units to create or use NOX credits. As part of the MWC control program In this way, upon approval of this The Office of Management and Budget regulations, CT included a nitrogen regulation, NOX credits created using (OMB) has exempted this regulatory oxides (NOX emissions trading program. the creation formula in that subsection action from Executive Order 12866, Basically, the program allows MWCs will be considered federally enforceable entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and that commenced construction before for other purposes under CT regulations, Review.’’ December 20, 1989, and therefore are e.g., for compliance with NO RACT X B. Executive Order 13132 not subject to the NSPS, to use NOX limits under section 22a–174–22. credits to comply with the NOX Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, emission limits of subsection (c) of the XIV. When Did EPA Publish the Rules? 1999) revokes and replaces Executive regulation. The regulation allows MWCs On December 19, 1995, according to Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 constructed after December 20, 1989 to sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air (Enhancing the Intergovernmental participate in the NOX credit trading Act (Act), EPA issued new source Partnership). Executive Order 13132 program. However, such sources may performance standards (NSPS) requires EPA to develop an accountable not use credits to meet the NOX limits applicable to new MWCs and emissions process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and but may only generate credits if guidelines (EGs) applicable to existing timely input by State and local officials emissions are below the applicable MWCs. The NSPS and EGs are codified in the development of regulatory limits and lower than the source’s at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Eb and Cb, policies that have federalism trading baseline. respectively. See 60 FR 65387. Subparts implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have The trading program regulations Cb and Eb regulate the following: federalism implications’’ is defined in define the methodology and formulas particulate matter, opacity, sulfur the Executive Order to include for determining, on a daily basis, the dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct quantity of credit that a unit generates nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, effects on the States, on the relationship or uses, including the recordkeeping cadmium, mercury, and dioxin and between the national government and and reporting requirements. The trading dibenzofurans. the States, or on the distribution of program regulations define the trading On April 8, 1997, the United States power and responsibilities among the baseline as well as the credit Court of Appeals for the District of various levels of government.’’ Under quantification procedures. The program Columbia Circuit vacated subparts Cb Executive Order 13132, EPA may not regulations also define violations and and Eb as they apply to MWC units with issue a regulation that has federalism penalty provisions for MWC sources capacity to combust less than or equal implications, that imposes substantial that do not meet the NOX emission to 250 tons/day of MSW (small MWCs), direct compliance costs, and that is not limits or fail to acquire sufficient credits consistent with its opinion in Davis required by statute, unless the Federal to meet the limits on a daily basis. County Solid Waste Management and government provides the funds
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) Dated: March 31, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION directs EPA to use voluntary consensus Mindy S. Lubber, AGENCY standards in its regulatory activities Regional Administrator, EPA New England. unless to do so would be inconsistent 40 CFR Part 62 40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows: with applicable law or otherwise [Docket# ID±02±0001; FRL±6580±6] impractical. Voluntary consensus PART 62Ð[AMENDED] standards are technical standards (e.g., Approval and Promulgation of materials specifications, test methods, 1. The authority citation for part 62 Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste sampling procedures, and business continues to read as follows: Incinerators State Plan for Designated practices) that are developed or adopted Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642. Facilities and Pollutants: Idaho by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Subpart HÐConnecticut AGENCY: Environmental Protection Congress, through OMB, explanations Agency (EPA). when the Agency decides not to use 2. Part 62 is amended by adding a ACTION: Direct final rule. available and applicable voluntary new § 62.1500 and a new undesignated SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of consensus standards. center heading to subpart H to read as Idaho’s section 111(d) State Plan for follows: In approving or disapproving state controlling emissions from existing plans under section 129 of the Clean Air Plan for the Control of Designated Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Act, EPA does not have the authority to Pollutants From Existing Facilities Incinerators (HMIWI). The plan was revise or rewrite the State’s rule, so the (Section 111(d) Plan) submitted on December 16, 1999, to Agency does not have authority to fulfill the requirements of sections require the use of particular voluntary § 62.1500 Identification of Plan. 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The consensus standards. Accordingly, EPA (a) Identification of Plan. Connecticut State Plan adopts and implements the has not sought to identify or require the Plan for the Control of Designated Emissions Guidelines applicable to State to use voluntary consensus Pollutants from Existing Plants (section existing HMIWIs, and establishes standards. Furthermore, Connecticut’s 111(d) Plan). emission limits and controls for sources Plan incorporates by reference test (b) The plan was officially submitted constructed on or before June 20, 1996. methods and sampling procedures for as follows: EPA has determined that Idaho’s State existing MWC units already established (1) Plan for Implementing the Plan meets CAA requirements and by the emissions guidelines for MWCs Municipal Waste Combustor Guidelines hereby approves this State Plan, thus at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb, and does and New Source Performance making it federally enforceable. not establish new technical standards Standards, submitted on October 1, DATES: This action will be effective on for MWCs. Therefore, the requirements 1999. June 20, 2000, without further notice, of the NTTAA are not applicable to this (c) Designated facilities. The plan unless EPA receives relevant adverse final rule. applies to existing sources, constructed comments by May 22, 2000. If EPA I. Petitions for Judicial Review on or before September 20, 1994, in the receives such comments, then it will following categories of sources: publish a timely withdrawal of the Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean (1) Existing municipal waste direct final rule in the Federal Register Air Act, petitions for judicial review of combustor units greater than 250 tons and inform the public that this rule will this action must be filed in the United per day. not take effect. States Court of Appeals for the ADDRESSES: Written comments should appropriate circuit by June 20, 2000. 3. Part 62 is amended by adding a new § 62.1501 and a new undesignated be addressed to: Catherine Woo, US Filing a petition for reconsideration by EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality the Administrator of this final rule does center heading to subpart H to read as follows: (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, not affect the finality of this rule for the Washington 98101. purposes of judicial review, nor does it Metals, Acid Gases, Organic Copies of materials submitted to EPA extend the time within which a petition Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide may be examined during normal for judicial review may be filed, and Emissions From Existing Municipal business hours at the following location: shall not postpone the effectiveness of Waste Combustor Units With the US EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality, such rule or action. This action may not Capacity To Combust Greater Than 250 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington be challenged later in proceedings to Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid Waste 98101. enforce its requirements. (See section § 62.1501 Identification of sources. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)). EPA Catherine Woo, US EPA, Region X, encourages interested parties to (a) The plan applies to the following Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 comment in response to the proposed existing municipal waste combustor Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington rule rather than petition for judicial facilities: 98101, (206) 553–1814. review, unless the objection arises after (1) Bridgeport RESCO in Bridgeport. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the comment period allowed for in the (2) Ogden Martin Systems of Bristol. Throughout this document, whenever proposal. (3) Resource Recovery Systems of we, us or our is used, this refers to EPA. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Mid-Connecticut in Hartford. Information regarding this action is (4) Riley Energy Systems of Lisbon. presented in the following order: Administrative practice and (5) American Ref-Fuel Company of I. EPA Action procedure, Air pollution control, Southeastern Connecticut in Preston. What action is EPA taking today? Environmental protection, (b) [Reserved] Why is EPA taking this action? Intergovernmental relations, Reporting Who is affected by Idaho’s State Plan? and recordkeeping requirements, sulfur [FR Doc. 00–9652 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] How does this approval affect sources oxides. BILLING CODE 6560±50±P located in Indian Country?
VerDate 18
How does this approval relate to the requirements. However, upon approval What Are the Requirements for a HMIWI Federal Plan? of Idaho’s State Plan, HMIWI facilities State Plan? II. Background within Idaho’s jurisdiction will be A section 111(d) State Plan submittal What is a State Plan? subject to Idaho’s State Plan as of the What is a HMIWI State Plan? must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Why are we requiring Idaho to submit a effective date of this action. part 60, subpart B, sections 60.23 HMIWI State Plan? II. Background through 60.26, and 40 CFR part 60, What are the requirements for a HMIWI subpart Ce. Subpart B contains the State Plan? What Is a State Plan? procedures for adoption and submittal III. Idaho’s State Plan Section 111 of the CAA, ‘‘Standards of of State Plans. This subpart addresses What is contained in the Idaho State Plan? public participation, legal authority, What approval criteria did we use to Performance for New Stationary evaluate Idaho’s State Plan? Sources,’’ authorizes us to set air emission standards and other emission IV. EPA Rulemaking Action emissions standards for certain limitations, compliance schedules, V. Administrative Requirements categories of sources. These standards emission inventories, source are called New Source Performance surveillance, and compliance assurance I. EPA Action Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is and enforcement requirements. EPA What Action Is EPA Taking Today? promulgated for new sources, section promulgated the EG as 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce on September 15, 1997. We are approving the State of Idaho’s 111(d) also requires that we publish an Subpart Ce contains the technical section 111(d) State Plan for controlling EG applicable to the control of the same requirements for existing HMIWI emissions from existing Hospital/ pollutant from existing (designated) sources and applies to sources that Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators facilities. States with designated commenced construction on or before (HMIWI). Idaho submitted its State Plan facilities must then develop a State Plan June 20, 1996. A State will generally on December 16, 1999, to fulfill the to adopt the EG into the State’s body of address the HMIWI technical requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 regulations. States must also include in requirements by adopting by reference of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The State their State Plan other elements, such as subpart Ce. The section 111(d) state Plan adopts and implements the inventories, legal authority, and public plan is required to be submitted within Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to participation documentation, to one year of the EG promulgation date, existing HMIWIs, and establishes demonstrate their ability to enforce the i.e., by September 15, 1998. Prior to emission limits and controls for sources State Plans. submittal to us, the State must make constructed on or before June 20, 1996. What Is a HMIWI State Plan? available to the public the State Plan This approval, once effective, will make An HMIWI State Plan is a State Plan and provide opportunity for public the Idaho HMIWI rules included in the (as described above) that controls air comment. plan federally enforceable. pollutant emissions from existing III. Idaho’s State Plan Why Is EPA Taking This Action? incinerators which burn hospital waste We have evaluated Idaho’s HMIWI or medical/infectious waste. What Is Contained in the Idaho State Plan? State Plan for consistency with the Why Are We Requiring Idaho To Submit CAA, EPA guidelines and policy. We a HMIWI State Plan? The State of Idaho submitted its have determined that Idaho’s State Plan section 111(d)/129 State Plan on When we developed NSPS for meets all requirements, and, therefore, December 16, 1999, for implementing HMIWIs, we simultaneously developed we are approving Idaho’s plan to EPA’s EG for existing HMIWIs. Idaho the EG to control air emissions from implement and enforce the standards adopted the EG requirements into existing HMIWIs (see 62 FR 48348– applicable to existing HMIWI. IDAPA 16.01.01.862 (effective 48391, September 15, 1997). Under November 19, 1999) entitled, ‘‘Emission Who Is Affected by Idaho’s State Plan? section 129 of the CAA, the EG are not Guidelines for HMIWI That Commenced Idaho’s State Plan regulates all the federally enforceable; therefore, section Construction Before June 20, 1996.’’ sources designated by EPA’s EG for 129 of the CAA also requires states to Idaho’s section 111(d) Plan contains: existing HMIWIs which commenced submit to EPA for approval State Plans (1) A demonstration of the State’s construction on or before June 20, 1996. that implement and enforce the EG. legal authority to implement the section If your facility meets this criteria, then These State Plans must be at least as 111(d) State Plan; you are subject to these regulations. protective as the EG, and they become (2) State Rules adopted into federally enforceable upon approval by 16.01.01.862 as the mechanism for How Does This Approval Affect Sources EPA. The procedures for adopting and implementing and enforcing the State Located in Indian Country? submitting State Plans are located in 40 Plan; Idaho’s State Plan does not cover CFR part 60, subpart B. If a State fails (3) Emission inventories of all Idaho’s facilities located in Indian Country. to have an approvable plan in place by applicable sources, which is Therefore, any sources located in Indian September 15, 1999, the EPA is required approximately fifteen existing HMIWIs. Country will be subject to the Federal to promulgate a Federal plan to In these inventories, all designated plan, once promulgated (see below). establish requirements for those sources pollutants have been identified and data not under an EPA-approved State Plan. have been provided for each; How Does This Approval Relate to the Even though EPA has not yet (4) Emission limits that are as Federal Plan? promulgated such a plan, Idaho’s State protective as the EG; The EPA plans to promulgate a Plan is still approvable since it was (5) Enforceable compliance schedules Federal Plan which will cover sources deemed at least as protective as the whereby all sources must comply with located in Indian Country and sources standards set in the EG. Idaho has all emission standards within one year for which there is no approved State developed and submitted a State Plan, from the effective date of the State Plan. Plan. Because there is no Federal Plan as required by section 111(d) of the The State Plan was effective December yet, existing HMIWI sources are not CAA, to gain federal approval to 16, 1999; therefore, final compliance currently subject to any federal implement and enforce the HMIWI EG. will be December 16, 2000;
VerDate 18
(6) Testing, monitoring, reporting and imposes no additional requirements and Avoidance of Unanticipated recordkeeping requirements for the beyond those imposed by state law. Takings’’ issued under the executive designated facilities; Accordingly, the Administrator certifies order. This rule does not impose an (7) Records for the public notice and that this rule will not have a significant information collection burden under the hearing; and economic impact on a substantial provisions of the Paperwork Reduction (8) Provisions for Idaho’s progress number of small entities under the Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). reports to EPA. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre- B. Submission to Congress and the What Approval Criteria Did We Use To existing requirements under state law Comptroller General Evaluate Idaho’s State Plan? and does not impose any additional The Congressional Review Act, 5 We reviewed Idaho’s HMIWI State enforceable duty beyond that required Plan for approval against the following by state law, it does not contain any U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small criteria: 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, unfunded mandate or significantly or Business Regulatory Enforcement sections 60.23 through 60.26; and 40 uniquely affect small governments, as Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides CFR part 60, subpart Ce, sections described in the Unfunded Mandates that before a rule may take effect, the 60.30(e) through 60.39(e). A detailed Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). agency promulgating the rule must discussion of our evaluation of Idaho’s For the same reason, this rule also does submit a rule report, which includes a State Plan is included in our technical not significantly or uniquely affect the copy of the rule, to each House of the support document located in the official communities of tribal governments, as Congress and to the Comptroller General file for this action and available from specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 of the United States. EPA will submit a the EPA contact listed above. We have FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will report containing this rule and other determined that Idaho’s HMIWI State not have substantial direct effects on the required information to the U.S. Senate, Plan meets all of the applicable States, on the relationship between the the U.S. House of Representatives, and approval criteria. national government and the States, or the Comptroller General of the United IV. EPA Rulemaking Action on the distribution of power and States prior to publication of the rule in responsibilities among the various the Federal Register. This rule is not a We are approving, through direct final levels of government, as specified in ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. rulemaking action, Idaho’s section Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 804(2). 111(d) and 129 State Plan for HMIWIs. August 10, 1999), because it merely EPA is publishing this action without approves a state rule implementing a C. Petitions for Judicial Review prior proposal because the Agency federal standard, and does not alter the Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean views this as a noncontroversial action relationship or the distribution of power and anticipates no adverse comments. and responsibilities established in the Air Act, petitions for judicial review of However, in the proposed rules section Clean Air Act. This rule also is not this action must be filed in the United of this Federal Register publication, subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR States Court of Appeals for the EPA is publishing a separate document 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not appropriate circuit by June 20, 2000. that will serve as the proposal to economically significant. Filing a petition for reconsideration by approve the Idaho State Plan should In reviewing State Plan submissions, the Administrator of this final rule does relevant adverse comments be filed. EPA’s role is to approve state choices, not affect the finality of this rule for the This action will be effective on June 20, provided that they meet the criteria of purposes of judicial review nor does it 2000, without further notice, unless the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the extend the time within which a petition EPA receives relevant adverse absence of a prior existing requirement for judicial review may be filed, and comments by May 22, 2000. for the State to use voluntary consensus shall not postpone the effectiveness of If EPA receives such comments, then standards (VCS), EPA has no authority such rule or action. This action may not it will publish a timely withdrawal in to disapprove a State Plan submission be challenged later in proceedings to the Federal Register informing the for failure to use VCS. It would thus be enforce its requirements. (See section public that this direct final rule will not inconsistent with applicable law for 307(b)(2).) take effect. All public comments EPA, when it reviews a State Plan List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 received will then be addressed in a submission, to use VCS in place of a subsequent final rule based on the State Plan submission that otherwise Environmental protection, proposed rule. EPA will not institute a satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air second comment period. Parties Administrative practice and procedure, Act. Thus, the requirements of section Air pollution control, Intergovernmental interested in commenting should do so 12(d) of the National Technology at this time. If no such comments are relations, Reporting and recordkeeping Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 requirements. received, the public is advised that this (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As rule will be effective on June 20, 2000, required by section 3 of Executive Order Dated: April 4, 2000. and no further action will be taken on 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), Chuck Clarke, the proposed rule. in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the Regional Administrator, Region 10. V. Administrative Requirements necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 40 CFR Part 62 of the Code of Federal A. General Requirements potential litigation, and provide a clear Regulations is amended as follows: Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is has complied with Executive Order PART 62Ð[AMENDED] not a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by and therefore is not subject to review by examining the takings implications of 1. The authority citation for Part 62 the Office of Management and Budget. the rule in accordance with the continues to read as follows: This action merely approves state law as ‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642. meeting federal requirements and Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
VerDate 18
Subpart NÐIdaho Oregon submitted a clarification to their unless EPA receives relevant adverse negative declaration, indicating one of comments by May 22, 2000. 2. Subpart N is amended by adding their sources to be a co-combustor, and If EPA receives such comments, then § 62.3110 and an undesignated center the rest to be crematories, both it will publish a timely withdrawal in heading to read as follows: categories which are considered exempt the Federal Register informing the * * * * * from this emission guideline (EG.) EPA public that this direct final rule will not is approving Oregon’s negative take effect. All public comments Metals, Acid Gases, Organic declaration. received will then be addressed in a Compounds, Particulates and Nitrogen subsequent final rule based on the DATES: This action will be effective on Oxide Emissions From Existing proposed rule. EPA will not institute a June 20, 2000 without further notice, Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste second comment period. Parties unless EPA receives relevant adverse Incinerators interested in commenting should do so comments by May 22, 2000. If EPA at this time. If no such comments are § 62.3110 Identification of plan. receives such comments, then it will received, the public is advised that this publish a timely withdrawal of the (a) The Idaho Division of rule will be effective on June 20, 2000 direct final rule in the Federal Register Environmental Quality submitted to the and no further action will be taken on and inform the public that this rule will Environmental Protection Agency a the proposed rule. State Plan for the control of air not take effect. emissions from Hospital/Medical/ ADDRESSES: Written comments should II. Why is Oregon Required to Submit Infectious Waste Incinerators on be addressed to: Catherine Woo, US a Negative Declaration? December 16, 1999. EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality Section 111 of the CAA, ‘‘Standards of (b) Identification of Sources: The (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Performance for New Stationary Idaho State Plan applies to all existing Washington 98101. Sources,’’ authorizes us to set air HMIWI facilities for which construction Copies of materials submitted to EPA emissions standards for certain was commenced on or before June 20, may be examined during normal categories of sources. These standards 1996, as described in 40 CFR part 60, business hours at the following location: are called New Source Performance subpart Ce. (This plan does not apply to US EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality, Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is facilities on tribal lands). 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington promulgated for new sources, Section (c) The effective date for the portion 98101. 111(d) also requires that we publish an of the plan applicable to existing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EG applicable to the control of the same Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Catherine Woo, US EPA, Region X, pollutant from existing (designated) Incinerators is June 20, 2000. Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 facilities. States with designated [FR Doc. 00–9648 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington facilities must then develop a State Plan BILLING CODE 6560±50±P 98101, (206) 553–1814. to adopt the EG into the State’s body of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulations. If a State does not have a Throughout this document, whenever particular designated facility located ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION we, us or our is used, this refers to EPA. within its boundaries, EPA requires that AGENCY Information regarding this action is a negative declaration be submitted in presented in the following order: lieu of a State Plan for that designated 40 CFR Part 62 I. What Action is EPA Taking Today? facility (see 40 CFR 62.06). Oregon does [Docket No. OR±03±0001; FRL±6580±9] II. Why is Oregon Required to Submit a not have any designated facilities within Negative Declaration? its boundaries, so it is required to Approval and Promulgation of State III. When Did the Requirements for Existing submit a negative declaration. Plans for Designated Facilities and HMIWIs First Become Known? IV. When Did Oregon Submit Its Negative III. When Did the Requirements for Pollutants: Oregon; Negative Existing HMIWIs First Become Known? Declaration Declaration? V. How Does This Approval Affect Sources On June 26, 1996 (see 61 FR 31736), AGENCY: Environmental Protection Located in Indian Country? EPA proposed HMIWIs as designated Agency (EPA). VI. Administrative Requirements facilities. EPA specified particulate ACTION: Direct final rule. matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, I. What Action is EPA Taking Today? hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, SUMMARY: EPA publishes regulations We are approving the State of carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the Oregon’s negative declaration of air mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans Clean Air Act (CAA) requiring states to emissions from HMIWIs. This negative as designated pollutants by proposing submit plans to EPA. These plans show declaration fulfills the requirements of Emission Guidelines (EG) for existing how states intend to control the Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA for HMIWIs. These guidelines were emissions of the designated pollutants existing HMIWIs. published in final form as 40 CFR Part from designated facilities. Federal EPA is publishing this action without 60, Subpart Ce, on September 15, 1997 regulations provide that when no such prior proposal because the Agency (see 62 FR 48348). designated facilities exist within a views this as a noncontroversial action state’s boundaries, the affected state and anticipates no adverse comments. IV. When Did Oregon Submit Its may submit a letter of ‘‘negative However, in the proposed rules section Negative Declaration? declaration’’ instead of a control plan. of this Federal Register publication, On October 20, 1998, the Oregon On October 20, 1998, the State of EPA is publishing a separate document Department of Environmental Quality Oregon submitted a negative declaration that will serve as the proposal to submitted a letter to us certifying that adequately certifying that there are no approve the Oregon negative declaration there are no existing HMIWIs subject to hospital/medical/infectious waste should relevant adverse comments be 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce. On incinerators (HMIWI) located within its filed. This action will be effective on November 8, 1998, Oregon sent a boundaries. On November 6, 1998, June 20, 2000 without further notice, clarifying letter to indicate exempt
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Metals, Acid Gases, Organic Clean Air Act Sections 112(g) and electric generator and generate Compounds, Particulates and Nitrogen 112(j). electricity. Oxide Emissions From Existing This definition does not cover a I. What Is the Background for This Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste stationary combustion turbine which Interpretative Rule Incinerators extracts shaft power from the Subpart B requires ‘‘case-by-case’’ combustion of fuel and spins an electric § 62.9515 Identification of SourcesÐ determinations of MACT for major generator to generate electricity. The Negative Declaration. sources constructed after June 29, 1998. combustion turbine does not extract On October 20, 1998, and November It appears that there is confusion heat to generate steam; in fact, there is 6, 1998, the Oregon Department of regarding the applicability of subpart B no steam generating unit at all in this Environmental Quality submitted a to new stationary combustion turbines example. Hence, the definition ‘‘electric letter certifying that there are no in some situations. This interpretative utility steam generating unit’’ does not existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious rule resolves this confusion by include stationary combustion turbines, Waste Incinerators in the State subject clarifying that all new stationary and such turbines are subject to case-by- to the Emission Guidelines under part combustion turbines, regardless of case MACT determinations. 60, subpart B, of this chapter. configuration, end use, or location, are The confusion surrounds combined [FR Doc. 00–10033 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] subject to subpart B, provided they also cycle systems. A combined cycle BILLING CODE 6560±50±P meet the definition of a major source. system, consistent with the meaning of Stationary combustion turbines were the word ‘‘combined,’’ is a combination included on the list of source categories of a stationary combustion turbine and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION under section 112(c)(5) of the Clean Air a waste heat recovery unit. AGENCY Act (CAA) for the development of In a combined cycle system, a emission standards, thus, EPA is combustion turbine extracts shaft power 40 CFR Part 63 currently developing national emission from the combustion of fuel and spins [AD±FRL±6582±3] standards for hazardous air pollutants an electric generator to generate (NESHAP) for this source category. electricity. The hot exhaust gases from National Emission Standards for Proposal of the NESHAP is anticipated the combustion turbine are then routed Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source in late 2000, with promulgation in early to a separate ‘‘waste heat recovery unit.’’ Categories 2002. The waste heat recovery unit extracts heat from the gases and generates steam AGENCY: Environmental Protection Electric utility steam generating units, for use in a steam turbine which, in Agency (EPA). on the other hand, are excluded from subpart B and the development of turn, provides shaft power to spin an ACTION: Interpretative rule. emission standards under section 112, electric generator and generate SUMMARY: This action clarifies that all unless or until such time as they are electricity. stationary combustion turbines are added to the source category list under The combustion turbine in a subject to the provisions of Subpart B— section 112(c)(5) of the CAA. Since, combined cycle system does not extract Requirements for Control Technology among other uses, stationary gas heat to generate steam. It is not a ‘‘steam Determinations for Major Sources in turbines may be used to generate generating unit,’’ and it is not an Accordance with Clean Air Act Sections electricity, confusion has arisen whether ‘‘electric utility steam generating unit.’’ 112(g) and 112(j) (i.e., case-by-case stationary combustion turbines used to New combustion turbines in combined maximum achievable control generate electricity are considered cycle systems, therefore, must undergo technology (MACT) determinations). ‘‘electric utility steam generating units.’’ case-by-case MACT determinations. The waste heat recovery unit in a DATES: Effective April 21, 2000. An ‘‘electric utility steam generating unit’’ is defined in subpart B as follows: combined cycle system, however, does FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For generate steam. It is an electric utility further information, contact Mr. Sims Electric utility steam generating unit means steam generating unit. New waste heat Roy, Combustion Group, Emission any fossil fuel fired combustion unit of more than 25 megawatts that serves a generator recovery units in combined cycle Standards Division (MD–13), U.S. systems, therefore, are excluded from Environmental Protection Agency, that produces electricity for sale. A unit that co-generates steam and electricity and subpart B (i.e., case-by-case MACT Research Triangle Park, North Carolina supplies more than one-third of its potential determination). 27711, telephone number: (919) 541– electric output capacity and more than 25 While new waste heat recovery units 5263, facsimile:(919) 541–5450, megawatts electric output to any utility in combined cycle systems are excluded electronic mail address: power distribution system for sale shall be from case-by-case MACT, in many cases [email protected]. considered an electric utility steam this is a moot point since they are not generating unit. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated an emission source. The sole emission entities. All new stationary combustion The phrase ‘‘steam generating unit’’ in source, in the type of combined cycle turbines, which meet the criteria for the term ‘‘electric utility steam system outlined above, is the major sources, are the regulated entities generating unit’’ is critical to combustion turbine. The emissions from addressed by this interpretative rule. understanding which types of the combustion turbine pass through the However, this interpretative rule does combustion units are covered by this waste heat recovery unit, but the waste not subject these entities to new or definition and which types are not. For heat recovery unit is not a source of additional rule requirements; it merely example, this definition clearly covers a additional emissions. resolves confusion which appears to conventional fossil fuel fired steam There is another type of combined exist in some cases over whether such generating unit (e.g., coal-fired boiler) cycle system, however, in which the sources are covered under 40 CFR part which extracts heat from the waste heat recovery unit does contribute 63, Subpart B—Requirements for combustion of fuel and generates steam additional emissions. In these types of Control Technology Determinations for for use in a steam turbine which, in combined cycle systems, fuel is burned Major Sources in Accordance with turn, provides shaft power to spin an in the duct, through the use of ‘‘duct
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 The General Services Administration 105–264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 U.S.C. 5701 note); 40 U.S.C. 486(c). Environmental protection, Air (GSA), after an analysis of additional emissions control, Hazardous air data, has: (1) Determined that certain relocation 2. Section 301–51.2 is amended by pollutants, Combustion turbines. expenses (excluding en route travel and adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: Dated: April 13, 2000. househunting expenses) are not § 301±51.2 What official travel expenses Robert Perciasepe, technically ‘‘travel’’ expenses and, and/or classes of employees are exempt Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and therefore, are not covered under the from the mandatory use of the Government Radiation. provisions of the statute. contractor-issued travel charge card? [FR Doc. 00–9925 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] (2) Established the date of May 1, * * * * * BILLING CODE 6560±50±P 2002, for agencies to reach a seven- (l) Relocation allowances prescribed calendar day limit for reviewing travel in chapter 302 of this title, except en- claims. route travel and househunting trip (3) Permitted an agency to either GENERAL SERVICES expenses. calculate late payment fees using the ADMINISTRATION Prompt Payment Act Interest Rate or a PART 301±52ÐCLAIMING 41 CFR Parts 301±51, 301±52, 301±54, flat amount based on an agency average REIMBURSEMENT 301±70, 301±71 and 301±76 of travel claims, but not less than the prompt payment amount. 3. The authority citation for 41 CFR [FTR Amendment 92] (4) Deleted health insurance from part 301–52 continues to read as consideration as disposable pay. follows: RIN 3090±AH24 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); Federal Travel Regulation; Mandatory This final rule is not required to be Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105–264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 U.S.C. 5701 note). Use of the Travel Charge Card published in the Federal Register for AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide notice and comment; therefore, the 4. Sections 301–52.17 and 301–52.18 Policy, GSA. Regulatory Flexibility Act does not are revised to read as follows: apply. ACTION: Final rule. § 301±52.17 Within how many calendar C. Executive Order 12866 days after I submit a proper travel claim SUMMARY: This final rule amends GSA has determined that this final must my agency reimburse my allowable Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) rule is not a significant regulatory action expenses? Amendment 90 published in the for the purposes of Executive Order Federal Register on Wednesday, Your agency must reimburse you 12866 of September 30, 1993. January 19, 2000 (65 FR 3054) within 30 calendar days after you concerning payment by the Government D. Paperwork Reduction Act submit a proper travel claim to your agency’s designated approving office. of expenses connected with official The Paperwork Reduction Act does Government travel. This final rule Your agency must ensure that it uses a not apply because this final rule does satisfactory recordkeeping system to further implements the requirements of not impose recordkeeping or Public Law 105–264. track submission of travel claims. For information collection requirements, or example, travel claims submitted by DATES: This final rule is effective April the collection of information from mail, in accordance with your agency’s 21, 2000, and applies to payment of offerors, contractors, or members of the policy, could be annotated with the time expenses in connection with official public which require the approval of the and date of receipt by your agency. Your Government travel performed on or after Office of Management and Budget agency could consider travel claims May 1, 2000. (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 501 et seq. electronically submitted to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim E. Small Business Regulatory designated approving office as Harte, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Enforcement Fairness Act submitted on the date indicated on an Travel and Transportation Management e-mail log, or on the next business day Policy Division, at (202) 501–1538. This final rule is also exempt from if submitted after normal working hours. congressional review prescribed under 5 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: However, claims for the following U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to relocation allowances are exempt from A. Background agency management and personnel. this provision: Pursuant to Public Law 105–264, List of Subjects in 41 CFR Parts 301–51, (a) Transportation and storage of subsection 2(a), the Administrator of 301–52, 301–54, 301–70, 301–71, and household goods and professional General Services is required to issue 301–76 books, papers and equipment; regulations requiring Federal employees Government employees, Travel and (b) Transportation of mobile home; to use the travel charge card established transportation expenses. (c) Transportation of a privately pursuant to the United States Travel and For the reasons set forth in the owned vehicle; Transportation Payment and Expense preamble, 41 CFR Chapter 301 is (d) Temporary quarters subsistence Control System, or any Federal amended as follows: expense, when not paid as lump sum; contractor-issued travel charge card, for all payments of expenses of official (e) Residence transaction expenses; PART 301±51ÐPAYING TRAVEL (f) Relocation income tax allowance; Government travel. Additionally, Public EXPENSES Law 105–264 requires the Administrator (g) Use of a relocation services of General Services to issue regulations 1. The authority citation for 41 CFR company; on reimbursement of travel expenses part 301–51 continues to read as (h) Home marketing incentive and collection of delinquent amounts follows: payments; and upon written request of a Federal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707. Subpart A is (i) Allowance for property contractor. issued under the authority of Sec. 2, Pub. L. management services.
VerDate 18
§ 301±52.18 Within how many calendar PART 301±70ÐINTERNAL POLICY (f) Relocation income tax allowance; days after I submit a travel claim must my AND PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS (g) Use of a relocation services agency notify me of any error that would company; prevent payment within 30 calendar days 8. The authority citation for 41 CFR after submission? (h) Home marketing incentive part 301–70 continues to read as payments; and Your agency must notify you as soon follows: (i) Allowance for property as practicable after you submit your Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); management services. travel claim of any error that would Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105–264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 12. Section 301–71.208 is revised to prevent payment within 30 calendar U.S.C. 5701 note). read as follows: days after submission and must provide the reason(s) why your travel claim is 9. Section 301–70.704 is amended by § 301±71.208 Within how many calendar not proper. However, not later than May adding a note at the end of the section days after submission of a proper travel 1, 2002, agencies must achieve a to read as follows: claim must we notify the employee of any errors in the claim? maximum time period of seven working § 301±70.704 What expenses and/or days for notifying you that your travel classes of employees are exempt from the You must notify the employee as soon claim is not proper. mandatory use of the Government as practicable after the employee’s 5. Section 301–52.20 is revised to read contractor-issued travel charge card? submission of the travel claim of any as follows: * * * * * error that would prevent payment within 30 calendar days after Note to § 301–70.704: Relocation § 301±52.20 How are late payment fees allowances prescribed in chapter 302 of this submission and provide the reason(s) calculated? title, except en-route travel and househunting why the claim is not proper. However, Your agency must either: trip expenses are not covered by this not later than May 1, 2002, you must (a) Calculate late payment fees using requirement. achieve a maximum time period of the prevailing Prompt Payment Act seven working days for notifying an Interest Rate beginning on the 31st day PART 301±71ÐAGENCY TRAVEL employee that his/her travel claim is not after submission of a proper travel claim ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS proper. and ending on the date on which 13. Section 301–71.210 is revised to payment is made; or 10. The authority citation for 41 CFR read as follows: (b) Reimburse you a flat fee of not less part 301–71 continues to read as follows: § 301±71.210 How do we calculate late than the prompt payment amount, based payment fees? on an agencywide average of travel Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); Late payment fees are calculated claim payments; and Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105–264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 U.S.C. 5701 note). either by: (c) In addition to the fee required by (a) Using the prevailing Prompt paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 11. Section 301–71.204 is revised to Payment Act Interest Rate beginning on your agency must also pay you an read as follows: the 31st day after submission of a proper amount equivalent to any late payment § 301±71.204 Within how many calendar travel claim and ending on the date on charge that the card contractor would which payment is made; or have been able to charge you had you days after the submission of a proper travel claim must we reimburse the employee's (b) A flat fee, of not less than the not paid the bill. allowable expenses? prompt payment amount, based on an PART 301±54ÐCOLLECTION OF You must reimburse the employee agencywide average of travel claim UNDISPUTED DELINQUENT AMOUNTS within 30 calendar days after the payments; and OWED TO THE CONTRACTOR employee submits a proper travel claim (c) In addition to the fee required by ISSUING THE INDIVIDUALLY BILLED to the agency’s designated approving paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, TRAVEL CHARGE CARD office. You must use a satisfactory you must also pay an amount equivalent recordkeeping system to track to any late payment charge that the card 6. The authority citation for 41 CFR submission of travel claims. For contractor would have been able to part 301–54 continues to read as example, travel claims submitted by charge had the employee not paid the follows: mail, in accordance with agency policy, bill. Payment of this additional fee will could be annotated with the time and be based upon the effective date that a Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); date of receipt by the agency. You could late payment charge would be allowed Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105–264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 under the agreement between the U.S.C. 5701 note). consider travel claims electronically submitted to the designated approving employee and the card contractor. 7. Section 301–54.2 is revised to read office as submitted on the date indicated PART 301±76ÐCOLLECTION OF as follows: on an e-mail log, or on the next business day if submitted after normal working UNDISPUTED DELINQUENT AMOUNTS § 301±54.2 What is disposable pay? hours. However, claims for the OWED TO THE CONTRACTOR Disposable pay is your compensation following relocation allowances are ISSUING THE INDIVIDUALLY BILLED remaining after the deduction from your exempt from this provision: TRAVEL CHARGE CARD earnings of any amounts required by (a) Transportation and storage of 14. The authority citation for 41 CFR law to be withheld. These deductions household goods and professional part 301–76 continues to read as do not include discretionary deductions books, papers and equipment; follows: such as savings bonds, charitable (b) Transportation of mobile home; contributions, etc. Deductions may be (c) Transportation of a privately Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); made from any type of pay you receive owned vehicle; Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105–264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 from your agency, e.g., basic pay, (d) Temporary quarters subsistence U.S.C. 5701 note). special pay, retirement pay, or incentive expense, when not paid as lump sum; 15. Section 301–76.2 is revised to read pay. (e) Residence transaction expenses; as follows:
VerDate 18
§ 301±76.2 What is disposable pay? Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, of proposed rulemaking, DOE today Disposable pay is the part of the (202) 586–8264. publishes a final rule. employee’s compensation remaining SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. Resolution of Comments after the deduction of any amounts I. Background required by law to be withheld. These II. Resolution of Comments Fourteen comments were received in deductions do not include discretionary III. Procedural Requirements response to the proposed rule. The deductions such as savings bonds, A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 comments and DOE’s responses are as charitable contributions, etc. Deductions B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 follows: C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Comment: It is unclear whether or not may be made from any type of pay, e.g., Act basic pay, special pay, retirement pay, DOE would reimburse Mentors for costs D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction incurred by providing developmental or incentive pay. Act assistance to Protege firms. Dated: April 13, 2000. E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act Response: The Mentor-Protege rule is David J. Barram, F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 clear on this issue. DOE has stated Administrator of General Services. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates throughout the rule that developmental [FR Doc. 00–9774 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Reform Act of 1995 assistance costs are allowable if they are BILLING CODE 6820±34±P H. Treasury and General Government incurred by the Mentor in the Appropriation Act, 1999 performance of a DOE contract spelled I. Congressional Notification out in the Mentor-Protege Agreement DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY I. Background and are otherwise allowable in accordance with the cost principles On June 9, 1995, DOE published final 48 CFR Parts 919 and 952 applicable to that contract. guidelines for its Mentor-Protege Pilot Comment: Do existing Mentor-Protege RIN 1991±AB45 Initiative (60 FR 30529). The purpose of Agreements developed under the DOE the Initiative was to develop a program Mentor-Protege Pilot Initiative have to Acquisition Regulations: Mentor- that encouraged DOE prime contractors be amended when this rule becomes Protege Program to help energy-related small effective? disadvantaged, 8(a), and women-owned AGENCY: Department of Energy. Response: Existing agreements do not small businesses in enhancing their have to be amended. The new rule ACTION: Final rule. business and technical capabilities to applies only to new agreements. ensure full participation in the mission SUMMARY: The Department of Energy Comment: The rule does not cover of DOE. In addition, the Initiative (DOE) is amending its acquisition small business concerns owned and sought to foster the establishment of regulations to encourage DOE prime controlled by service disabled veterans. long term business relationships contractors to assist small Response: DOE has revised the rule to between these small business entities disadvantaged firms certified by the include small business concerns owned and DOE prime contractors and to Small Business Administration under and controlled by service disabled increase the overall number of these Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act veterans, as defined in the Veterans small business entities eligible to (8(a)), other small disadvantaged Entrepreneurship and Small Business receive DOE contract and subcontract businesses, Historically Black Colleges Development Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. awards. In order to achieve the goal of and Universities and other minority 106–50. the Initiative, DOE prime contractors institutions of higher learning, women- Comment: Which small entered into formal agreements with owned small businesses and small disadvantaged businesses, other than qualified small businesses to provide business concerns owned and 8(a) firms, are eligible to participate in developmental assistance. In many controlled by service disabled veterans the Program? cases, this assistance has enabled small in enhancing their capabilities to Response: All small disadvantaged businesses to benefit from the vast perform contracts and subcontracts for businesses that meet the eligibility wealth of knowledge acquired by large, DOE and other Federal agencies. The requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)–(4) of successful firms doing business with program seeks to foster long-term § 919.7007 are eligible to participate. DOE. Comment: Why, under § 919.7008(d) business relationships between DOE The success of the DOE business of the rule, does DOE only permit prime contractors and these small mentoring relationships and the protests regarding the small business business entities and minority continuing need to develop small size of a firm, and not a firm’s status as institutions of higher learning and to disadvantaged business, 8(a) firms and a small disadvantaged business, etc.? increase the overall number of these women-owned small businesses Response: Small disadvantaged small business entities and minority capabilities to perform contracts and business status cannot be protested institutions that receive DOE contract subcontracts for DOE led DOE to under this rule because the DOE and subcontract awards. propose the creation of a permanent Mentor-Protege Program is not limited EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will take effect DOE Mentor-Protege Program. DOE to small disadvantaged businesses. Even May 22, 2000. published a notice of proposed if a firm is not a small disadvantaged FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rulemaking on December 6, 1999 (64 FR business, it could still qualify as a small Eugene Tates, Mentor-Protege Program, 68072), which proposed a program business. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of having the same goals and objectives as Comment: A prospective Mentor Small and Disadvantaged Business the original DOE Mentor-Protege Pilot should be required under § 919.7005 to Utilization, 1000 Independence Avenue, Initiative. Some refinements were provide evidence that the business is SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– proposed to provide additional currently performing a DOE contract 4556; or Robert M. Webb, U.S. incentives for prime contractor which contains a subcontracting plan. Department of Energy, Office of participation in the Mentor-Protege Response: DOE can identify its Procurement and Assistance Program. After carefully considering the current contractors, so there is no need Management, 1000 Independence public comments received on the notice for such a requirement.
VerDate 18
Comment: DOE should allow Comment: The proposed rule would simplification and burden reduction; (4) designees of the chief executive officers add an unnecessary layer of specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) of Mentor and Protege firms to execute requirements, administered from DOE adequately defines key terms; and (6) the Mentor-Protege Agreements. Headquarters, on contractors who addresses other important issues Response: DOE agrees that delegation already have programs that accomplish affecting clarity and general is appropriate for larger, Mentor firms, the goals of improving relationships draftsmanship under any guidelines but it would not be necessary for with small, small disadvantaged, issued by the Attorney General. Section smaller, Proteges. Therefore, in women-owned, and minority 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires § 919.7009, DOE allows the Mentor institutions. Executive agencies to review regulations firm’s chief executive officer to Response: DOE disagrees and thinks in light of applicable standards in designate another company official to the program established by these section 3(a) and section 3(b) to execute the Mentor-Protege Agreement. regulations provides additional determine whether they are met or it is Comment: DOE should delete the incentives for its contractors to provide unreasonable to meet one or more of procedure in proposed § 919.7010(f) for assistance to the potential Protege firms. them. DOE has completed the required completing performance in the case of The program’s reporting requirements in review and determined that this final withdrawal or termination by either § 919.7013 are necessary for proper rule meets the relevant standards of party to the Agreement. program evaluation. Executive Order 12988. Response: DOE has deleted the Comment: DOE should change the procedure for completing performance C. Review Under the Regulatory Protege eligibility requirement in Flexibility Act because the terms of awarded § 919.7007(a)(3) that a firm must have subcontracts will still be binding in the been in business for at least two years The Regulatory Flexibility Act of event of Agreement termination. to no more than one year. In today’s 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires Comment: DOE’s request for a high-tech economy, a one-year old preparation of an initial regulatory description of developmental assistance company is considered ‘‘established.’’ flexibility analysis for any rule that to be provided to Protege firms under Response: The highly technical nature must be proposed for public comment proposed § 919.7010(c) is duplicated by of DOE’s global mission requires that a and that is likely to have significant DOE’s request for an explanation of how Protege have at least two years of economic impact on a substantial the developmental assistance will business experience. number of small entities. However, the increase subcontracting opportunities analysis requirement does not apply if for the Protege under proposed III. Procedural Requirements the agency certifies that the rule, if § 919.7010(j). A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 promulgated, will not have a significant Response: DOE disagrees with this economic impact on a substantial comment. The mere description of the Today’s regulatory action has been number of small entities. The entities to planned developmental assistance determined not to be a ‘‘significant which this rulemaking would apply are required by paragraph (c) does not regulatory action’’ under Executive large business and small business firms explain how such assistance is expected Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and that receive a form of incentive for to increase subcontracting opportunities Review,’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, assuming the role of Mentor to 8(a) of the Protege firm. These are separate 1993). Accordingly, this rule was not firms, other small disadvantaged provisions that need to be discussed subject to review under that Executive businesses, small women-owned separately in the Agreement. Order by the Office of Information and businesses, Historically Black Comment: Under what specific Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Universities and Colleges, and other conditions could DOE terminate its Management and Budget (OMB). minority institutions of higher learning, recognition of a Mentor-Protege B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 and small business concerns owned and Agreement? controlled by disabled veterans. It is Response: DOE does not attempt to With respect to the review of existing expected that under this rule the protege specify in this rule the conditions or regulations and the promulgation of entities would directly benefit from the situations that would warrant new regulations, section 3(a) of forms of mentoring provided for in the termination of DOE’s recognition of an Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice rule. There would not be an adverse approved DOE Mentor-Protege Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), economic impact on contractors or agreement. That is left for case-by-case imposes on Executive agencies the subcontractors. Accordingly, DOE decision. general duty to adhere to the following certifies that this rule would not have a Comment: Which contracting officer requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting significant economic impact on a is responsible for oversight if the Mentor errors and ambiguity; (2) write substantial number of small entities, has more than one DOE contract? regulations to minimize litigation; and and therefore, no regulatory flexibility Response: The contracting officer for (3) provide a clear legal standard for analysis has been prepared. each contract identified in the Mentor- affected conduct rather than a general D. Review Under the Paperwork Protege Agreement, under § 919.7010(k), standard and promote simplification Reduction Act is the official responsible for oversight and burden reduction. of the contract under his/her With regard to the review required by This rule would require DOE responsibility. section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive contractors serving as mentors to submit Comment: DOE should delete the Order 12988 specifically requires that semi-annual progress reports to the DOE word ‘‘field’’ as used in § 919.7013 in Executive agencies make every Mentor-Protege Program Manager at the term ‘‘field technical program reasonable effort to ensure that the DOE Headquarters (see § 919.7013). The manager’’ because technical program regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the information in the progress reports is managers could be located in either the subject law’s preemptive effect, if any; necessary to determine if the schedules field or DOE headquarters. (2) clearly specifies any effect on and developmental assistance levels Response: DOE agrees and deletes the existing Federal law or regulation; (3) contained in Mentor-Protege word ‘‘field’’ from § 919.7013 and provides a clear legal standard for Agreements are being met. Performance § 919.7010(j). affected conduct while promoting under the Agreements is the basis for
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
919.7011 Developmental assistance. and Mentor-Protege development to the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (a) The forms of developmental contracting officer. 48 CFR Part 970 assistance a Mentor may provide to a (b) The DOE Mentor-Protege Program Protege include, but are not limited to: Manager must submit semi-annual RIN 1991±AB02 (1) Management guidance relating to: reports to the cognizant contracting (i) Financial management, officer regarding the participating Acquisition Regulation: Financial (ii) Organizational management, Management Clauses for Management Mentor’s performance in the Program (iii) Overall business management and Operating (M&O) Contracts planning, for use in the award fee determination (iv) Business development, and process. AGENCY: Department of Energy. (v) Marketing assistance; (c) The Mentor firm must submit ACTION: Final rule. (2) Engineering and other technical progress reports to the DOE Mentor- SUMMARY: The Department of Energy assistance; Protege Program Manager semi- (DOE) amends its Acquisition (3) Noncompetitive award of annually. Regulation to designate certain subcontracts under DOE or other Department of Energy Acquisition Federal contracts where otherwise 919.7014 Solicitation provision. Regulation (DEAR) M&O contract authorized; The cognizant contracting officer clauses and Federal Acquisition (4) Award of subcontracts in the must insert the provision at 952.219–70, Regulation (FAR) clauses as Standard Mentor’s commercial activities; DOE Mentor-Protege Program, in all Financial Management Clauses to be (5) Progress payments based on costs; solicitations with an estimated value in (6) Rent-free use of facilities and/or included in M&O contracts unless the equipment owned or leased by Mentor; excess of the simplified acquisition Chief Financial Officer (CFO) concurs in and threshold. a deviation. Additionally, this final rule (7) Temporary assignment of Mentor will revise selected existing financial PART 952ÐSOLICITATION personnel to the Protege for purposes of management clauses and add financial PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT training. management related clauses. (b) Costs incurred by a Mentor to CLAUSES DATES: This final rule is effective May provide developmental assistance, as 22, 2000. described in paragraph (a) of this 3. A new subsection 952.219–70, DOE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: section, are allowable only to the extent Mentor-Protege Program is added as Michael L. Righi, Office of Policy (MA– provided at 48 CFR 919.7003(b). follows: 51), Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 919.7012 Review and approval process of 952.219±70 DOE Mentor-Protege program. Washington, D.C. 20585; 202–586–8175 agreement by OSDBU. In accordance with 919.7014 insert (phone); 202–586–0545 (facsimile); or (a) OSDBU will review the proposed the following provision in applicable [email protected] (Internet). Mentor-Protege Agreement under 48 solicitations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION CFR 919.7010 and will complete its review and assessment no later than 30 I. Background DOE Mentor-Protege Program II. Discussion of Public Comments days after receipt. OSDBU will provide (May 2000) III. Procedural Requirements a copy of its assessment to the cognizant A. Review of Executive Order 12866 DOE technical program manager and The Department of Energy has established B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 contracting officer for review and a Mentor-Protege Program to encourage its C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility concurrence. prime contractors to assist firms certified Act (b) If OSDBU approves the under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Agreement, the Mentor may implement by SBA, other small disadvantaged Act the developmental assistance program. businesses, women-owned small businesses, E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Historically Black Colleges and Universities F. Review Under the National (c) Upon finding deficiencies that Environmental Policy Act DOE considers correctable, the OSDBU and Minority Institutions, other minority institutions of higher learning and small G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 will notify the Mentor and request H. Review Under Small Business business concerns owned and controlled by information to be provided within 30 Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of days that may correct the deficiencies. service disabled veterans in enhancing their 1996 The Mentor may then provide business abilities. If the contract resulting I. Background additional information for from this solicitation is awarded on a cost- reconsideration. The review of any plus-award fee basis, the contractor’s On November 18, 1998, the performance as a Mentor may be evaluated as supplemental material will be Department of Energy (DOE or part of the award fee plan. Mentor and completed within 30 days after receipt Department) published in the Federal Protege firms will develop and submit by the OSDBU and the Agreement either Register (63 FR 64024) a Notice of ‘‘lessons learned’’ evaluations to DOE at the approved or disapproved. Proposed Rulemaking to amend the conclusion of the contract. Any DOE DEAR to designate certain Department 919.7013 Reports. contractor that is interested in becoming a of Energy Acquisition Regulation (a) Prior to performing an evaluation Mentor should refer to the applicable (DEAR) M&O contract clauses and of a Mentor’s performance under its regulations at 48 CFR 919.70 and should Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Mentor-Protege Agreement for use in contact the Department of Energy’s Office of clauses as Standard Financial award fee evaluations, the Mentor- Small and Disadvantaged Business Management Clauses to be included in Protege Program Manager must consult Utilization. M&O contracts unless the Chief with the cognizant DOE technical [FR Doc. 00–9981 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Financial Officer (CFO) concurs in a program manager and must provide a deviation. Additionally, this Notice of copy of the performance evaluation BILLING CODE 6450±01±P Proposed Rulemaking proposed to comments regarding the technical effort revise selected existing financial
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Congress promulgation of the rule prior (3) Incorporate all applicable generally accepted accounting principles to its effective date. The report will state requirements, as determined by the consistently applied. that it has been determined that the rule Office of Chief Financial Officer. Note: If the contract includes the clause for is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 * * * * * ‘‘Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing U.S.C. 804(3). Data’’ set forth at FAR 52.215–22, paragraph 4. Section 970.3270 is revised to read (a) above should be modified by adding the List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 970 as follows: words ‘‘or anticipated to be incurred’’ after the words ‘‘allowable costs incurred.’’ Government procurement. 970.3270 Standard financial management clauses. (b) Inspection and audit of accounts and Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 7, records. All books of account and records 2000. (a) The following DEAR and FAR relating to this contract shall be subject to clauses are standard financial Richard H. Hopf, inspection and audit by DOE or its designees management clauses that shall be in accordance with the provisions of Director, Office of Procurement and included in all management and Clause ll, Access to and ownership of Assistance Management. operating contracts: DEAR 970.5204–9, records, at all reasonable times, before and For the reasons set out in the Accounts, records, and inspection; during the period of retention provided for in preamble, Chapter 9 of Title 48 of the DEAR 970.5204–15, Obligation of funds; paragraph (d) of this clause, and the DEAR 970.5204–16, Payments and contractor shall afford DOE proper facilities Code of Federal Regulations is amended for such inspection and audit. as set forth below. advances; DEAR 970.5204–20, Management controls; DEAR 970.5204– * * * * * PART 970ÐDOE MANAGEMENT AND 92, Liability with respect to Cost (d) Disposition of records. Except as agreed OPERATING CONTRACTS upon by the Government and the contractor, Accounting Standards; DEAR 970.5204– all financial and cost reports, books of 93, Work for others funding 1. The authority citation for Part 970 account and supporting documents, system authorization; FAR 52.230–2, Cost files, data bases, and other data evidencing is revised to read as follows: Accounting Standards; and FAR costs allowable, collections accruing to the Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 52.230–6, Administration of Cost contractor in connection with the work under U.S.C. 2201); Department of Energy Accounting Standards. this contract, other applicable credits, and fee Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.); (b) The following clauses are standard accruals under this contract, shall be the National Nuclear Security Administration financial management clauses that shall property of the Government, and shall be Act (50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.). be included in management and delivered to the Government or otherwise operating contracts with integrated disposed of by the contractor either as the 2. Section 970.3201 is revised to read contracting officer may from time to time as follows: accounting systems: DEAR 970.5204–90, direct during the progress of the work or, in Financial management system; and any event, as the contracting officer shall 970.3201 General. DEAR 970.5204–91, Integrated direct upon completion or termination of this It is the policy of the DOE to finance accounting. contract and final audit of accounts management and operating contracts (c) Any deviations from the standard hereunder. Except as otherwise provided in financial management clauses specified this contract, including provisions of through advance payments and the use ll of special financial institution accounts. in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section Clause , Access to and ownership of require the approval of the Head of the records, all other records in the possession of 3. Section 970.3202 is amended by Contracting Activity and the written the contractor relating to this contract shall be preserved by the contractor for a period revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read concurrence of the Department’s Chief as follows: of three years after final payment under this Financial Officer. contract or otherwise disposed of in such 970.3202 Advance payments. 5. Section 970.3271 is removed and manner as may be agreed upon by the * * * * * reserved. Government and the contractor. (b) Advance payments shall be made 970.3271 [Removed and Reserved] * * * * * (f) Inspections. The DOE shall have the under a payments cleared financing 6. Section 970.5204–9 is amended by right to inspect the work and activities of the arrangement for deposit in a special revising the introductory paragraph; contractor under this contract at such time financial institution account or, at the clause title; and paragraphs (a) and in such manner as it shall deem option of the Government, by direct (including the note), (b), (d), and (f) to appropriate. payment or other payment mechanism read as follows: * * * * * to the contractor. 970.5204±9 Accounts, records, and 7. Section 970.5204–13 is amended by (c) Prior to providing any advance inspection. revising the clause date and clause payments, the contracting officer shall As prescribed in 970.0407 and paragraph (d)(15) to read as follows enter into an agreement with the 970.3270, insert the following clause. (note following paragraph (d)(15) contractor and a financial institution remains unchanged). regarding a special financial institution Accounts, Records, and Inspection (May account where the advanced funds will 2000) 970.5204±13 Allowable costs and fixed-fee be deposited by the Government. Such (a) Accounts. The contractor shall maintain (management and operating contracts). agreement shall: a separate and distinct set of accounts, * * * * * records, documents, and other evidence (1) Provide that DOE shall retain title showing and supporting: all allowable costs Allowable costs and fixed-fee (management to the unexpended balance of funds in incurred; collections accruing to the and operating Contracts) (May 2000) the special financial institution account contractor in connection with the work under * * * * * including collections, if any, deposited this contract, other applicable credits, and fee (d) * * * by the contractor; accruals under this contract; and the receipt, (15) Establishment and maintenance of use, and disposition of all Government financial institution accounts in connection (2) Provide that the title in paragraph property coming into the possession of the with the work hereunder, including, but not (c)(1) of this section shall be superior to contractor under this contract. The system of limited to, service charges, the cost of any claim or lien of the financial accounts employed by the contractor shall be disbursing cash, necessary guards, cashiers, institution of deposit or others; and satisfactory to DOE and in accordance with and paymasters. If payments to employees
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Integrated Accounting (May 2000) contractor for a non-Federal entity in determination that coastal cutthroat Integrated accounting procedures are instances where advance payment from that trout spend the majority of their life required for use under this contract. The entity is required under the Laws, cycle in fresh water habitat. regulations, and DOE directives clause of this contractor’s financial management system DATES: The finding announced in this shall include an integrated accounting contract and such advance cannot be obtained. The contractor is also permitted to document was made on November 22, system that is linked to DOE’s accounts 1999. through the use of reciprocal accounts and provide advance payment utilizing contractor that has electronic capability to transmit corporate funds to continue reimbursable ADDRESSES: Questions concerning this monthly and year-end self-balancing trial work to be performed by the contractor for document should be submitted to the balances to the Department’s Primary a Federal entity when the term or the funds Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Accounting System for reporting financial on a Federal interagency agreement required Oregon State Office, 2600 SE 98th under the Laws, regulations, and DOE activity under this contract in accordance Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon with requirements imposed by the directives clause of this contract have elapsed. The contractor’s utilization of 97266; or to, Garth Griffin, National contracting officer pursuant to the Laws, Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest regulations, and DOE directives clause of this contractor corporate funds does not relieve contract. the contractor of its responsibility to comply Region, Protected Resources Division, with all requirements for Work for Others 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, 13. Section 970.5204–92 is added to applicable to this contract. Portland, OR 97232–2737. read as follows: [FR Doc. 00–9633 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 970.5204±92 Liability With respect to cost BILLING CODE 6450±01±P Rollie White, Fish and Wildlife Service, accounting standards. telephone 503–231–6179, fax 503–231– 6195; or, Garth Griffin, National Marine As prescribed in 970.3270, insert the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fisheries Service, telephone 503–231– following clause. 2005, fax 503–230–5435. Liability with Respect to Cost Accounting Fish and Wildlife Service SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Standards (May 2000) past, ESA jurisdiction over the coastal (a) The contractor is not liable to the 50 CFR Part 17 cutthroat trout has been shared by the Government for increased costs or interest FWS and NMFS, although NMFS has a resulting from its failure to comply with the RIN 1018±AF80 history of conducting status reviews on clauses of this contract entitled, ‘‘Cost sea-run forms of cutthroat trout (61 FR Accounting Standards,’’ and ‘‘Administration DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of Cost Accounting Standards,’’ if its failure 41514, August 9, 1996; 64 FR 16397, to comply with the clauses is caused by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric April 5, 1999). During the status review contractor’s compliance with published DOE Administration for Umpqua River sea-run cutthroat financial management policies and trout, both agencies agreed that NMFS procedures or other requirements established 50 CFR Parts 224, 226, and 424 would handle ESA responsibilities for by the Department’s Chief Financial Officer this species in the Umpqua River Basin or Procurement Executive. [Docket No. 000330090±0090±01] (FWS, 1994). Since that time, the matter (b) The contractor is not liable to the of agency jurisdiction has arisen for the RIN 0648±XA51 Government for increased costs or interest various cutthroat life forms in other resulting from its subcontractors’ failure to comply with the clauses at FAR 52.230–2, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife west coast basins. At issue is the ‘‘Cost Accounting Standards,’’ and FAR and Plants; Notice of Change of question of appropriate jurisdiction for 52.230–6, ‘‘Administration of Cost Jurisdiction for Coastal Cutthroat a species with both diadromous (i.e., Accounting Standards,’’ if the contractor Trout migrating between fresh-and saltwater) includes in each covered subcontract a clause and resident (i.e., freshwater-dwelling) making the subcontractor liable to the AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries life forms. Salmonid species exhibiting Government for increased costs or interest Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and the former life forms have generally resulting from the subcontractor’s failure to Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), been managed by NMFS while the latter comply with the clauses; and the contractor Commerce; Fish and Wildlife Service forms have typically been under the seeks the subcontract price adjustment and (FWS), Interior. jurisdiction of the FWS. The change in cooperates with the Government in the Government’s attempts to recover from the ACTION: Transfer of agency jurisdiction. jurisdiction announced in this Notice is subcontractor. based on a determination that coastal SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service cutthroat trout spend the majority of 14. Section 970.5204–93 is added to (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries their life cycle in fresh water habitat. read as follows: Service (NMFS) have, in the past, jointly On April 5, 1999, the agencies managed coastal cutthroat trout published a joint proposal to list the 970.5204±93 Work for others funding authorization. (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) under the southwestern Washington/Columbia Endangered Species Act of 1973, as River cutthroat trout ESU as a As prescribed in 970.3270, insert the amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). threatened species and to de-list the following clause. This document is to alert interested Umpqua River ESU under the ESA (64 Work for Others Funding Authorization (May parties that, effective November 22, FR 16397). In that proposal, we 2000) 1999, the FWS assumed all ESA announced that a decision would be Any uncollectible receivables resulting regulatory jurisdiction over coastal made about which agency would have from the contractor utilizing contractor cutthroat. The only exception is that sole jurisdiction over the species. On corporate funding for reimbursable work NMFS will retain ESA jurisdiction over November 22, 1999, the Directors of shall be the responsibility of the contractor, the endangered Umpqua River cutthroat NMFS and the FWS signed a joint letter and the United States Government shall have no liability to the contractor for the trout Evolutionary Significant Unit determining that the FWS shall assume contractor’s uncollected receivables. The (ESU) until the agencies complete a all ESA regulatory jurisdiction over contractor is permitted to provide advance final determination on the proposed de- coastal cutthroat trout. For the FWS, payment utilizing contractor corporate funds listing of this ESU. The change in applicable ESA regulations would for reimbursable work to be performed by the jurisdiction results from a joint agency include those promulgated in 50 CFR
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 78
Friday, April 21, 2000
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, substances listed in section 502(d) of the contains notices to the public of the proposed 301–827–3246. act. Section 329.10 elaborates on the issuance of rules and regulations. The For information regarding biologics: labeling requirement of section 502(d) of purpose of these notices is to give interested Robert A. Yetter, Center for Biologics the act. persons an opportunity to participate in the Evaluation and Research (HFM–10), Section 329.20 exempts certain habit- rule making prior to the adoption of the final Food and Drug Administration, 1401 rules. forming drugs from the prescription- Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852– dispensing requirements of the act. This 1448, 301–827–0373. section has not been substantively DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: revised in more than 30 years. It is now HUMAN SERVICES out of date. Except as discussed I. The Modernization Act elsewhere in this section, none of the Food and Drug Administration On November 21, 1997, President drug ingredients listed as exempt in Clinton signed into law the § 329.20 are currently marketed over- 21 CFR Parts 10, 201, 250, 290, 310, Modernization Act (Public Law 105– the-counter (OTC) or have any legal 329, 341, 361, 369, 606, and 610 115). Section 126 of the Modernization basis to be marketed OTC. Act amended section 503(b)(4) of the [Docket No. 00N±0086] The proposed rule would amend part Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 290 (21 CFR part 290), by adding new Amendment of Regulations Regarding (the act) (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(4)) to require, §§ 290.1 and 290.2. Section 290.1 is Certain Label Statements on at a minimum, that, prior to dispensing, being added to make clear the agency’s Prescription Drugs; Republication the label of prescription drugs bear the determination that a drug that is a symbol ‘‘Rx only’’ instead of the controlled substance listed in Schedule Editorial Note: FR Doc. 00-8737 was statement ‘‘Caution: Federal law II, III, IV, or V of the Federal Controlled originally published at page 18934 in the prohibits dispensing without Substances Act (CSA) or implementing issue of Monday April 10, 2000. In that prescription.’’ The new label statement regulations must, unless otherwise publication some text was incorrectly may be printed as either ‘‘Rx only’’ or determined by the agency, be dispensed printed. The corrected document is ‘‘) only.’’1 Section 126 of the by prescription only as required by republished below in its entirety. Modernization Act also repealed section section 503(b)(1) of the act. Section AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 502(d) of the act (21 U.S.C. 352(d)), 503(b)(1) provides that a drug that HHS. which provided that a drug or device ‘‘because of its toxicity or other ACTION: Proposed rule. containing certain enumerated narcotic potentiality for harmful effect, or the or hypnotic (habit-forming) substances method of its use, or the collateral SUMMARY: The Food and Drug or their derivatives was misbranded measures necessary to its use,’’ or a drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to unless its label bore the name and which ‘‘is limited by an approved amend its regulations to require the quantity of the substance and the application under section 505 of the act labels of prescription drugs to bear the statement ‘‘Warning—May be habit to use under the professional statement ‘‘Rx only’’ instead of the forming.’’ supervision of a practitioner licensed by statement ‘‘Caution: Federal law II. Description of the Proposed Rule law to administer such drug,’’ shall be prohibits dispensing without dispensed only upon a prescription of a prescription’’ and to remove the The proposed rule would amend parts practitioner licensed by law to requirement that certain habit-forming 10, 201, 250, 310, 329, 361, 606, and 610 administer such drug. Generally, a drug drugs bear the statement ‘‘Warning— (21 CFR parts 10, 201, 250, 310, 329, that meets the criteria for control under May be habit forming.’’ The agency is 361, 606, and 610) by removing the Schedule II, III, IV, or V of the CSA (see also proposing to add a new section to requirement that prescription drugs be 21 U.S.C. 812) would also meet the the regulations to make clear that these labeled with ‘‘Caution: Federal law standard for prescription dispensing habit-forming drugs must be dispensed prohibits dispensing without under section 503(b)(1) of the act. Drugs by prescription only. The agency is prescription’’ and adding in its place a included in Schedule I of the CSA taking this action to implement changes requirement that prescription drugs be cannot be lawfully marketed in the ) made by the Food and Drug labeled with ‘‘Rx only’’ or ‘‘ only.’’ United States. Administration Modernization Act of The proposed rule would amend parts Section 290.2 retains the exemption 1997 (FDAMA). 201 and 369 (21 CFR part 369) by from the prescription-dispensing DATES: Submit written comments by removing the requirement that certain requirement in § 329.20 for small June 26, 2000. habit-forming drugs bear the statement amounts of codeine in combination with ADDRESSES: Submit written comments ‘‘Warning—May be habit forming.’’ other nonnarcotic active medicinal to the Dockets Management Branch The proposed rule would remove part ingredients. Small amounts of codeine (HFA–305), Food and Drug 329. Part 329 was issued under repealed in combination with other nonnarcotic Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. section 502(d) of the act. Section 329.1 active medicinal ingredients, for 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. designates as habit-forming certain example, cough syrup with codeine, derivatives of the habit-forming FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For may be marketed OTC under a final information regarding human drugs: monograph for cold and cough 1 The ) symbol appears in bold in this document Jerry Phillips, Center for Drug because of type-setting limitations, however, it products. (See § 341.14 (21 CFR Evaluation and Research (HFD–400), should not be bolded when used on the product’s 341.14)). For the reason stated above, no Food and Drug Administration, 5600 label. other exemptions are warranted at this
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
21 CFR Part 606 only.’’ The Spanish-language version of removing the phrase ‘‘ ‘Caution: Federal ´ Blood, Labeling, Laboratories, this must be ‘‘Solamente Rx’’. law prohibits dispensing without prescription.’ ’’ from the last sentence Reporting and recordkeeping § 201.100 [Amended] requirements. and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘ ‘Rx 6. Section 201.100 Prescription drugs only.’ ’’. 21 CFR Part 610 for human use is amended in paragraph § 250.108 [Amended] Biologics, Labeling, Reporting and (b)(1) by removing the phrase ‘‘ 14. Section 250.108 Potassium recordkeeping requirements. ‘Caution: Federal law prohibits permanganate preparations as Therefore, under the Federal Food, dispensing without prescription’ ’’ and prescription drugs is amended in Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Food adding in its place the phrase ‘‘ ‘Rx paragraph (c)(1) by removing the phrase and Drug Administration Modernization only’ ’’. ‘‘legend, ‘Caution: Federal law prohibits Act, and under authority delegated to § 201.120 [Amended] dispensing without prescription. ’ ’’ and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it 7. Section 201.120 Prescription adding in its place the phrase is proposed that chapter I of Title 21 be chemicals and other prescription ‘‘statement ‘Rx only.’ ’’ and in paragraph amended as follows: components is amended in paragraph (c)(2) by removing the phrase ‘‘, PART 10ÐADMINISTRATIVE (b)(2) by removing the phrase ‘‘ ‘Caution: Federal law prohibits PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES ‘Caution: Federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription.’ ’’ and dispensing without prescription’ ’’ and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘ ‘Rx 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR adding in its place the phrase ‘‘ ‘Rx only.’ ’’. part 10 is revised to read as follows: only’ ’’. § 250.201 [Amended] Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551–558, 701–706; 15 § 201.122 [Amended] U.S.C. 1451–1461; 21 U.S.C. 141–149, 321– 15. Section 250.201 Preparations for 397, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42 8. Section 201.122 Drugs for the treatment of pernicious anemia is U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264. processing, repacking, or manufacturing amended in paragraph (d) by removing is amended in the introductory text, first the phrase ‘‘legend ‘Caution—Federal § 10.50 [Amended] sentence, by removing the phrase ‘‘ law prohibits dispensing without 2. Section 10.50 Promulgation of ‘Caution: Federal law prohibits prescription.’ ’’ and adding in its place regulations and orders after an dispensing without prescription’ ’’ and the phrase ‘‘statement ‘Rx only.’ ’’. opportunity for a formal evidentiary adding in its place the phrase ‘‘ ‘Rx § 250.250 [Amended] public hearing is amended by removing only’ ’’. and reserving paragraph (c)(7). 16. Section 250.250 § 201.306 [Amended] Hexachlorophene, as a component of PART 201ÐLABELING 9. Section 201.306 Potassium salt drug and cosmetic products is amended preparations intended for oral ingestion in the last sentence of paragraph (c)(1) 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR by man is amended in paragraph (b)(1) by removing the phrase ‘‘legend part 201 continues to read as follows: by removing the word ‘‘caution’’. ‘Caution: Federal law prohibits Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, dispensing without a prescription,’ ’’ 353, 355, 358, 360, 360b, 360gg-360ss, 371, PART 250ÐSPECIAL REQUIREMENTS and adding in its place the phrase 374, 379e; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 264. FOR SPECIFIC HUMAN DRUGS ‘‘statement ‘Rx only,’ ’’ and in paragraph (c)(4)(i) by removing the phrase § 201.10 [Amended] 10. The authority citation for 21 CFR ‘‘prescription legend’’ and adding in its 4. Section 201.10 Drugs; statement of part 250 continues to read as follows: place the phrase ‘‘statement ‘Rx only’ ’’. ingredients is amended in paragraph (a) Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 336, 342, 352, by removing the phrase ‘‘as ‘Warning— 353, 355, 361(a), 362(a) and (c), 371, 375(b). PART 290ÐCONTROLLED DRUGS May be habit forming’ ’’. 5. Section 201.16 is revised to read as § 250.100 [Amended] 17. The authority citation for 21 CFR follows: 11. Section 250.100 Amyl nitrite part 290 continues to read as follows: inhalant as a prescription drug for Authority: 21 U.S.C. 352, 353, 355, 371. § 201.16 Drugs; Spanish-language version of certain required statements. human use is amended in paragraph (b) 18. Section 290.1 is added to subpart by removing the phrase ‘‘legend A to read as follows: An increasing number of medications ‘Caution: Federal law prohibits restricted to prescription use only are dispensing without prescription.’ ’’ and § 290.1 Controlled substances. being labeled solely in Spanish for adding in its place the phrase Any drug that is a controlled distribution in the Commonwealth of ‘‘statement ‘Rx only.’ ’’. substance listed in schedule II, III, IV, or Puerto Rico where Spanish is the V of the Federal Controlled Substances predominant language. Such labeling is § 250.101 [Amended] Act or implementing regulations must authorized under § 201.15(c). One 12. Section 250.101 Amphetamine be dispensed by prescription only as required warning, the wording of which and methamphetamine inhalers required by section 503(b)(1) of the is fixed by law in the English language, regarded as prescription drugs is Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could be translated in various ways, amended in paragraph (b) by removing unless specifically exempted in § 290.2. from literal translation to loose the phrase ‘‘legend ‘Caution: Federal 19. Section 290.2 is added to subpart interpretation. The statutory nature of law prohibits dispensing without A to read as follows: this warning requires that the prescription.’ ’’ and adding in its place translation convey the meaning properly the phrase ‘‘statement ‘Rx only.’ ’’. § 290.2 Exemption from prescription to avoid confusion and dilution of the requirements. purpose of the warning. Section § 250.105 [Amended] The prescription-dispensing 503(b)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 13. Section 250.105 Gelsemium- requirements of section 503(b)(1) of the Cosmetic Act requires, at a minimum, containing preparations regarded as Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that the label bear the statement ‘‘Rx prescription drugs is amended by are not necessary for the protection of
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 comments. A detailed rationale for this respectively, and were submitted by the Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania approval is set forth in the direct final California Air Resources Board (CARB) 19103. Copies of the documents relevant rule. If no relevant adverse comments to EPA on July 23, 1999, March 26, to this action are available for public are received, no further activity is 1990, March 10, 1998, February 7, 1989, inspection during normal business contemplated in relation to this rule. If and September 28, 1994, respectively. hours at the Air Protection Division, EPA receives relevant adverse For further information, see the direct U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, comments, the direct final rule will not final action that is located in the Rules Region III, 1650 Arch Street, take effect and all public comments section of this Federal Register. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and received will be addressed in a Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. the Virginia Department of subsequent final rule based on this Environmental Quality, 629 East Main proposed rule. EPA will not institute a Dated: March 30, 2000. Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219. second comment period on this rule. Laura Yoshii, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any parties interested in commenting Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Harold A. Frankford, (215) 814–2108 at on this rule should do so at this time. [FR Doc. 00–9651 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] the EPA Region III address above, or by DATES: Comments must be received in BILLING CODE 6560±50±P e-mail at [email protected]. writing by May 22, 2000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For ADDRESSES: Comments should be ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION further information, please see the addressed in writing to: Andrew AGENCY information provided in the direct final Steckel, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air action, with the same title, that is Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 40 CFR Part 52 located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne section of this Federal Register Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. [IN99±1b; FRL±6573±6] publication. Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s evaluation report of each rule are Approval and Promulgation of Dated: March 6, 2000. available for public inspection at EPA’s Implementation Plan; Indiana Bradley M. Campbell, Region IX office during normal business AGENCY: Environmental Protection Regional Administrator, Region III. hours. Copies of the submitted rule Agency (EPA). [FR Doc. 00–9536 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] revisions are also available for BILLING CODE 6560±50±P inspection at the following locations: ACTION: Proposed rule. Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Division, U.S. Environmental ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION revisions to particulate matter (PM) Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 AGENCY emissions regulations for Dubois Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA County, Indiana, which the Indiana 40 CFR Part 52 94105. Department of Environmental Environmental Protection Agency, Air Management (IDEM) submitted to EPA [CA 031±0174b; FRL±6580±4] Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, on February 3, 1999, as amendments to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Approval and Promulgation of its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Washington, D.C. 20460. revisions include relaxation of some PM Implementation Plans; California State California Air Resources Board, limits, elimination of limits for boilers Implementation Plan Revision, Lake Stationary Source Division, Rule which are no longer operating, updating County Air Quality Management Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street, facility names, and changing some District and San Joaquin Valley Unified Sacramento, CA 95812. Air Pollution Control District Lake County Air Quality Management boiler fuel types. Air quality dispersion District, 883 Lakeport Boulevard, modeling provided by IDEM shows that AGENCY: Environmental Protection this SIP revision will not have an Agency (EPA). Lakeport, CA 95453. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air adverse effect on PM air quality. ACTION: Proposed rule. Pollution Control District, 1990 East DATES: EPA must receive written comments on this proposed rule by May SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726. 22, 2000. the California State Implementation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Plan. The revisions concern rules from Petersen, Rulemaking Office, (AIR–4), ADDRESSES: You should mail written the following: Lake County Air Quality Air Division, U.S. Environmental comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Management District (LCAQMD) and Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Regulation Development Section, Air San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). 94105, Telephone: (415) 744–1135. Environmental Protection Agency, The rules control particulate matter SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, (PM) emissions from open burning or document concerns the following rules: Chicago, Illinois 60604. processes identified by a weight rate LCAQMD Section (Rule) 226.5, Fire You may inspect copies of the State throughput. Season—Burn Ban; LCAQMD Section submittal and EPA’s analysis of it at: The intended effect of this action is to (Rule) 431.5, [Non-Agricultural Regulation Development Section, Air regulate emissions of PM in accordance Burning]; LCAQMD Section (Rule) 433, Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. with the requirements of the Clean Air [Exemption—Residential]; Lake County Environmental Protection Agency, Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Section (Rule) 1150, Wildland Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Act). In the Final Rules section of this Vegetation Management Burning; and Chicago, Illinois 60604. Federal Register, the EPA is approving SJVUAPCD Rule 4202, Particulate FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the state’s SIP revision as a direct final Matter—Emission Rate. These rules David Pohlman, Environmental rule without prior proposal because the were adopted on September 13, 1988, Scientist, Regulation Development Agency views this as a noncontroversial June 13, 1989, July 15, 1997, December Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), revision and anticipates no adverse 6, 1988, and December 17, 1992, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
VerDate 18
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Act requirements. In the Final Rules Dated: March 31, 2000. Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–3299. section of the Federal Register, EPA is Mindy S. Lubber, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: approving the Connecticut State Plan Regional Administrator, EPA New England. Throughout this document wherever submittal as a direct final rule without [FR Doc. 00–9653 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean a prior proposal. EPA is doing this BILLING CODE 6560±50±P EPA. because the Agency views this action as a noncontroversial submittal and Table of Contents anticipates that it will not receive any ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION I. What action is EPA taking today? significant, material, and adverse AGENCY II. Where can I find more information about comments. A detailed rationale for the this proposal and the corresponding approval is set forth in the direct final 40 CFR Part 62 direct final rule? rule elsewhere in the Federal Register. [Docket No. ID±02±0001; FRL±6580±5] If EPA does not receive any significant, I. What Action is EPA Taking Today? material, and adverse comments to this Approval and Promulgation of We are proposing to approve revisions rule, then the approval will become Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste to PM emissions regulations for Dubois final without further proceedings. If Incinerators State Plan for Designated County, Indiana, which IDEM submitted EPA receives adverse comments, the Facilities and Pollutants: Idaho to EPA on February 3, 1999, as direct final rule will be withdrawn and amendments to its SIP. The revisions EPA will address all public comments AGENCY: Environmental Protection include relaxation of some PM limits, received in a subsequent final rule Agency (EPA). elimination of limits for boilers which based on this proposed rule. EPA will ACTION: Proposed rule. are no longer operating, updating not begin a second comment period. facility names, and changing some SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve DATES: boiler fuel types. EPA must receive comments in the State of Idaho’s section 111(d) State writing by May 22, 2000. Plan for controlling emissions from II. Where can I Find More Information ADDRESSES: You should address your existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious About This Proposal and the written comments to: Mr. John Courcier, Waste Incinerators (HMIWI). The plan Corresponding Direct Final Rule? Acting Manager, Air Permits Unit, was submitted on December 16, 1999, to For additional information see the Office of Ecosystem Protection (CAP), fulfill the requirements of sections direct final rule published in the rules U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Suite 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The section of this Federal Register. 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02114– State Plan adopts and implements the Dated: March 28, 2000. 2023. Emissions Guidelines applicable to Francis X. Lyons, Copies of documents relating to this existing HMIWIs, and establishes Regional Administrator, Region 5. proposed rule are available for public emission limits and controls for sources [FR Doc. 00–9921 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] inspection during normal business constructed on or before June 20, 1996. BILLING CODE 6560±50±P hours at the following locations. The In the final rules section of this interested persons wanting to examine Federal Register, the EPA is approving these documents should make an Idaho’s State Plan as a direct final rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION appointment with the appropriate office without prior proposal because the AGENCY at least 24 hours before the day of the Agency views this as a noncontroversial visit. action and anticipates no relevant 40 CFR Part 62 Environmental Protection Agency, Air adverse comments. A detailed rationale [Docket No. CT±055±7214b; FRL±6577±2] Permits Unit, Office of Ecosystem for the approval is set forth in the direct Protection, Suite 1100 (CAP), One final rule. If no relevant adverse Approval and Promulgation of State Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts comments are received in response to Plans for Designated Facilities and 02114–2023. this action, EPA will not take action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives Pollutants: Connecticut; Plan for Connecticut Department of relevant adverse comments, EPA will Controlling MWC Emissions From Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air withdraw the direct final rule and it will Existing MWC Plants Management, Planning and Standards not take effect. EPA will then address all Division, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, AGENCY: Environmental Protection public comments received in a Connecticut 06106–5127, (860) 424– Agency (EPA). subsequent final rule based on this 3026. ACTION: Proposed rule. proposed rule. The EPA will not FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John institute a second comment period on SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection this action. Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the Courcier, Office of Ecosystem Protection sections 111(d)/129 State Plan (CAP), EPA–New England, Region 1, DATES: Written comments must be submitted by the Connecticut Boston, Massachusetts 02203, (617) received by May 22, 2000. 918–1659, or by e-mail at Department of Environmental Protection ADDRESSES: Written comments should (DEP) on October 1, 1999. This State [email protected]. While the public be addressed to: Catherine Woo, US Plan is for carrying out and enforcing may forward questions to EPA via e- EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality provisions that are at least as protective mail, it must submit comments on this (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, as the Emissions Guidelines (EGs) proposed rule according to the WA 98101. applicable to existing Municipal Waste procedures outlined above. Copies of the State submittal are Combustors (MWCs) units with capacity SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the available for public review during to combust more than 250 tons/day of information provided in the Direct Final normal business hours at the following municipal solid waste (MSW). action of the same title which is found locations. Persons wanting to examine The Connecticut DEP submitted the in the Rules section of this Federal these documents should make an Plan to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Register. appointment with the appropriate office
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
2000. The notification of intent to or hand delivery of comments may be the next 2 years with about 19 vessels participate should identify the made to NMFS in the Federal Building, harvesting almost 2 million lb (907.2 organization the person represents (if Room 453, Juneau, AK. Copies of metric tons (mt)) of shucked meats. any), the names of all participants from Amendment 4 to the Scallop FMP, and Since then, vessel participation and that organization planning to the Environmental Assessment/ harvests have fluctuated greatly, but participate, and a phone number at Regulatory Impact Review/Initial have remained below the peak which the registrant can be reached. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/ participation and harvests experienced FRA reserves the right to limit active RIR/IRFA) prepared for the amendment in the late 1960s. Between 1969 and conference participation to those are available from the North Pacific 1991, about 40 percent of the annual persons who have registered in advance. Fishery Management Council, 605 West scallop harvest came from State waters. th Issued in Washington, DC on April 18, 4 Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK Since 1991, Alaska scallop harvests 2000. 99501–2252; telephone 907–271–2809. have increasingly occurred in Federal Grady C. Cothen, Jr., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: waters. Before 1990, about two-thirds of Gretchen Harrington, 907–586–7228, or the scallop harvest was taken off Kodiak Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Island and about one-third from the Standards and Program Development. [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North Yakutat area, with harvests from other [FR Doc. 00–10043 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] areas making minor contributions to BILLING CODE 4910±06±P Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the overall landings. The increased harvests authority of the Magnuson-Stevens in the 1990s occurred with new Fishery Conservation and Management exploitation in the Bering Sea. The DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Under the fishery has occurred almost exclusively FMP, management of all aspects of the in Federal waters in recent years, but National Oceanic and Atmospheric some fishing in State waters occurs off Administration scallop fishery, except limited access, is delegated to the State of Alaska (State). Yakutat, Dutch Harbor, and Adak. Before the early 1990s, the Council 50 CFR Part 679 Federal regulations governing the scallop fishery appear at 50 CFR parts concluded that the State’s scallop [Docket No. 000331092±0092±01; I.D. 600 and 679. State regulations governing management program provided 030100F] the scallop fishery appear in the Alaska sufficient conservation and management of the Alaska scallop resource and did RIN 0648±AM42 Administrative Code (AAC) at 5 AAC Chapter 38—Miscellaneous Shellfish. not need to be duplicated by Federal regulation. The State concurred with Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic State regulations establish guideline harvest levels (GHL) for different scallop this position under the premise that all Zone Off Alaska; License Limitation vessels participating in the Alaska Program for the Scallop Fishery registration areas, fishing seasons, open and closed fishing areas, observer scallop fishery were registered under AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries coverage requirements, bycatch limits, the laws of the State and fell under the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and gear restrictions, and measures to limit State’s management jurisdiction. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), processing efficiency (including a ban Initial Federal Involvement in the Commerce. on the use of mechanical shucking Fishery ACTION: Proposed rule; request for machines and a limitation on crew size). By 1992, fishery participants and comments. The gear regulations limit vessels to management agencies developed using no more than two, 15–ft (4.5 m) growing concerns about excessive SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to dredges, except in Cook Inlet (State fishing capacity and exploitation in the implement Amendment 4 to the Fishery Registration Area H) where vessels are scallop fishery. The Council was Management Plan for the Scallop limited to using a single 6–ft (1.8 m) presented with information indicating Fishery off Alaska (FMP), which would scallop dredge. that the stocks of weathervane scallops create a license limitation program The Council has submitted were fully exploited and that any (scallop LLP) for the scallop fishery. If Amendment 4 for Secretarial review, increase in fishing effort could be adopted, this program would limit the and a Notice of Availability of the detrimental to the stocks. Information number of participants and reduce amendment was published March 8, indicated that dramatic changes in age fishing capacity in the scallop fishery 2000 (65 FR 12500) with comments on composition had occurred during the off Alaska. This action is proposed to the FMP amendment invited through period 1980–1990, with commensurate achieve the conservation and May 8, 2000. Comments may address declines in harvest. In the early 1990s, management goals for the scallop the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, many fishermen abandoned historical fishery and is intended to further the or both, but must be received by May 8, fishing areas and searched for new areas objectives of the FMP. 2000, to be considered in the approval/ to maintain catch levels. Increased DATES: Comments on the proposed rule disapproval decision on the FMP numbers of small scallops were reported must be submitted on or before June 5, amendment. in the catch. These events raised 2000. Management Background and Need for conservation concerns because scallops ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed Action are highly susceptible to local depletion rule should be submitted to Sue and boom/bust cycles worldwide. Salveson, Assistant Regional Historic Management of the Scallop The perceived need to limit access to Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Fishery the fishery was the primary motivation Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. The scallop resource off Alaska has for the Council to begin its Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668, been commercially exploited for more consideration of Federal management of Attn: Lori Gravel. Comments may also than 30 years. Weathervane scallop the scallop fishery in 1992. The Council be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907–586– stocks off Alaska were first believed that Federal action was 7465. Comments will not be accepted if commercially explored by a few vessels necessary because existing State statutes submitted via e-mail or Internet. Courier in 1967. The fishery grew rapidly over precluded a State vessel moratorium
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Federal waters off Alaska by eliminating would not at least equal their average maximum length overall (MLOA) of the the unnecessary duplication of gross income from scallops landed), if vessel on which the license could be regulations at the State and Federal the number of vessels fishing for used, and (as appropriate) limitations on levels. scallops increased. This conclusion is scallop dredging gear that could be supported by the economic analysis in deployed from the vessel. A scallop LLP Amendment 5: Essential Fish Habitat license would represent a privilege (not (EFH) the EA/RIR/IRFA for Amendment 4 and is demonstrated by recent participation a property right) that could be amended Amendment 5 to the FMP responds to in the fishery of an average of nine or revoked at any time without new EFH requirements of section 303 of vessels since 1995. compensation. the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The notice Beginning February 1998, the Council A scallop LLP license would be of approval of Amendment 5 was reviewed participation, and other data initially issued to an eligible applicant published on April 26, 1999 (64 FR from the scallop fishery, considered who held, on February 8, 1999 (the date 20216). This amendment describes and public testimony, and developed a of Council action), either a State or identifies EFH for the scallop fishery, problem statement and alternatives for Federal moratorium permit and who includes provisions to minimize to the analysis of an LLP to replace the used the permit to make legal landings extent practicable adverse effects on existing vessel moratorium. of scallops in the qualifying period. The such habitat caused by fishing, and The Council developed six qualifying period for the scallop LLP identifies other actions to encourage the alternatives and two options for the would be from January 1, 1996, through conservation and enhancement of such LLP. These alternatives ranged from no October 9, 1998. Legal landings of habitat. action to a program that would issue scallops would have to be made in at Amendment 6: Overfishing Definitions nine licenses, which is half the number least 2 of the 3 calendar years during of moratorium permits. The alternatives this period. A legal landing is defined Amendment 6, also required by recent and options are described in the EA/ in regulations (§ 679.2) as a landing in changes in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES). Under the compliance with Federal and State amended the FMP by redefining Council’s preferred alternative the commercial fishing regulations in effect overfishing, optimum yield (OY), and qualification criteria for initial at the time of the landing. maximum sustainable yield for the allocation of licences, if adopted, would A license would authorize the license scallop resource. Amendmentse 6 was result in a total of nine licenses. The holder to catch and retain scallops in approved on March 3, 1999 (64 FR Council adopted the most restrictive Federal waters off Alaska. The license 11390). This amendment improved alternative and options to create an LLP holder could be an individual or a management of the scallop fisheries by that would reduce the number of corporate person consistent with the providing the tools to (1) prevent participants in the fishery and eliminate definition of ‘‘person’’ in the Magnuson- overfishing; (2) achieve OY on a growth in harvesting capacity. The Stevens Act, and the license holder continuing basis; and (3) minimize Council’s intention is to reduce effort to would not be required to be on board a bycatch. Amendment 6 also added approach a sustainable fishery with vessel when it is catching and retaining information to the FMP on the State’s maximum net benefits to the Nation, as scallops. An original copy of the scallop bycatch monitoring and reduction required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. LLP license would be required to be programs such as at-sea catch sampling, onboard the vessel at that time. This proposed rule would implement area closures, bycatch limits, and gear Although a scallop LLP license would the Council’s preferred alternative and restrictions. not be vessel specific, the length overall options. of any vessel that is catching and Amendment 4: License Limitation Operational Aspects retaining scallops under the terms of the Program license would be constrained by the 1. General The Council adopted Amendment 4 to MLOA specified on the license. In the FMP in February 1999. If approved The LLP would limit access to the addition, the license would specify any and implemented as proposed, an LLP commercial scallop fisheries in the gear limitations. The license also would would replace the existing Federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off be transferable, subject to NMFS review moratorium program on the entry of Alaska. A qualified person who applies and approval of an application to new vessels to the scallop fishery, as prescribed would receive a license(s) transfer the license and the eligibility of which is scheduled to expire on June that would authorize that person to the proposed transferee to receive a 30, 2000. catch and retain scallops. Initial license by transfer. The Council designed Amendment 4 allocation of licenses would be based on A scallop LLP license would replace in response to extensive public the eligibility qualifications discussed the existing scallop moratorium permit testimony that the scallop fishery here. and would require possession of a suffered from excessive harvesting moratorium permit as a criterion for a 2. Nature of Scallop LLP Licenses and capacity. In 1996, members of the license. To qualify for a Federal scallop Qualification Periods scallop industry submitted a proposal to moratorium permit, a vessel must have the Council for an LLP. Industry A scallop LLP license is a permit that made a minimum of 1 legal landing of members proposed an LLP to limit grants the person named on the license scallops harvested from any waters off access to the fishery because they (i.e., the license holder) the privilege of Alaska during 1991, 1992, or 1993, or believed that they would suffer catching and retaining scallops in during at least 4 separate years from economic hardship if latent moratorium Federal waters off Alaska. Once initially 1980 through 1990 (§ 679.4(g)(3)). permits were activated. ‘‘Latent’’ issued using criteria discussed here, a The State moratorium qualification permits refer to permits for vessels that scallop LLP license would be period was established either for a received a moratorium permit but that transferable, subject to NMFS approval, Statewide moratorium permit or a Cook currently are not active in the fishery. to an eligible transferee(s). Each license Inlet moratorium permit. For the Public testimony indicated that would specify certain endorsements and Statewide moratorium qualification fishermen could not break even (i.e., limitations, including the name and period, a vessel owner must have their average costs of fishing for scallops address of the license holder, the harvested and landed at least 1,000 lb
VerDate 18
(0.45 mt) of scallops from State waters The specified MLOA would be equal to information on vessels that participated during 1995 or 1996, and during each of the LOA of the longest vessel used by in the scallop fishery during the at least 4 years between 1984 and 1996, the applicant to make legal scallop relevant time periods, vessel ownership, inclusive. For the Cook Inlet landings during the qualifying years. and the dates, location, and numbers of moratorium qualification period, a The purpose of the MLOA provision is qualifying landings of scallops made by person must have harvested and landed to restrict growth of harvesting capacity those vessels. at least 1,000 lbs (0.45 mt) of scallops in the fishery, thus furthering the goals If a scallop LLP application is from Cook Inlet during 1994 or 1996, of the LLP. submitted during the application and during each of at least 3 years period, NMFS would compare the 5. Harvest Requirements between 1984 and 1996, inclusive. claims on the application with the The scallop LLP eligibility criteria A legal landing is defined at § 679.2 official LLP record. If the claims on the that require an applicant to have held a as a landing in compliance with Federal application are supported by the moratorium permit and to have made and State commercial fishing information in the official LLP record, legal landings of scallops during the regulations in effect at the time of the the application would be approved and, scallop LLP qualifying period are landing. Only legal landings of scallops following the expiration of the designed to account for past and recent would qualify the applicant for a scallop application period, the licence could be participation in the scallop fishery. A LLP license. To qualify for a scallop issued. If the claims are not verified key criterion for qualifying for a scallop license, the applicant would be required using information in the official LLP LLP license is being named on a State to have used his/her moratorium permit record, the applicant would be so or Federal moratorium permit. Hence, on a qualified vessel to make one legal notified and would be provided 60 days persons who were eligible for a vessel landing of scallops in each of any 2 to submit information (or evidence) to moratorium permit but did not apply or calendar years from January 1, 1996, support the unverified claims. For receive one could not now be eligible through October 9, 1998. example, an applicant could provide for a scallop LLP license. Also, the State fish tickets to verify legal landings 6. Scallop LLP License Recipients proposed requirement to have an not found in the official LLP record. Or, original scallop LLP license on board A license would be issued only to an an applicant could provide a sales while catching and retaining scallops eligible applicant meeting the eligibility contract verifying vessel ownership. would prevent a license holder from criteria described here. In addition, an Unsubstantiated or incompletely using more than one vessel at once for eligible applicant would have to have verified claims would not be accepted. that purpose, unless the license holder been eligible on February 8, 1999 (the If an applicant demonstrates that the was named on more than one license date of final Council action on the LLP), claims submitted in the application are (see ‘‘ownership caps’’ below). to document a fishing vessel under correct and sufficient to qualify the Chapter 121 of Title 46, U.S.C. This law applicant for a license, NMFS could 3. Gear Endorsements establishes criteria regarding the issue a license to the applicant at the Generally, the proposed scallop LLP citizenship of a person who may own a conclusion of the evidentiary period. licenses would have no area or gear U.S. fishing vessel. The proposed If information in the application is not endorsements. Scallop LLP licenses regulation would require that the same substantiated or verified at the would authorize their holders to catch citizenship standards apply to the conclusion of the 60-day evidentiary and retain scallops in all waters off eligibility for a scallop LLP license. period, NMFS would issue an initial Alaska that are open for scallop fishing. Actual ownership of a fishing vessel administrative determination (IAD) However, licenses premised on the legal under this statute on February 8, 1999, including reasons why the application landings of scallops harvested only from however, would not be required. is not accepted. Applicants then would Cook Inlet (State Registration Area H) be provided with an opportunity to 7. Application Process for Scallop LLP during the qualifying period would have appeal that IAD to the NMFS Office of Licenses a gear endorsement that would limit Administrative Appeals, under § 679.43. allowable gear to a single 6–foot (1.8 m) A one-time application period of no During the pendency of an dredge when fishing for scallops in any less than 15 days would be specified by administrative adjudication leading to a area. Otherwise, licenses premised on notification in the Federal Register. If final agency action, NMFS would issue the legal landings of scallops harvested the LLP is approved, NMFS anticipates an interim (temporary, non-transferable) from other areas outside Cook Inlet that the application period for LLP licence to an applicant who was during the qualifying period would have licenses will be in May or June of 2000. authorized to participate in the fishery no gear endorsement. Existing State All applications for licenses would have in the year before the IAD is issued and regulations limit gear size to two 15– to be submitted during the time period who makes a credible claim to eligibility foot (4.5 m) dredges in all other areas. specified for applying for a license. under the scallop LLP regulations. A The purpose of this restriction is to Applications postmarked after the decision to withhold an interim licence prevent expansion in overall fishing ending date for the application period could be appealed to the Office of capacity by not allowing relatively small would be denied. Administrative Appeals. An applicant operations in Cook Inlet to increase To evaluate and verify an applicant’s who was issued a license the previous their fishing capacity. Persons who eligibility claim, NMFS would compile year would be eligible for a non- qualified from Cook Inlet scallop an official LLP record for the scallop transferable interim license pending the harvests would be allowed to operate in LLP containing information on qualified final resolution of his or her claim any area open to scallop fishing. persons who hold moratorium permits pursuant to the license renewal and used the permits to participate in provisions of 5 U.S.C. 558. The non- 4. Vessel Length the scallop fishery during the qualifying transferable interim license would The length overall (LOA) of a vessel period. The official scallop LLP record authorize the applicant to catch and is defined at § 679.2. Each scallop LLP would contain only complete and retain scallops and would be effective license would specify the maximum verifiable information that would be until final agency action. At that time, LOA (MLOA) of a vessel that could be used for the purpose of determining the person who appealed would receive used under the authority of the license. eligibility for a license, including either a transferable license, or no
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
(g) Scallop License Limitation for the scallop LLP specified in the the Regional Administrator. Inconsistent Program (LLP).--(1) General Federal Register will be denied. An claims in the application, unless requirements. In addition to the permit application form will be sent to the last verified by evidence, will not be and licensing requirements prescribed known address of the person identified accepted. An applicant who submits in this part, each vessel within the EEZ as an eligible applicant by the official inconsistent claims, or an applicant who off Alaska that is catching and retaining LLP record. An application form may be fails to submit the information specified scallops, must have an original scallop requested from the Regional in paragraphs (g)(4)(iii) and (g)(4)(iv) of LLP license on board at all times it is Administrator. this section, will be provided a 60-day catching and retaining scallops. This (ii) Application Period. For the evidentiary period pursuant to scallop LLP license, issued by NMFS, scallop license, an application period of paragraph (g)(4)(vii) of this section to authorizes the person named on the no less than 15 days will be specified by submit the specified information, license to catch and retain scallops in notification in the Federal Register and submit evidence to verify his or her compliance with regulations of the State other information sources deemed inconsistent claims, or submit a revised of Alaska and only with a vessel that appropriate by the Regional application with claims consistent with does not exceed the MLOA specified on Administrator. information in the official LLP record. the license and the gear designation (iii) Contents of application. To be An applicant who submits claims that specified on the license. complete, an application for a scallop are inconsistent with information in the (2) Qualifications for a scallop LLP license must be signed and dated by the official LLP record has the burden of license. A scallop LLP license will be applicant, or the individual representing proving that the submitted claims are issued to an eligible applicant who: the applicant, and contain the following correct. (i) Is a qualified person; information, as applicable: (vi) Additional information or (ii) Was named on a State of Alaska (A) Scallop Moratorium Permit evidence. The Regional Administrator scallop moratorium permit or Federal number under which legal landings of will evaluate additional information or scallop moratorium permit on February scallops were made during the evidence to support an applicant’s 8, 1999; qualification period specified in inconsistent claims submitted within (iii) Used the moratorium permit held paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section; the 60-day evidentiary period pursuant on February 8, 1999 to make legal (B) Name, business address, telephone to paragraph (g)(4)(vii) of this section. If landings of scallops in each of any 2 number, FAX number, and social the Regional Administrator determines calendar years from January 1, 1996, security number or tax ID number of the that the additional information or through October 9, 1998; and applicant, and whether the applicant is evidence meets the applicant’s burden (iv) Submitted a complete application a U.S. citizen or a U.S. business; of proving that the inconsistent claims for a scallop license during the (C) Name of the managing company, in his or her application are correct, the application period specified pursuant to if any; official LLP record will be amended and paragraph (g)(4) of this section. (D) Evidence of legal landings in the the information will be used in (3) Scallop license conditions and qualifying years and registration areas; determining whether the applicant is endorsements. A scallop license (E) For the vessel(s) being used as eligible for a license. However, if the authorizes the license holder to catch basis for eligibility for a license, the Regional Administrator determines that and retain scallops only if the vessel name, state registration number (e.g., the additional information or evidence length and gear used do not exceed the ADF&G number), the USCG does not meet the applicant’s burden of vessel length and gear endorsements documentation number, and valid proving that the inconsistent claims in specified on the license. evidence of the LOA on February 8, his or her application is correct, the (i) An MLOA will be specified on the 1999, of the longest vessel used by the applicant will be notified by an initial scallop license equal to the LOA on applicant during the qualification administrative determination, pursuant February 8, 1999, of the longest vessel period specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) to paragraph (g)(4)(viii) of this section, used to make legal landings of scallops of this section. that the applicant did not meet the during the scallop LLP qualifying period (iv) Successor-in-interest. If an burden of proof to change the specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this applicant is applying as the successor- information in the official LLP record. section. in-interest to an eligible applicant, an (vii) 60-day evidentiary period. The (ii) If the eligible applicant was a application, to be complete, also must Regional Administrator will specify by moratorium permit holder with a contain valid evidence proving the letter a 60-day evidentiary period during Scallop Registration Area H (Cook Inlet) applicant’s status as a successor-in- which an applicant may provide endorsement and did not make a legal interest to that eligible applicant and: additional information or evidence to landing of scallops caught outside of (A) Valid evidence of the death of that support the claims made in his or her Area H during the qualification period eligible applicant at the time of application, or to submit a revised specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this application, if the eligible applicant was application with claims consistent with section, the license will have a gear an individual; or information in the official LLP record, if endorsement restricting gear to a single (B) Valid evidence that the eligible the Regional Administrator determines 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge in all areas. applicant is no longer in existence at the that the applicant did not meet the (4) Application for a scallop license. time of application, if the eligible burden of proving that the information (i) General. The Regional Administrator applicant is not an individual. on the application is correct through will issue a scallop license to an (v) Application evaluation. The evidence provided with the application. applicant if a complete application is Regional Administrator will evaluate an Also, an applicant who fails to submit submitted by or on behalf of the application submitted during the information as specified in paragraphs applicant during the specified specified application period and (g)(4)(iii) and (g)(4)(iv) of this section application period, and if that applicant compare all claims in the application will have 60 days to provide that meets all the criteria for eligibility in with the information in the official LLP information. An applicant will be this part. An application that is record. Claims in the application that limited to one 60-day evidentiary postmarked or hand delivered after the are consistent with information in the period. Additional information or ending date for the application period official LLP record will be accepted by evidence, or a revised application,
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Notices Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 78
Friday, April 21, 2000
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER faoinfo/economic/esn/codex. Send 3. Inclusion of Additional Species in contains documents other than rules or comments, in triplicate, to the FSIS the Standards for Fish and Fishery proposed rules that are applicable to the Docket Clerk and reference Docket # 00– Products; Chilean Langostino, public. Notices of hearings and investigations, 015N. All comments submitted in 4. Proposed Draft Code of Practice for committee meetings, agency decisions and response to this notice will be available Fish and Fishery Products at Step 4, rulings, delegations of authority, filing of 5. Draft Standard for Dried Salted petitions and applications and agency for public inspection in the Docket statements of organization and functions are Clerk’s Office between 8:30 a.m. and Anchovies; Government Comments at examples of documents appearing in this 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Step 7, 6. Draft Standard for Crackers from section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marine and Freshwater Fish, Patrick J. Clerkin, Associate U.S. Crustacean, and Molluscan Shellfish at Manager for Codex, U.S. Codex Office, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Step 7, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 7. Proposed Draft Standard for Salted Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Food Safety and Inspection Service Atlantic Herring and Salted Sprats at Independence Avenue SW., Step 4, [Docket No. 00±015N] Washington, DC 20250–3700, 8. Proposed Draft Standard for Telephone (202) 205–7760, Fax (202) Codex Alimentarius Commission: Smoked Fish at Step 4, 720–3157. Persons requiring a sign 9. Proposed Draft Standard for Twenty-fourth Session of the Codex language interpreter or other special Molluscan Shellfish at Step 4, Committee on Fish and Fishery accommodations should notify Mr. 10. Model Certificate for Fish and Products Clerkin at the above number. Fishery Products, AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 11. Discussion Paper on the for Food Safety, USDA. Development of a Standard for Scallops, Background 12. Discussion Paper on the ACTION: Notice of public meeting and Development of a Standard for Sturgeon request for comments. Codex was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food Caviar, SUMMARY: The Office of the Under and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and 13. Discussion Paper on the Use of Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. the World Health Organization (WHO). Chlorinated Water. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Codex is the major international Each issue listed will be fully the Food and Drug Administration organization for encouraging fair described in documents distributed, or (FDA), are sponsoring a public meeting international trade in food and to be distributed, by the Norway on May 10, 2000, to provide information protecting the health and economic Secretariat. Members of the public may and receive public comments on agenda interests of consumers. Through access or request copies of these items that will be discussed at the adoption of food standards, codes of documents (see ADDRESSES). Twenty-fourth Session of the Codex practice, and other guidelines Additional Public Notification Committee on Fish and Fishery developed by its committees, and by Public awareness of all segments of Products (CCFFP), which will be held in promoting their adoption and rulemaking and policy development is Alesund, Norway, June 5–9, 2000. The implementation by governments, Codex important. Consequently, in an effort to Under Secretary for Food Safety and seeks to ensure that the world’s food better ensure that minorities, women, FDA recognize the importance of supply is sound, wholesome, free from and persons with disabilities are aware providing interested parties the adulteration, and correctly labeled. of this notice, FSIS will announce it and opportunity to obtain background The Codex Committee on Fish and provide copies of this Federal Register information on the Twenty-fourth Fishery Products was established to publication in the FSIS Constituent Session of the CCFFP and to address elaborate codes and standards for fish Update. FSIS provides a weekly FSIS items on the agenda. and fishery products. The Government Constituent Update, which is DATES: The public meeting is scheduled of Norway hosts this Committee and communicated via fax to over 300 for Wednesday, May 10, 2000, from 9 will chair the Committee meeting. organizations and individuals. In a.m. to 12 noon. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public addition, the update is available on-line ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be Meeting through the FSIS web page located at held in the FDA, Office of Seafood, http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is Conference Room, 1110 Vermont Agenda items will be described and used to provide information regarding Avenue, NW, Suite 1110, Washington, discussed at the May 10, 2000, public FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, DC 20005. To receive copies of the meeting. Attendees will have the Federal Register notices, FSIS public documents referenced in this notice, opportunity to pose questions and offer meetings, recalls, and any other types of contact the FSIS Docket Clerk, U.S. comments. information that could affect or would Department of Agriculture, Food Safety The provisional agenda items to be be of interest to our constituents/ and Inspection Service, Room 102, discussed during the public meeting are: stakeholders. The constituent fax list Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW., 1. Matters Referred by the Codex consists of industry, trade, and farm Washington, DC 20250–3700. The Alimentarius Commission and other groups, consumer interest groups, allied documents will also be accessible via Codex committees, health professionals, scientific the World Wide Web at the following 2. Weight Determination of Quick professionals, and other individuals that address: http://www.fao.org/waicent/ Frozen Shrimps and Prawns, have requested to be included. Through
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM services proposed for addition to the Time Limits PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR Procurement List. Statutory Time Limits SEVERELY DISABLED Accordingly, the following commodities and services are hereby Section 751(a)3)(A) of the Tariff Act of Procurement List; Additions added to the Procurement List: 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), requires AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From Commodities the Department to make a preliminary People Who Are Blind or Severely Paper Holder & Micro Note Holder determination within 245 days after the Disabled. 7510–00–NIB–0385 (Micro Note Holder) last day of the anniversary month of an ACTION: Additions to the Procurement 7510–00–NIB–0386 (Paper Holder) order or finding for which a review is List. Tab, Hanging File Folder requested and a final determination 7510–01–375–0502 within 120 days after the date on which 7510–01–375–4510 SUMMARY: This action adds to the the preliminary determination is Procurement List commodities and Services published. However, if it is not services to be furnished by nonprofit Base Supply Center, Key West Naval Air practicable to complete the preliminary agencies employing persons who are Station, Key West, Florida results of review within this time blind or have other severe disabilities. Customization & Distribution of Navy period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000. Recruiting Promotional Merchandise, allows the Department to extend the Department of the Navy, FISC Norfolk, ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase Detachment Washington DC, time limit for the preliminary From People Who Are Blind or Severely Washington, DC determination to a maximum of 365 Disabled, Crystal Gateway 3, Suite 310, Grounds Maintenance, Veterans Affairs days and for the final results to 180 days 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Medical Center, 800 Zorn Avenue, (or 300 days if the Department does not Arlington, Virginia 22202–4302. Louisville, Kentucky extend the time limit for the preliminary FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grounds Maintenance, National Oceanic and results) from the date of publication of Louis R. Bartalot (703) 603–7740. Atmospheric Administration, Western Regional Center (WRC), 7600 Sand Point the preliminary results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Way N.E., Seattle, Washington Background October 29, 1999, January 14, March 3, Installation Support Services, Basewide, Fort and 10, 2000, the Committee for Hood, Texas On October 1, 1999, the Department Purchase From People Who Are Blind Janitorial/Custodial, U.S. Army Reserve published a notice of initiation of or Severely Disabled published notices Center, 4655 N. Lexington Avenue, Arden Hills, Minnesota, administrative review of the (64 FR 58378 and 65 FR 2373, 11548, antidumping duty order on industrial 12969) of proposed additions to the Switchboard Operation, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 510 phosphoric acid from Belgium, covering Procurement List. East Stoner Avenue, Shreveport, the period August 1, 1998 through July After consideration of the material Louisiana 31, 1999 (64 FR 53318). The preliminary presented to it concerning capability of This action does not affect current results are currently due no later than qualified nonprofit agencies to provide contracts awarded prior to the effective date May 3, 2000. the commodities and services and of this addition or options that may be impact of the additions on the current exercised under those contracts. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary or most recent contractors, the Results of Review Committee has determined that the Louis R. Bartalot, commodities and services listed below Deputy Director (Operations). We determine that it is not practicable are suitable for procurement by the [FR Doc. 00–9999 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] to complete the preliminary results of Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. BILLING CODE 6353±01±P this review within the original time 46–48c and 41 CFR 51–2.4. limit. Therefore the Department is I certify that the following action will extending the time limit for completion not have a significant impact on a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of the preliminary results until no later substantial number of small entities. than June 17, 2000. See Decision The major factors considered for this International Trade Administration Memorandum from Tom Futtner to certification were: Holly A. Kuga, dated April 13, 2000, 1. The action will not result in any [A±423±602] which is on file in the Central Records additional reporting, recordkeeping or Unit, Room B–099 of the main other compliance requirements for small Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Commerce building. We intend to issue entities other than the small Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for the final results no later than 120 days organizations that will furnish the Preliminary Results of Antidumping after the publication of the preliminary Duty Administrative Review commodities and services to the results notice. Government. 2. The action will not have a severe AGENCY: Import Administration, This extension is in accordance with economic impact on current contractors International Trade Administration, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Department of Commerce. for the commodities and services. Dated: April 13, 2000. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 2000. 3. The action will result in Holly A. Kuga, authorizing small entities to furnish the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import commodities and services to the Frank Thomson at (202) 482–4793 or Administration, Group II. Government. Nithya Nagarajan at (202) 482–5253, 4. There are no known regulatory Import Administration, International [FR Doc. 00–9995 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] alternatives which would accomplish Trade Administration, U.S. Department BILLING CODE 3510±DS±M the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- of Commerce, 14th Street and O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC connection with the commodities and 20230.
VerDate 18
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 301), we invite comments on the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE question of whether instruments of International Trade Administration equivalent scientific value, for the International Trade Administration purposes for which the instruments University of North Dakota; Notice of shown below are intended to be used, Export Trade Certificate of Review Decision on Application for Duty-Free are being manufactured in the United Entry of Scientific Instrument AGENCY: International Trade States. Administration, Commerce. Comments must comply with 15 CFR This decision is made pursuant to ACTION: Notice of Revocation of Export 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and Section 6(c) of the Educational, Trade Certificate of Review No.89– be filed within 20 days with the Scientific, and Cultural Materials 00008. Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89– Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. 651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Department of Commerce, Washington, SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce Related records can be viewed between D.C. 20230. Applications may be issued an export trade certificate of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. review to FEXCORP. Because this Department of Commerce, 14th and in Room 4211, U.S. Department of certificate holder has failed to file an Constitution Avenue, N.W., Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution annual report as required by law, the Washington, D.C. Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Secretary is revoking the certificate. Docket Number: 00–003. Applicant: Docket Number: 00–007. Applicant: This notice summarizes the notification University of North Dakota, Grand University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, letter sent to FEXCORP. 1900 E. Kenwood Boulevard, Room B30, Forks, ND 58202–7129. Instrument: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Milwaukee, WI 53211. Instrument: Scanning Tunneling Microscope, Model Morton Schnabel, Director, Office of Scanning Tunneling Microscope, Model STM 25. Manufacturer: Omicron Export Trading Company Affairs, STM 25DH. Manufacturer: Omicron Associates, Germany. Intended Use: See International Trade Administration, Vakuumphysik GmbH, Germany. notice at 65 FR 11986, March 7, 2000. 202/482–5131. This is not a toll-free Intended Use: The instrument is Comments: None received. Decision: number. Approved. No instrument of equivalent intended to be used for the growth of scientific value to the foreign epitaxial semiconductors by molecular SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of instrument, for such purposes as it is beam epitaxy technique and the Export Trading Company Act of intended to be used, is being characterization in situ with variable 1982 (‘‘the Act’’) (Pub. L. No. 97–290, 15 manufactured in the United States. temperature scanning tunneling U.S.C. 4011–21) authorizes the Reasons: The foreign instrument microscopy, reflection high energy Secretary of Commerce to issue export provides: (1) ability to operate at electron diffraction, low energy electron trade certificates of review. The temperatures as low as 25°K, (2) a diffraction and Auger electron regulations implementing Title III (‘‘the vibrationally-isolated vacuum chamber spectroscopy. The ultimate goal of this Regulations’’) are found at 15 CFR part capable to 10 ¥11 mbar and (3) project is to investigate and understand 325 (1997). Pursuant to this authority, a conduction of electron-tunneling the processes at atomic level and to certificate of review was issued on June spectroscopy measurements using the control and manipulate the motion of 12, 1989 to FEXCORP. STM. The National Institute of atoms on surfaces so that the more A certificate holder is required by law Standards and Technology and a sophisticated device structures can be to submit to the Department of university research center for advanced made. Application accepted by Commerce annual reports that update microstructure devices advise that (1) Commissioner of Customs: March 24, financial and other information relating these capabilities are pertinent to the 2000. to business activities covered by its applicant’s intended purpose and (2) Docket Number: 00–008. Applicant: certificate (Section 308 of the Act, 15 they know of no domestic instrument or University of Delaware Department of U.S.C. 4018, Section 235.14(a) of the apparatus of equivalent scientific value Chemical Engineering, Colburn Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(a)). The to the foreign instrument for the Laboratory, 150 Academy Street, annual report is due within 45 days applicant’s intended use (comparable Newark, DE 19716. Instrument: Electron after the anniversary date of the case). Microscope, Model JEM–2010F. issuance of the certificate of review We know of no other instrument or Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. (Sections 325.14(b) of the Regulations, apparatus of equivalent scientific value Intended Use: The instrument is 15 CFR 325.14 (b)). Failure to submit a to the foreign instrument which is being intended to be used for the study of the complete annual report may be the basis manufactured in the United States. microstructure of metals, ceramics, for revocation (Sections 325.10(a) and semiconductors, superconductors, 325.14(c) of the Regulations, 15 CFR Frank W. Creel, zeolites, polymers, colloids and 325.10(a) (3) and 325.14(c)). Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. biomaterials to obtain structural and On June 7, 1999, the Department of [FR Doc. 00–9996 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] compositional information on the Commerce sent to FEXCORP a letter BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P materials. In addition, the instrument containing annual report questions with will be used for the training of faculty, a reminder that its annual report was staff and graduate students in the due on July 27, 1999. Additional DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE graduate course Transmission Electron reminders were sent on September 9, 1999 and on November 8, 1999. The International Trade Administration Microscopy in Materials Science (MASC 823). Application accepted by Department has received no written Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Commissioner of Customs: April 3, response to any of these letters. Scientific Instruments 2000. On January 11, 2000,and in accordance with Section 325.10(c)(1) of Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Frank W. Creel, the Regulations, (15 CFR 325.10(c)(1)), Educational, Scientific and Cultural Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. the Department of Commerce sent a Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. [FR Doc. 00–9997 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] letter by certified mail to notify L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P FEXCORP that the Department was
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
SUMMARY: The invention listed below is DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE owned in whole or in part by the U.S. Government, as represented by the National Institution of Standards and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Department of Commerce. The Technology Administration Department of Commerce’s ownership [I.D. 041700C] interest in the invention is available for Announcing a Meeting of the National licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. Conference on Weights and Measures Bluefin Tuna Statistical Documents 207 and 37 CFR Part 404 to achieve AGENCY: National Institute of Standards ACTION: Proposed collection; comment expeditious commercialization of and Technology, Commerce. request. results of Federally funded research and development. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: The Department of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commerce, as part of its continuing SUMMARY: effort to reduce paperwork and Technical and licensing information on The 85th Annual Meeting of respondent burden, invites the general this invention may be obtained by the National Conference on Weights and public and other Federal agencies to writing to: National Institute of Measures will be held July 16 through July 20, 2000, at the Omni Richmond take this opportunity to comment on Standards and Technology, Office of proposed and/or continuing information Technology Partnerships, Building 820, Hotel, 100 South Street, Richmond, VA. The meeting is open to the public. The collections, as required by the Room 213, Gaithersburg, MD 20899; Fax Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 301–869–2751. Any request for National Conference on Weights and Measures is an organization of weights Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. information should include the NIST 3506(c)(2)(A)). Docket No. and Title for the relevant and measures enforcement officials of DATES: Written comments must be invention as indicated below. the states, counties, and cities of the United States, other government submitted on or before June 20, 2000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST may officials and representatives of business, ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments enter into a Cooperative Research and industry, trade associations, and to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Development Agreement (‘‘CRADA’’) consumer organizations. Conference Forms Clearance Officer, Department of with the licensee to perform further members meet twice a year to develop Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and research on the inventions for purposes weights and measures laws and to Constitution Avenue NW, Washington of commercialization. The invention discuss subjects that relate to the field DC 20230 (or via Internet at available for licensing is: of weights and measures technology and [email protected]). NIST Docket Number: 99–016/025US. administration. Pursuant to (15 U.S.C. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or Title: Device for Stable Speed 272(B)(6)), the National Institute of copies of the information collection Determination in Machining. Standards and Technology acts as a sponsor of the National Conference on instrument(s) and instructions should Abstract: The device utilizes a non- Weights and Measures in order to be directed to Christopher Rogers, contact force actuator to drive a promote uniformity among the states in Highly Migratory Species Management machine-tool with a train of impulsive the complex of laws, regulations, Division (F/SF1), Office of Sustainable forces having a known, time-varying methods, and testing equipment that Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West frequency to identify the speeds least comprises regulatory control by the Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 likely to produce chatter (regenerative states of commercial weighing and (301–713–2347). vibrations). This can be done in real measuring devices and practices. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: time without the need for exhaustive I. Abstract cutting tests. The machine-tool spindle DATES: The meeting will be held July and a non-contact magnetic force 16–July 20, 2000, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery actuator are used to produce the time- ADDRESSES: Omni Richmond Hotel varying impulse train. This impulse Conservation and Management Act (16 located at 100 South Street, Richmond, U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), NOAA is train has significant energy at the VA 23219. spindle speed and its harmonics. As the responsible for management of the spindle speed is ramped up from zero FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: nation’s marine fisheries. In addition, NOAA must comply with the United to the maximum speed, those speeds Henry V. Oppermann, Chief, NIST, States’ obligations under the Atlantic that maximize the dynamic response of Office of Weights and Measures, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2350, Gaithersburg, Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 the tool are the speeds that minimize U.S.C. 971 et seq.) to implement regenerative chatter. The device is MD 20899–2350. Telephone (301) 975– 4005, or E-mail [email protected]. recommendations by the International suitable for integration with the Commission for the Conservation of machine-tool controller, and could Dated: March 17, 2000. Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). In order to potentially allow the optimal speeds for Karen H. Brown, monitor landings and trade in bluefin each tool to be downloaded and stored Deputy Director, NIST. tuna, the National Marine Fisheries for later use in NC programming. [FR Doc. 00–10006 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Service (NMFS) collects information Dated: April 17, 2000. through the bluefin tuna statistical BILLING CODE 3510±13±M Karen H. Brown, document (BSD) program recommended by ICCAT. BSDs are required for lawful Deputy Director. import of bluefin tuna products into [FR Doc. 00–10007 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] countries that are contracting parties to BILLING CODE 3510±13±M ICCAT. By exchanging information collected through the BSD program, ICCAT members can monitor catch of
VerDate 18
Atlantic bluefin tuna in relation to (including hours and cost) of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE applicable country quotas for proposed collection of information; (c) contracting parties and assess the extent ways to enhance the quality, utility, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric to which catch by non-contracting clarity of the information to be Administration parties could undermine the collected; and (d) ways to minimize the [I.D. 041400C] effectiveness of ICCAT’s stock burden of the collection of information rebuilding program for Atlantic bluefin on respondents, including through the New England Fishery Management tuna. use of automated collection techniques Council; Public Meetings or other forms of information II. Method of Collection technology. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Importers and commercial fish dealers Comments submitted in response to Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who import or export bluefin tuna are this notice will be summarized and/or Commerce. required to obtain a tuna dealer permit included in the request for OMB from NMFS (approved under a separate approval of this information collection; ACTION: Notice of public meetings. collection: 0648–0202). Permitted they also will become a matter of public SUMMARY: The New England Fishery dealers must obtain original BSDs from record. import shipments, complete the Management Council (Council) is importer certification section and mail Dated: April 13, 2000. scheduling four public meetings in May, or fax the completed BSD to NMFS. Linda Engelmeier, 2000: two joint meetings of its Exporters must obtain numbered, non- Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office Groundfish Committee and Advisory transferable BSDs from NMFS, complete of Chief Information Officer. Panel; a meeting of the Groundfish the landings information and exporter [FR Doc. 00–10025 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Committee and Advisory Panel, in certification sections, mail or fax a copy BILLING CODE 3510±22±F conjunction with the Council’s Scallop of the completed BSD to NMFS, and Committee; and a joint Habitat attach the original BSD to the export Committee and Advisory Panel meeting. shipment. In certain cases, the landings DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Recommendations from these groups and export information must be will be brought to the full Council for validated by a government official or an National Oceanic and Atmospheric formal consideration and action, if accredited non-government institution. Administration appropriate. For the most part, U.S. catches of DATES: The meetings will be held bluefin tuna are tagged upon landing [I.D. 032000E] between Monday, May 8, 2000 and (approved under a separate collection: Tuesday, May 23, 2000. See New England Fishery Management 0648–0239) and such tagged bluefin are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific exempt from the BSD validation Council; Public Meeting dates and times. requirement. In order for a non- AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held governmental institution to be Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and in York Harbor, ME and Peabody, MA. accredited to provide validations it must Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for submit a request for such authority. Commerce. specific locations. III. Data FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul ACTION: Notice of cancellation of a J. Howard, Executive Director, New OMB Number: 0648–0040. public meeting. Form Number: None. England Fishery Management Council; (978) 465–0492. Type of Review: Regular submission. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Affected public: Businesses and other Management Council (Council) has SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: for-profit institutions. cancelled the public meeting of its Meeting Dates and Times Estimated Number of Respondents: Research Steering and Experimental Monday, May 8, 2000, 9:30 a.m. and 50. Fisheries Committee that was scheduled Tuesday, May 9, 2000, 8:30 a.m.—Joint Estimated Time Per Response: An for Tuesday and Wednesday, April 25– Groundfish Committee and Advisory average of 20 minutes for completing a 26, 2000, at 9:00 and 8:30 a.m., Panel Meeting BSD upon import, export or re-export of respectively. The meetings were Location: York Harbor Inn, Route 1A, bluefin tuna into or from the United announced in the Federal Register on P.O. Box 573, York Harbor, ME 03911; States (range of 5 minutes for BSDs March 27, 2000. listing tagged fish to 2 hours for BSDs telephone: (207) 363–5119. requiring validation); 2 hours for a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul The committee and advisors will request for accreditation from a non- J. Howard, Executive Director, New conduct a joint meeting to continue governmental institution. England Fishery Management Council; development of management options for Estimated Total Annual Burden telephone: 978–465–0492. Amendment 13 to the Northeast Hours: 500. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The initial Multispecies Fishery Management Plan Estimated Total Annual Cost to notice published on March 27, 2000 (65 (FMP). They will continue review of Public: $500. FR 16186). The meeting will be current overfishing definitions and control rules for the multispecies IV. Request for Comments rescheduled at a later date and announced in the Federal Register. complex, examine the assumptions and Comments are invited on: (a) Whether policy decisions in those rules, and the proposed collection of information Dated: April 17, 2000. develop recommendations for the is necessary for the proper performance Richard W. Surdi, biological goals of the amendment. They of the functions of the agency, including Acting Director, Office of Sustainable also will review existing management whether the information shall have Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. measures and identify their strengths practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the [FR Doc. 00–10026 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] and weaknesses. Suggestions for agency’s estimate of the burden BILLING CODE 3510±22±F improvements to those measures will be
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lower depth of 2.5–5 meters (8.2–16.4feet)— Engineers (USACE), San Francisco Guadalupe River Flood Protection from the Montague Expressway bridge District, has received an application for Project (LGRP) reach is located within to the UPRR bridge. Initial hydraulic a Department of the Army authorization the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, modeling indicates this would increase from the Santa Clara Valley Water California, between Interstate 880 and the capacity of the river sufficiently to District (SCVWD) to construct portions the UPRR bridge in Alviso and on convey the design flow within the of the Lower Guadalupe River Flood Alviso Slough from the UPRR bridge to existing levees, including providing Protection Project (LGRP). The project is the terminus of Alviso Slough with San freeboard. Numerous, potentially major located on the Guadalupe River in the Francisco Bay. The primary project area constraints have been identified for this cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, is located along approximately 6.5 miles alternative that will need to be California, between Interstate 880 and of the lower Guadalupe River and 4.0 evaluated more extensively, including the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) miles along Alviso Slough. The LGRP the following: bridge in the Community of Alviso and reach receives runoff from a highly • Impacts on approximately 16.2 on Alviso Slough from the UPRR bridge urbanized region comprising a steep hectares (40 acres) of aquatic habitat and to the terminus of Alviso Slough with upper watershed, an urban residential 1.21 hectares (3 acres) of riparian forest San Francisco Bay. In accordance with and light commercial zone (the upper and other habitat areas. the National Environmental Policy Act Guadalupe River), and a significantly • Regular Dredging would be required (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), developed and encroaching downtown to maintain the initially dredged cross the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has commercial zone. Storm drainage from sections. • determined that the proposed action these areas and from within the project Structural modifications may be may have a significant impact on the area is also discharged into the lower required to bridge piers that would human environment and therefore Guadalupe River, adding to the runoff become more exposed than in their requires the preparation of an volume. current condition. • environmental impact statement (EIS). The LGRP is being implemented along The Hetch Hetchy Adqueduct and the Guadalupe River from Interstate 880 other utilities may need to be relocated. A combined environmental impact • report (EIR)/EIS will be prepared with to the UPRR bridge in Alviso, California. The order-of-magnitude cost to the USACE as the federal lead agency The Downtown Guadalupe River implement the initial dredging is and the SCVWD as the local lead agency Project, located upstream of the LGRP, estimated to be $41 million, which under the California Environmental is scheduled to be completed by the end excludes any bridge modifications. Quality Act (CEQA). of 2002. Once the downtown project is Maintenance dredging would be completed, the result will be an increase expected to be performed on a The LGRP was authorized by SCVWD of peak floodflows that are able to reach scheduled 10-year frequency. to provide flood protection, the lower river reach. Because the lower Alternative 2: Bypass Culvert(s). This environmental protection, and public Guadalupe River does not currently alternative would involve the access opportunities, and will be have the ability to convey the expected construction of a structure that will designed and constructed to ensure that design flood event, floodway convey the flows that exceed the the channel improvements are operated modifications will be designed and existing capacity of the lower and managed to convey design constructed to ensure that the channel Guadalupe River to a downstream floodflows in the Guadalupe River from improvements are operated and discharge location. The anticipated Interstate 880 to San Francisco Bay. The managed to convey the design floodflow structure would be a reinforced concrete LGRP is also incorporating measures to with a peak of 20,000 cubic feet per box constructed within one of the avoid existing fish and wildlife habitat, second (cfs) at Alviso. existing levees, with an invert that to protect special status species, and to The Guadalupe River, located follows the toe of the levee. It is meet conditions for water quality primarily in the cities of San Jose and expected to extend from a location certification under the Clean Water Act. Santa Clara south of San Francisco Bay, immediately downstream of the U.S. 1. A scoping meeting is scheduled drains an area of about 160 square miles 101 bridge to a location shortly for May 3, 2000, from 6 to 8:30 p.m. into the Bay. The primary project area downstream of the UPRR bridge. The 2. Please submit any written is located along approximately 4.6 miles dimensions would range from 10 to 15 comments by May 19, 2000. of the lower Guadalupe River between meters (32.8 to 49.2 feet) wide and ADDRESSES: 1. The scoping meeting will Interstate 880 and UPRR bridge in between 3.5 and 5 meters (11.5 and 16.4 be held at the Silicon Valley Conference Alviso. feet) high. A few potentially major Center, 2161 North First Street, San Reasonable Alternataives constraints have been identified for this Jose, California 95113, alternative that will be evaluated more 2. Mail comments to: Robert F. The following is a brief description of extensively, including: Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the range of alternatives that will be • Constructing the bypass at several 333 Market Street, CESPN–OR–R, San evaluated in the draft EIR/EIS. The bridges, which potentially would Francisco, CA, 94105–2197, or SCVWD has not yet identified a involve property acquisition at some of proposed action and will evaluate the 3. Santa Clara Valley Water District, the bridges; and environmental impacts of each • 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, Interferences and the consequent alternative at an equal level of detail to CA, 95118–3686. relocations of existing utilities, satisfy the requirements of NEPA. including the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alternative 1: Dredging from The order-of-magnitude cost to 1. Robert Smith, (415) 977–8450, or Montague Expressway to UPRR. implement this alternative is estimated electronic mail: Dredging is a construction method that to be $200 million; maintenance costs [email protected]. removes channel-bottom material. To have not yet been quantified. 2. Lower Guadalupe River Flood meet the flood-protection objective of Alternative 3: Floodwalls, Bypasses, Protection Project, (408) 265–2607 Ext. the LGRP, the excavation of all or most and Aggressive Vegetation Management. 2724, or electronic mail: of the material would be required This alternative would involve the [email protected]. between the inboard levee toes in a construction of 1- to 7-meter-high (3.28-
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Dated: April 11, 2000. Department of Energy, 9800 South Cass Application Requirements J. L. Roth, Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439–4899; by The projects must include teams that Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate facsimile at (630) 252–5045; or by comprise multi-disciplinary expertise General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register electronic mail at [email protected] from corporate research, process Liaison Officer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: engineering, technology development [FR Doc. 00–9949 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] groups or companies, and new business BILLING CODE 3810±FF±P Background development organizations within and DOE through its Office of Industrial outside chemical companies. Technologies (OIT) supports industries Applications that do not propose a DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY in their efforts to increase energy teaming arrangement of at least two efficiency, reduce waste and increase chemical industry companies will not Chicago Operations Office, Office of be evaluated. Teams shall be led by Industrial Technologies, Notice of the productivity. The goal of OIT is to accelerate the development and use of chemical companies, but may include Chemicals Industry of the Future partners from chemical product/raw Solicitation advanced energy efficient, renewable and pollution prevention technologies material suppliers, chemical customers, AGENCY: Chicago Operations Office, that benefit industry, the environment, equipment suppliers, engineering firms, DOE. and U.S. energy security. OIT’s core software and consulting firms, universities, National Laboratories, and ACTION: Notice of financial assistance program is the Industries of the Future (IOF) initiative that focuses on basic research institutes. solicitation availability. Applicants will be required to cost materials and processing industries share a minimum of 50% of the total SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of such as the chemical industry. Energy (DOE) is announcing its project costs to be incurred under the intention to solicit applications for Research and Development Solicitation proposed project to be eligible for award financial assistance for cost shared Topics under this solicitation. research and development of In addition to the foregoing, other Responsive projects will cross-cut evaluation and selection criteria will be technologies that will enhance several technological and economic competitiveness, reduce developed in accordance with 10 CFR methodological roadmap areas 600.10—Form and Content of energy consumption and reduce including, but not limited to, catalysis, environmental impacts of the U.S. Applications and 10 CFR 600.13—Merit separations, new process chemistry, Review. chemical industry. The DOE Office of reaction engineering, materials of Industrial Technologies (OIT) seeks construction, computational fluid Issued in Argonne, Illinois on April 11, 2000. industry cost-shared projects involving dynamics, and computational at least two chemical industry chemistry. Specific attention should be John D. Greenwood, companies per project that address given to system integration and process Acquisition and Assistance Group Manager research needs identified in Technology operation and control development. The [FR Doc. 00–9982 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Vision 2020: The U.S. Chemical outcome of these projects should be BILLING CODE 6450±01±P Industry ‘‘vision document’’ and the pilot-scale demonstrations that will lead subsequent Vision 2020 technology to full-scale demonstration and roadmaps. These documents can be commercialization of process DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY found on the OIT web-site located at technology. The technology Federal Energy Regulatory http://www.oit.doe.gov/chemicals/. DOE development project proposed must Commission is interested in projects that focus on show a high probability of applied research that lead to the commercialization beyond a single [Docket Nos. OA97±111±001, OA97±112± development and successful completion company. For this reason, the proposers 001 and OA97±124±001] of pilot-scale operations. Projects of will need to describe the path to most interest will be those that commercialization that will impact Cinergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing demonstrate broad chemical industry more than one company’s process April 14, 2000. applicability, and which will yield large applications; the technology must show and replicable energy savings. Take notice that on March 20, 2000, a broad applicability in its proposed Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy), as agent DATES: The complete solicitation configuration or in a similar adaptation for and on behalf of the Cinergy document will be available on or about to other chemical industry applications. Operating Companies, PSI Energy, Inc. May 31, 2000. The deadline for and The Cincinnati Gas & Electric submission of applications will be Type and Number of Anticipated Company, submitted its compliance identified in the solicitation and should Awards filing pursuant to the Commission’s occur during August, 2000. Awards under this solicitation will be February 29, 2000 Order in Allegheny ADDRESSES: Copies of the solicitation, cooperative agreements with a term of Power Service Company, et al., 90 FERC when issued, can be obtained from the up to three years. DOE is planning to ¶ 61,224. DOE Chicago Operations Office, allocate approximately $4 million in Cinergy states that it has served a Acquisition and Assistance Home Page fiscal year 2001 for the selected projects, copy of its filing upon Hoosier Energy at http://www.ch.doe.gov/business/ subject to the availability of funds. It is Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., ACQ.htm under the heading ‘‘current estimated that three to six projects will Southern Indiana Gas and Electric solicitations,’’ Solicitation No. DE– be selected for cost-shared cooperative Company and Indiana Municipal Power SC02–00CH11040. Access to this Home agreements. Total estimated Agency. Page will also be possible through a hot- Government funding for the solicitation Any person desiring to be heard or to link from the OIT Chemicals web-site. is approximately $12 million for the protest said filing should file a motion FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John maximum three-year period, subject to to intervene or protest with the Federal Motz at (630) 252–2152; by mail at U.S. the availability of funds. Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
VerDate 18
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 2. ANP Blackstone Energy Company The substitute tariff sheets provide for 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 [Docket No. EG00–126–000] an effective date of January 1, 2000. and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Connexus requests waiver of the prior Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 notice requirement. ANP Blackstone Energy Company and 385.214). All such motions and (Applicant), a Delaware corporation, Comment date: April 26, 2000, in protests should be filed on or before whose address is 10000 Memorial Drive, accordance with Standard Paragraph E April 24, 1999. Protests will be Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77024, filed at the end of this notice. considered by the Commission to with the Federal Energy Regulatory determine the appropriate action to be 5. Otter Tail Power Company Commission an application for taken, but will not serve to make determination of exempt wholesale [Docket No. ER00–2105–000] protestants parties to the proceedings. generator status pursuant to part 365 of Any person wishing to become a party Take notice that on April 4, 2000, the Commission’s regulations. must file a motion to intervene. Copies Otter Tail Power Company (OTP) Applicant intends to construct an of this filing are on file with the tendered for filing a Service Agreement approximate 550 MW natural gas-fired Commission and are available for public between OTP and Public Service combined cycle independent power inspection. This filing may also be Company of Colorado (PSCO). The production facility in Blackstone, viewed on the Internet at http:// Service Agreement allows PSCO to Massachusetts (the Facility). The www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call purchase capacity and/or energy under Facility is currently under development 202–208–2222 for assistance). OTP’s Coordination Sales Tariff. and will be owned by Applicant. Comment date: April 25, 2000, in Electric energy produced by the Facility David P. Boergers, accordance with Standard Paragraph E will be sold by Applicant to the Secretary. at the end of this notice. [FR Doc. 00–9947 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] wholesale power market in the BILLING CODE 6717±01±M northeast United States 6. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Comment date: May 2, 2000, in [Docket No. ER00–2106–000] accordance with Standard Paragraph E DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY at the end of this notice. The Take notice that on April 4, 2000, commission will limit its consideration 1999, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Federal Energy Regulatory of comments to those that concern the tendered for filing a notice of Commission adequacy or accuracy of the application. cancellation of Conoco Power Marketing Inc.’ (formerly DuPont Power Marketing [Docket No. EG00±125±000, et al.] 3. Wabash Valley Power Association Inc.) membership in PJM. and American Municipal Power Ohio, ANP Bellingham Energy Company, et Inc. v. American Electric Power PJM requests a waiver and effective al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Services Corporation; Indiana date of April 5, 2000 for the notice of Regulation Filings Municipal Power Agency v. American cancellation. April 11, 2000. Electric Power Service Corporation PJM states that it served a copy of its Take notice that the following filings [Docket Nos. EL99–66–001 and EL99–72– filing on all of the members of PJM, have been made with the Commission: 001] including the withdrawing company, Take notice that on April 4, 2000, and each of the electric regulatory 1. ANP Bellingham Energy Company American Electric Power Service commissions within the PJM control [Docket No. EG00–125–000] Corporation (AEP), on the tendered for area. Take notice that on April 5, 2000, filing its refund report in response to the Comment date: April 25, 2000, in ANP Bellingham Energy Company Commission’s order of March 16, 2000. accordance with Standard Paragraph E (Applicant), a Delaware corporation, AEP also filed revised tariff sheets at the end of this notice. whose address is 10000 Memorial Drive, reflecting changes in its loss factors that 7. Entergy Services, Inc. Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77024, filed had been inadvertently omitted from its with the Federal Energy Regulatory settlement filing on December 10, 1999. [Docket No. ER00–2107–000] Commission an application for Copies of the filing were served upon Take notice that on April 4, 2000, determination of exempt wholesale all intervenors and all parties that Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of generator status pursuant to part 365 of signed the settlement agreement. Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf Comment date: May 4, 2000, in the Commission’s regulations. States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., accordance with Standard Paragraph E Applicant intends to construct an Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy at the end of this notice. approximate 550 MW natural gas-fired New Orleans, Inc., (collectively, the combined cycle independent power 4. Connexus Energy Entergy Operating Companies) tendered production facility in Bellingham, for filing a Non-Firm Point-to-Point [Docket No. ER00–1900–001] Massachusetts (the Facility). The Transmission Service Agreement and a Facility is currently under development Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Short-Term Firm Point-to-Point and will be owned by Applicant. Connexus Energy (Connexus) submitted Transmission Service Agreement both Electric energy produced by the Facility for filing substitute tariff sheets to between Entergy Services, Inc. as agent will be sold by Applicant to the replace supplements, filed on March 23, for the Entergy Operating Companies, wholesale power market in the 2000, to Connexus Energy Rate and Conoco Power Marketing, Inc. northeast United States. Schedule FERC No. 1. Connexus states Comment date: May 2, 2000, in that the purpose of the filing is to Entergy Services requests an effective accordance with Standard Paragraph E change the proposed effective date of date of March 28, 2000 for the Service at the end of this notice. The the Amendment to the All Requirements Agreement. Commission will limit its consideration Contract, and associated revised Comment date: April 25, 2000, in of comments to those that concern the Schedule V, between Connexus Energy accordance with Standard Paragraph E adequacy or accuracy of the application. and Elk River Municipal Utilities. at the end of this notice.
VerDate 18
8. Minnesota Power, Inc. on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Energy Supply offers generation [Docket No. ER00–2108–000] Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy services. Supply) filed Amendment No. 1 to Allegheny Energy Supply requests a Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Supplement No. 6 to the Market Rate waiver of notice requirements to make Minnesota Power, Inc. tendered for Tariff to incorporate a Netting service available as of March 7, 2000 to filing a signed Firm Point-to-Point Agreement with Southern Company NewEnergy, Inc. Transmission Service Agreement with Energy Marketing L.P. into the tariff Copies of the filing have been Northern States Power Company under provisions. provided to the Public Utilities its Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Allegheny Energy Supply requests a Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Service to satisfy its filing requirements waiver of notice requirements to make Public Utility Commission, the under this tariff. the Amendment effective as of March Maryland Public Service Commission, Comment date: April 26, 2000, in 14, 2000 or such other date as ordered the Virginia State Corporation accordance with Standard Paragraph E by the Commission. Commission, the West Virginia Public at the end of this notice. Copies of the filing have been Service Commission, and all parties of 9. Sierra Pacific Power Company provided to the Public Utilities record. Comment date: April 26, 2000, in [Docket No. ER00–2109–000] Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the accordance with Standard Paragraph E Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Maryland Public Service Commission, at the end of this notice. Sierra Pacific Power Company tendered the Virginia State Corporation for filing pursuant to Section 205 of the 14. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Commission, the West Virginia Public Federal Power Act, an executed Inc. Service Commission, and all parties of Network Integration Service Agreement [Docket No. ER00–2115–000] record. (Service Agreement) between Sierra Comment date: April 26, 2000, in Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Pacific Power Company and the City of accordance with Standard Paragraph E Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. Fallon. The Service Agreement is being at the end of this notice. tendered for filing executed Service filed in compliance with Section 29.5 of Agreements for short-term firm point-to- Sierra Pacific Resources Operating 12. Allegheny Energy Service point transmission service and non-firm Utilities Open Access Transmission Corporation, on behalf of Allegheny point-to-point transmission service, Tariff. Energy Supply Company LLC establishing El Paso Merchant Energy, Sierra has requested that the [Docket No. ER00–2113–000] LP as a point-to-point Transmission Commission accept the Service Customer under the terms of the Alliant Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Agreement and permit service Energy Corporate Services, Inc. Allegheny Energy Service Corporation thereunder be effective as of March 8, transmission tariff. 2000. on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Comment date: April 26, 2000, in Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Inc. requests an effective date of March accordance with Standard Paragraph E Supply Company) filed Amendment No. 22, 2000. at the end of this notice. 2 to Supplement No. 23 to complete the A copy of this filing has been served filing requirement for one (1) new 10. Sierra Pacific Power Company upon the Illinois Commerce Customer of the Market Rate Tariff Commission, the Minnesota Public [Docket No. ER00–2110–000] under which Allegheny Energy Supply Utilities Commission, the Iowa Take notice that on April 5, 2000, offers generation services. Allegheny Department of Commerce, and the Sierra Pacific Power Company tendered Energy requests a waiver of notice Public Service Commission of for filing pursuant to 18 CFR part 35 of requirements to make service available Wisconsin. the Commission’s Rules and as of January 7, 2000 to New York State Comment date: April 26, 2000, in Regulations, a Notice of Cancellation of Electric & Gas Corporation. accordance with Standard Paragraph E Agreement for Electric Service Copies of the filing have been at the end of this notice. Agreement Between Sierra Pacific provided to the Public Utilities 15. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Power Company and City of Fallon to be Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Inc. effective as of March 8, 2000. Public Utility Commission, the This Notice of Cancellation is filed Maryland Public Service Commission, [Docket No. ER00–2116–000] pursuant to the notice of termination of the Virginia State Corporation Take notice that on April 5 , 2000, the Electric Service Agreement given to Commission, the West Virginia Public Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. Sierra Pacific Power Company by the Service Commission, and all parties of (Alliant Energy) tendered for filing City of Fallon. record. executed Service Agreements for short- Copies of the filing were served upon Comment date: April 26, 2000, in term firm point-to-point transmission the City of Fallon, the Public Utilities accordance with Standard Paragraph E service and non-firm point-to-point Commission of Nevada and the Nevada at the end of this notice. transmission service, establishing Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer 13. Allegheny Energy Service Wisconsin Public Power Inc. as a point- Protection. Corporation on behalf of Allegheny to-point Transmission Customer under Comment date: April 26, 2000, in Energy Supply Company, LLC the terms of the Alliant Energy accordance with Standard Paragraph E Corporate Services, Inc. transmission at the end of this notice. [Docket No. ER00–2114–000] tariff. Take notice that on April 5, 2000, 11. Allegheny Energy Service Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation Corporation, on behalf of Allegheny Inc. requests an effective date of April on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Energy Supply Company, LLC 1, 2000, and accordingly, seeks waiver Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy of the Commission’s notice [Docket No. ER00–2112–000] Supply) filed Supplement No. 35 to add requirements. Take notice that on April 5, 2000, one (1) new Customer to the Market A copy of this filing has been served Allegheny Energy Service Corporation Rate Tariff under which Allegheny upon the Illinois Commerce
VerDate 18
Commission, the Minnesota Public 19. Duke Energy Corporation Department of Water and Power of the Utilities Commission, the Iowa [Docket No. ER00–2120–000] City of Los Angeles (LADWP), a long- Department of Commerce, and the term service agreement under Montana Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Public Service Commission of Power’s Market-Based Rate Tariff, FERC Duke Energy Corporation (Duke), Wisconsin. Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 6 tendered for filing a Service Agreement (Service Agreement). Pursuant to the 16. ANP Bellingham Energy Company with Statoil Energy Services, Inc., for terms of the Service Agreement, LADWP Non-Firm Transmission Service under [Docket No. ER00–2117–000] has assigned all of its rights and Duke’s Open Access Transmission obligations under the Service Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Tariff. Agreement to Duke Energy Trading and ANP Bellingham Energy Company Duke requests that the proposed Marketing, L.L.C. (DETM). Thus, tendered for filing pursuant to Rules 205 Service Agreement be permitted to Amendment #1 to the Service and 207 of the Commission’s Rules of become effective on March 14, 2000. Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.205 Duke states that this filing is in Agreement was entered into by and and 385.207) a petition seeking waivers accordance with Part 35 of the between Montana Power and DETM. and blanket approvals under various Commission’s Regulations and a copy Amendment #1 amends the Service regulations of the Commission, and an has been served on the North Carolina Agreement to allow, but not require, order accepting its FERC Electric Rate Utilities Commission. Montana Power to make available Schedule No. 1 for filing, to be effective Comment date: April 26, 2000, in energy and capacity to DETM at on the date of the Commission’s order accordance with Standard Paragraph E Alternate Points of Delivery when on such petition. at the end of this notice. Montana Power chooses to do so after a FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1 timely request from DETM. Except as 20. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. provides for the sale of energy and modified in Amendment #1, all capacity at agreed prices. [Docket No. ER00–2122–000] provisions of the Service Agreement Comment date: April 26, 2000, in Take notice that on April 4, 2000, remain in full force and effect. accordance with Standard Paragraph E Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed Comment date: April 26, 2000, in at the end of this notice. a Notice of Cancellation. Effective accordance with Standard Paragraph E March 22, 2000, Rate Schedule Nos. 65 at the end of this notice. 17. ANP Blackstone Energy Company and 135, effective date June 1, 1998 and 23. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. [Docket No. ER00–2118–000] October 15, 1998, respectively, and filed [Docket No. ER00–2125–000] Take notice that on April 5, 2000, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Take notice that on April 5, 2000, PJM ANP Blackstone Energy Company Commission by Southwest Power Pool, Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered tendered for filing pursuant to Rules 205 Inc. are to be canceled. for filing revised pages to the Amended and 207 of the Commission’s Rules of Notice of the proposed cancellation and Restated Operating Agreement of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.205 has been served upon Sonat Power PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., to clarify and 385.207) a petition seeking waivers Marketing L.P. (Sonat), El Paso Power the confidentiality provisions in Section and blanket approvals under various Services Company (EP Power Services), 18.17 of that agreement. regulations of the Commission, and an and El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P. PJM requests an effective date of June order accepting its FERC Electric Rate (successor-in-interest to both Sonat and 5, 2000. Schedule No. 1 for filing, to be effective EP Power Services). Copies of this filing were served upon on the date of the Commission’s order Comment date: April 26, 2000, in all PJM Members and the state electric on such petition. accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. regulatory commissions in the PJM FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1 Control Area. provides for the sale of energy and 21. Central Maine Power Company Comment date: April 26, 2000, in capacity at agreed prices. [Docket No. ER00–2123–000] accordance with Standard Paragraph E Comment date: April 26, 2000, in Take notice that on April 5, 2000, at the end of this notice. accordance with Standard Paragraph E Central Maine Power Company (CMP) at the end of this notice. 24. Public Service Company of New tendered for filing notice of termination Mexico 18. Duke Energy Corporation of its Wholesale Market Tariff, Power [Docket No. ER00–2127–000] [Docket No. ER00–2119–000] Sales Tariff, and Voluntary Umbrella Service Agreements. Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Take notice that on April 5, 2000, CMP states that the purpose of this Public Service Company of New Mexico Duke Energy Corporation (Duke), filing is to terminate tariffs and (PNM), tendered for filing pursuant to tendered for filing a Service Agreement voluntary umbrella service agreements, Section 35.15 of the Regulations to the with Statoil Energy Services, Inc., for because CMP has sold its generation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Transmission Service under Duke’s assets and is no longer in the business 18 CFR 35.15, Notices of Cancellation of Open Access Transmission Tariff. of providing energy. various Electric Power Sale, Purchase, Duke requests that the proposed Comment date: April 26, 2000, in and Tariff Service Agreements. Service Agreement be permitted to accordance with Standard Paragraph E Pursuant to PNM’s filing, the become effective on March 14, 2000. at the end of this notice. following agreements are to be canceled: Duke states that this filing is in Contract for Purchase of Energy between 22. Montana Power Company accordance with Part 35 of the PNM and Western Area Power Commission’s Regulations and a copy [Docket No. ER00–2124–000] Administration, dated January 1, 1994; has been served on the North Carolina Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Power Sales Agreement between PNM Utilities Commission. Montana Power Company (Montana and Imperial Irrigation District, dated Comment date: April 26, 2000, in Power), tendered for filing Amendment March 10, 1992; Amendment Number accordance with Standard Paragraph E #1 to the Power Purchase Agreement Four to the Agreement for Electric at the end of this notice. between Montana Power and the Service between PNM and the Division
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
33. Northern Indiana Public Service DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Duke Madison requests that the Company reference to ‘‘gas storage’’ activities be Federal Energy Regulatory stricken from its Application. Duke [Docket No. ER00–2152–000] Commission Madison has also requested expedited Take notice that on April 6, 2000, [Docket No. EC00±74±000, et al.] consideration of its Application as Northern Indiana Public Service modified. Company (Northern Indiana) tendered Statoil Energy Trading, Inc., et al.; Comment date: April 27, 2000, in for filing notice that it’s canceling the Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation accordance with Standard Paragraph E following Service Agreement, effective Filings at the end of this notice. The on April 6, 2000: Commission will limit its consideration April 14, 2000. of comments to those that concern the Service Agreement between Northern Take notice that the following filings adequacy or accuracy of the application. Indiana Public Service Company and Stand have been made with the Commission: Energy Corporation dated February 4, 1997. 4. Hays Energy Limited Partnership 1. Statoil Energy Trading, Inc. [Docket No. EG00–128–000] For the reasons set forth in Northern [Docket No. EC00–74–000] Take notice that on April 12, 2000, Indiana’s Transmittal Letter to the Take notice that on April 7, 2000, Hays Energy Limited Partnership Commission and in an April 6, 2000 pursuant to section 203 of the Federal (Applicant), a Delaware limited letter to Stand Energy Corporation, Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824b (1994), and partnership, whose address is 10000 Northern Indiana believes that good Part 33 of the Commission’s regulations, Memorial Drive, Suite 500, Houston, cause is shown for such cancellation to 18 CFR part 33, Statoil Energy Trading, Texas 77024, filed with the Federal be effective as of April 6, 2000. Northern Inc. (SETI) tendered for filing an Energy Regulatory Commission an Indiana states that the requested application for Commission approval of application for determination of exempt cancellation due to the defaults and the disposition of jurisdictional wholesale generator status pursuant to financial incapacity of Stand Energy facilities to Constellation Power Source, part 365 of the Commission’s Corporation will not affect other Inc. The jurisdictional facilities being regulations. purchasers under Northern Indiana’s transferred are SETI’s wholesale electric Applicant intends to construct an Power Sales Tariff. power sales agreements and associated approximate 1,100 MW natural gas-fired books and records. combined cycle independent power Comment date: April 27, 2000, in Comment date: May 8, 2000, in production facility in Hays County, accordance with Standard Paragraph E accordance with Standard Paragraph E Texas (the Facility). The Facility is at the end of this notice. at the end of this notice. currently under development and will Standard Paragraphs 2. Duke Energy Vermillion, LLC be owned and operated by Applicant. Electric energy produced by the Facility E. Any person desiring to be heard or [Docket No. EG00–108–000] will be sold initially by Applicant to the to protest such filing should file a Take notice that on April 13, 2000, Lower Colorado River Authority. motion to intervene or protest with the Duke Energy Vermillion, LLC (Duke Comment date: May 5, 2000, in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Vermillion) filed a modification with accordance with Standard Paragraph E 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC the Federal Energy Regulatory at the end of this notice. The 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 Commission (the Commission) to its Commission will limit its consideration and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Application for Commission of comments to those that concern the Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Determination of Exempt Wholesale adequacy or accuracy of the application. Generator Status which was filed in the and 385.214). All such motions or 5. Meiya Electric Asia, Ltd. above-referenced docket on March 2, protests should be filed on or before the 2000. [Docket No. EG00–129–000] comment date. Protests will be Duke Vermillion requests that the Take notice that on April 13, 2000, considered by the Commission in reference to ‘‘gas storage’’ activities be Meiya Electric Asia, Ltd. (MEA) with its determining the appropriate action to be stricken from its Application. Duke principal office at 608 St. James Court, taken, but will not serve to make Vermillion has also requested expedited St. Dennis Street, Port Louis, Mauritius protestants parties to the proceeding. consideration of its Application as filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Any person wishing to become a party modified. Commission an application for must file a motion to intervene. Copies Comment date: April 27, 2000, in determination of exempt wholesale of these filings are on file with the accordance with Standard Paragraph E generator status pursuant to Part 365 of Commission and are available for public at the end of this notice. The the Commission’s regulations. inspection. This filing may also be Commission will limit its consideration MEA is a company organized under viewed on the Internet at http:// of comments to those that concern the the laws of Mauritius. MEA will be www.ferc.fed.us/ online/rims.htm (call adequacy or accuracy of the application. engaged, directly or indirectly through an affiliate as defined in Section 202–208–2222 for assistance). 3. Duke Energy Madison, LLC 2(a)(11)(B) of the Public Utility Holding David P. Boergers, [Docket No. EG00–109–000] Company Act of 1935, exclusively in Secretary. Take notice that on April 13, 2000, owning, or both owning and operating [FR Doc. 00–9946 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Duke Energy Madison, LLC (Duke a coal-fired co-generation facility BILLING CODE 6717±01±P Madison) filed a modification with the consisting of three 75 ton coal fired Federal Energy Regulatory Commission boilers and two 12 MW steam turbine (the Commission) to its Application for generators and incidental facilities Commission Determination of Exempt located within the Jiangsu Province, Wholesale Generator Status which was PRC; selling electric energy at wholesale filed in the above-referenced docket on and engaging in project development March 2, 2000. activities with respect thereto.
VerDate 18
Comment date: May 5, 2000, in above-referenced proceeding for Applicant is a Delaware corporation accordance with Standard Paragraph E informational purposes only. that owns and operates a cogeneration at the end of this notice. The facility in Syracuse, New York (the 9. ISO New England Inc. Commission will limit its consideration Facility), and is engaged exclusively in of comments to those that concern the [Docket No. ER00–2198–000] the generation of electric energy for sale adequacy or accuracy of the application. Take notice that on April 10, 2000, at wholesale. The Facility consists of one coal-fired topping cycle 6. PSEG Rongjiang Hydropower Ltd. ISO New England Inc. tendered for filing with the Commission for cogeneration facility, with a power [Docket No. EG00–130–000] informational purposes only a revised production capacity of approximately Take notice that on April 13, 2000, Code of Conduct and Ethics Policy for 80 megawatts, and associated PSEG Rongjiang Hydropower Ltd. ISO New England Inc. equipment. No rate or charge for, or in (PRHP) with its principal office at 608 connection with, the construction of the Standard Paragraphs St. James Court, St. Denis Street, Port Facility, or for electric energy produced Louis, Mauritius filed with the Federal E. Any person desiring to be heard or thereby (other than any portion of a rate Energy Regulatory Commission an to protest such filing should file a or charge that represents recovery of the application for determination of exempt motion to intervene or protest with the cost of a wholesale rate or charge), was wholesale generator status pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in effect under the laws of any State of Part 365 of the Commission’s 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC the United States on October 24, 1992. regulations. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 Copies of this application have been PRHP is a company organized under and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of served upon the New York Public the laws of Mauritius. PRHP will be Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Service Commission and the Securities engaged, directly or indirectly through and 385.214). All such motions or and Exchange Commission. an affiliate as defined in Section protests should be filed on or before the Comment date: May 4, 2000, in 2(a)(11)(B) of the Public Utility Holding comment date. Protests will be accordance with Standard Paragraph E Company Act of 1935, exclusively in considered by the Commission in at the end of this notice. owning, or both owning and operating determining the appropriate action to be 2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company a hydropower electric generating facility taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. [Docket Nos. ER98–495–015, ER98–1614–006 consisting of three 18 megawatt hydro- and ER98–2145–006] turbine generators and incidental Any person wishing to become a party Take notice that on April 10, 2000, facilities located along the Rongjiang must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company River, Liuzhou Prefecture, Guangxi (PG&E) filed a refund report in Commission and are available for public Zhuang Autonomous Region, PRC; compliance with the Offer of Settlement inspection. This filing may also be selling electric energy at wholesale and filed in the above-referenced dockets on viewed on the Internet at http:// engaging in project development November 12, 1999 and approved by the www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call activities with respect thereto. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 202–208–2222 for assistance). Comment date: May 5, 2000, in (Commission) by letter order on January accordance with Standard Paragraph E David P. Boergers, 14, 2000. at the end of this notice. The Secretary. Comment date: May 1, 2000, in Commission will limit its consideration [FR Doc. 00–9944 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] accordance with Standard Paragraph E of comments to those that concern the at the end of this notice. adequacy or accuracy of the application. BILLING CODE 6717±01±P 3. Entergy Services, Inc. 7. TXU Energy Trading Company DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Docket No. ER00–2132–000] [Docket Nos. ER99–3333–003, EL00–69–000 Take notice that on April 6, 2000, and ER00–2178–000] Federal Energy Regulatory Entergy Services, Inc., acting as agent Take notice that on April 11, 2000, Commission for Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (Entergy TXU Energy Trading Company (TXU Gulf States), tendered for filing an ET) filed a notice of change in status, [Docket No. EG00±127±000, et al.] unexecuted Interconnection and revision to its rate schedule, and a Operating Agreement (the Agreement), request for waiver of certain code of Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corporation , between Entergy Gulf States and conduct requirements to reflect the et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Calcasieu Power, LLC. advent of retail competition and electric Regulation Filings Comment date: April 27, 2000, in industry restructuring in Texas. accordance with Standard Paragraph E Copies of the filing have been served April 13, 2000. at the end of this notice. on all customers under TXU ET’s Take notice that the following filings current rate schedule. have been made with the Commission: 4. The Dayton Power and Light Comment date: May 2, 2000, in Company 1. Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corporation accordance with Standard Paragraph E [Docket No. ER00–2156–000] at the end of this notice. [Docket No. EG00–127–000] Take notice that on April 10, 2000 8. ISO New England Inc. Take notice that on April 10, 2000, The Dayton Power and Light Company Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corporation, 56 (Dayton) submitted service agreements [Docket No. ER00–749–002] Industrial Drive, Syracuse, New York establishing Conectiv Energy Supply, Take notice that on April 11, 2000, 13204 (Applicant), filed with the Inc. and Delmarva Power & Light ISO New England Inc. tendered for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Company as customers under the terms filing with the Commission, information (Commission) an Application for of Dayton’s Open Access Transmission regarding Market Rule 15 corrective Determination of Exempt Wholesale Tariff. actions for the period from December 8, Generator Status pursuant to Part 365 of Copies of this filing were served upon 1999 through March 21, 1999 in the the Commission’s Regulations. establishing Conectiv Energy Supply,
VerDate 18
Inc. and Delmarva Power & Light 8. Montaup Electric Company Rate Tariff under which Allegheny Company and the Public Utilities [Docket No. ER00–2164–000] Energy Supply offers generation Commission of Ohio. services. Take notice that on April 10, 2000, Comment date: May 1, 2000, in Allegheny Energy requests a waiver of Montaup Electric Company (Montaup) accordance with Standard Paragraph E notice requirements to make service tendered for filing a modification and a at the end of this notice. available as of November 24, 1999, to notice of cancellation of an October 24, Cinergy Services, Inc. 5. Commonwealth Edison Company 1997 agreement, as amended on July 14, Copies of the filing have been 1998, (Agreement) by and between [Docket No. ER00–2157–000] provided to the Public Utilities Montaup and The Pascoag Fire District Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Take notice that on April 10, 2000, (Pascoag). Public Utility Commission, the Commonwealth Edison Company Montaup states that the purpose of Maryland Public Service Commission, (ComEd) submitted for filing an this filing is to reflect the recent the Virginia State Corporation Interconnection Agreement with Des agreement between Montaup and Commission, the West Virginia Public Plaines Green Land Development, L.L.C. Pascoag to effectuate an early Service Commission, and all parties of (Des Plaines). termination of the Agreement under record. ComEd requests an effective date of which Montaup currently supplies Comment date: May 1, 2000, in April 11, 2000 and accordingly seeks system capacity and energy to Pascoag. accordance with Standard Paragraph E waiver of the Commission’s notice Copies of the filing were served upon at the end of this notice. requirements. Pascoag, Montaup’s jurisdictional Copies of the filing were served on customers and upon affected state 11. Allegheny Energy Service Des Plaines and the Illinois Commerce agencies. Corporation, on Behalf of Monongahela Commission. Comment date: May 1, 2000, in Power Company, The Potomac Edison Comment date: May 1, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E Company, and West Penn Power Company (Allegheny Power) accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. at the end of this notice. 9. Allegheny Energy Service [Docket No. ER00–2167–000] 6. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, on Behalf of Allegheny Take notice that on April 10, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation Corporation Energy Supply Company, LLC on behalf of Monongahela Power [Docket No. ER00–2158–000] [Docket No. ER00–2166–000] Company, The Potomac Edison Take notice that on April 10, 2000, Take notice that on April 10, 2000, Company and West Penn Power Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Allegheny Energy Service Corporation Company (Allegheny Power), tendered (WPSC) tendered for filing an Energy on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply for filing Supplement No. 76 to add Exchange Agreement between Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Orion Power MidWest to Allegheny Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Supply), tendered for filing Amendment Power’s Open Access Transmission and Madison Gas & Electric Company. No. 5 to Supplement No. 9 to the Market Service Tariff which has been accepted WPSC also filed a certificate of Rate Tariff to incorporate a Netting for filing by the Federal Energy concurrence executed by Madison Gas Agreement with Williams Energy Regulatory Commission in Docket No. and Electric Company (MG&E). Marketing & Trading Company into the ER96–58–000. WPSC requests that the Agreement be tariff provisions. The proposed effective date under the Allegheny Energy Supply Company made effective May 2, 2000. Service Agreements is April 7, 2000 or requests a waiver of notice requirements Copies of the filing were served upon a date ordered by the Commission. to make the Amendment effective as of Madison Gas and Electric Company and Copies of the filing have been March 31, 2000. provided to the Public Utilities the Public Service Commission of Copies of the filing have been Wisconsin. Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania provided to the Public Utilities Public Utility Commission, the Comment date: May 1, 2000, in Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Maryland Public Service Commission, accordance with Standard Paragraph E Public Utility Commission, the the Virginia State Corporation at the end of this notice. Maryland Public Service Commission, Commission, and the West Virginia 7. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation the Virginia State Corporation Public Service Commission. Commission, the West Virginia Public Comment date: May 1, 2000, in [Docket No. ER00–2163–000] Service Commission, and all parties of accordance with Standard Paragraph E Take notice that on April 10, 2000, record. at the end of this notice. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Comment date: May 1, 2000, in tendered for filing notice that effective accordance with Standard Paragraph E 12. Allegheny Energy Service April 20, 2000, Niagara Mohawk Power at the end of this notice. Corporation on Behalf of Allegheny Corporation’s Form Transmission Energy Supply Company, LLC 10. Allegheny Energy Service Service Agreement, designated as Rate [Docket No. ER00–2168–000] Schedule FERC No. 188, effective date Corporation, on Behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC Take notice that on April 10, 2000, August 31, 1993, and any supplements Allegheny Energy Service Corporation thereto, and filed with the Federal [Docket No. ER00–2165–000] on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Energy Regulatory Commission by Take notice that on April 10, 2000, Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Niagara Mohawk is to be canceled. Allegheny Energy Service Corporation Supply), tendered for filing Supplement Notice of the proposed cancellation on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply No. 37 to add one (1) new Customer to has been served upon Consolidated Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy the Market Rate Tariff under which Edison Company of New York, Inc. Supply Company), tendered for filing Allegheny Energy Supply offers Comment date: May 1, 2000, in Amendment No. 6 to Supplement No. 9 generation services. accordance with Standard Paragraph E to complete the filing requirement for Allegheny Energy Supply requests a at the end of this notice. one (1) new Customer of the Market waiver of notice requirements to make
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Other#S, P–2496, 024, Eugene Water and Maine Power Company; ER00–604, 000, Other#s ER99–4400, 001, Southern Electric board; P–2496, 039, Eugene Central Maine Power Company; ER00– Operating Companies Water and Electric Board; P–2496, 042, 982, 000, Central Maine Power ER99–4450, 000, Georgia Power Company Eugene Water and Electric Board Company; ER99–238, 000, Central Maine CAH–4. Power Company; ER97–1326, 000, Consent Agenda—Miscellaneous Docket#, P–2609, 013, Curtis/Palmer Central Maine Power Company; EL00– CAM–1. Hydroelectric Company LP and 44, 000, Central Maine Power Company Docket#, RM00–8, 000, Revision of Public International Paper Company CAE–18. Reference Room Procedures for Records CAH–5. Docket#, ER00–1717, 000, Reliant Energy Request Docket#, P–11243, 016, Cordova Electric Shelby County, LP Cooperative, Inc. Other#S, ER00–1742, 000, Madison Consent Agenda—Gas and Oil CAH–6. Windpower, LLC; ER00–1746, 000, DTE CAG–1. Docket#, P–2709, 015, Monongahela Power Georgetown, LLC; ER00–1779, 000, Docket#, RP00–223, 000, Northern Natural Company, the Potomac Edison Company Union Power Partners, L.P.; ER00–1792, Gas Company and West Penn Power Company 000, Liberty Generating Company, LLC; CAG–2. ER00–1803, 000, South Eastern Consent Agenda—Electric Omitted Generating Corporation; ER00–1804, 000, CAG–3. CAE–1. Panda Leesburg Power Partners, L.P.; Docket#, RP97–288, 003, Transwestern Docket#, ER00–1770, 000, Conectiv Energy ER00–1805, 000, Panda Midway Power Pipeline Company Supply, Inc. Partners, L.P.; ER00–1814, 000, Avista CAG–4. CAE–2. Turbine Power, Inc.; ER00–1844, 000, Docket#, RP00–234, 000, CNG Docket#, ER00–1737, 000, Virginia Electric Lamar Power Partners, LP; ER00–1851, Transmission Corporation & Power Company 000, Pleasant Hill Marketing, LLC; ER00– CAG–5. CAE–3. 1858, 000, New Hampshire Electric Docket#, RP00–237, 000, Columbia Gas Docket#, ER00–1641, 000, California Power Cooperative, Inc.; ER00–1858, 001, New Transmission Corporation Exchange Corporation Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. CAG–6. Other#S, ER00–1642, 000, California Power CAE–19. Docket#, RP00–238, 000, Columbia Gulf Exchange Corporation Omitted Transmission Company CAE–4. CAE–20. CAG–7. Docket#, ER00–1723, 000, New England Docket#, ER99–4560, 001, Idaho Power Docket#, RP00–233, 000, Midwestern Gas Power Pool Company Transmission Company CAE–5. CAE–21. CAG–8. Docket#, ER00–1789, 000, Wisconsin Docket#, ER99–3092, 000, Central Maine Docket#, RP00–226, 000, Mississippi Electric Power Company Power Company Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC CAE–6. Other#S, ER99–3094, 000, Central Maine CAG–9. Omitted Power Company Docket#, RP00–239, 000, Pine Needle LNG CAE–7. CAE–22. Docket#, ER00–1806, 000, Amergen Omitted Company, LLC Vermont, LLC CAE–23. CAG–10. CAE–8. Docket#, RM95–9, 010, Open Access Same- Omitted Docket#, ER00–1807, 000, Pacific Gas and Time Information System and Standards CAG–11. Electric Company of Conduct Omitted Other#S, ER97–320, 000, Pacific Gas and CAE–24. CAG–12. Electric Company Omitted Docket#, RP00–229, 000, Tennessee Gas CAE–9. CAE–25. Omitted Pipeline Company Docket#, ER00–1820, 000, Commonwealth CAE–26. CAG–13. Edison Company and Commonwealth Docket#, ER00–536, 001, Southwestern Omitted Edison Company of Indiana Public Service Corporation CAG–14. CAE–10. CAE–27. Docket#, RP00–219, 000, Northwest Docket#, ER00–1830, 000, El Segundo Docket#, ER00–951, 002, California Power Pipeline Corporation Power, LLC Exchange Corporation CAG–15. CAE–11. CAE–28. Docket#, RP97–431, 000, Natural Gas Docket#, ER00–1666, 000, North American Docket#, EL00–40, 000, Dighton Power Pipeline Company of America Electric Reliabililty Council Associates Limited Partnership, FPL CAG–16. CAE–12. Energy, L.L.C., Southern Energy New Docket#, RS92–11, 027, Texas Eastern Omitted England, L.L.C. and Southern Energy Transmission Corporation CAE–13. Kendall, L.L.C. v. ISO New England Inc. CAG–17. Docket#, ER99–3603, 000, Pacific Gas and CAE–29. Docket#, RP99–477, 002, North American Electric Company Docket#, EL00–42, 000 PJM Energy Conservation, Inc. v. CNG CAE–14. Interconnection, L.L.C. Transmission Corporation Docket#, ER99–2326, 003, Pacific Gas and CAE–30. CAG–18. Electric Company Docket#, EL00–54, 000 UNICOM Omitted Other#S, EL99–68, 003, Pacific Gas and Investments, Inc. CAG–19. Electric Company CAE–31. Omitted CAE–15. Docket#, EL00–45, 000 Wisconsin Public CAG–20. Docket#, ER00–1534, 000, Ocean State Power, Inc. v. Wisconsin Power & Light Docket#, PR00–5, 000, Coral-Mexico Power, II Company and Alliant Energy, Inc. Pipeline, L.L.C. Other#S, ER00–1535, 000, Ocean State CAE–32. CAG–21. Power Docket#, EL00–34, 000, Exxonmobil Docket#, RP99–274, 004, Kern River Gas CAE–16. Chemical Company and Exxonmobil Transmission Company Docket#, ER00–1743, 000, Entergy Refining & Supply Company v. Entergy CAG–22. Services, Inc. Gulf States, Inc. Docket#, MG99–27, 001, Panhandle CAE–17. CAE–33. Eastern Pipe Line Company Docket#, ER00–1638, 000, Central Maine Omitted Other#s, MG99–28, 001, Southwest Gas Power Company CAE–34. Storage Company Other#S, ER00–1638, 001, Central Maine Docket#, ER99–4400, 000, Southern MG99–29, 001, Trunkline Gas Company Power Company; ER00–26, 000, Central Operating Companies MG99–30, 001, Trunkline LNG Company
VerDate 18
CAG–23. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION standing concerns. They are also Omitted AGENCY directly related to such Clean Water Act CAG–24. responsibilities as water quality Docket#, CP00–14, 000, Buccaneer Gas [FRL±6582±7] standards, surface water quality, and to Pipeline Company, L.L.C. Agency Information Collection the Agency’s effort to ensure that the Other#s, CP00–15, 000, Buccaneer Gas waters of the United States are both Pipeline Company, L.L.C. Activities: Proposed Collection; CP00–16, 000, Buccaneer Gas Pipeline Comment Request; Information ‘‘fishable’’ and ‘‘swimmable.’’ Based on Company, L.L.C. Collection Request for the National results from the 1998 National Listing of CAG–25. Listing of Advisories Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) Docket#, CP00–45, 000, Eastern Shore database, fish consumption advisories Natural Gas Company AGENCY: Environmental Protection have been issued by 47 states and from CAG–26. Agency (EPA). 100 to 200 new advisories are issued Docket#, CP00–6, 000, Gulfstream Natural ACTION: Notice. every year nationwide. Gas System, L.L.C. EPA believes there is a need to Other#s, CP00–7, 000, Gulfstream Natural SUMMARY: In compliance with the maintain and improve the existing Gas System, L.L.C. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. quality and availability of public CP00–8, 000, Gulfstream Natural Gas 3501 et seq.), this document announces information concerning fish advisories, System, L.L.C. that EPA is planning to submit the which includes but is not limited to CAG–27. Omitted following new Information Collection monitoring and risk assessment CAG–28. Request (ICR) to the Office of activities and the issuance of advisories. Docket#, CP96–684, 001, Interenergy Management and Budget (OMB): Primary responsibility for these Sheffield Processing Company, Bear Paw Information Collection Request for the activities lies with each state, territory, Energy, L.L.C. National Listing of Advisories (EPA ICR or tribal jurisdiction, however, several CAG–29. Number 1959.01). Before submitting the agencies often share responsibilities for Omitted ICR to OMB for review and approval, these activities. Consequently, EPA’s CAG–30. EPA is soliciting comments on specific Office of Water will conduct an annual Docket#, RP99–471, 001, Williams Field aspects of the proposed information fish advisory survey which will be sent Services Group, Inc. v. El Paso Natural collection as described below. to environmental and health officials Gas Company DATES: Comments must be submitted on from state, territorial, and tribal agencies CAG–31. specifically responsible for the issuance Docket#, CP97–315, 003, Independence or before June 20, 2000. of fish advisories. This survey will Pipeline Company ADDRESSES: Jeffrey Bigler, U.S. collect information (electronically via Other#s, CP97–319, 002, ANR Pipeline Environmental Protection Agency, Company the Internet and on paper) on the Office of Science and Technology, 401 location of advisories and agencies and CP97–320, 001, Independence Pipeline M Street SW., Maildrop 4305, Company persons responsible for maintaining and CP97–321, 001, Independence Pipeline Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–1305, issuing advisories for lakes and rivers, Company by e-mail at [email protected], or and for estuarine and coastal marine CP98–200, 002, National Fuel Gas Supply download a copy off the Internet at waterbodies. Responses to the Corporation http://www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA questionnaire (either on paper or CP98–540, 002, Transcontinental Gas Pipe ICR No. 1959.01. electronically via the Internet) are Line Corporation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: needed to assess public health risks of CAG–32. Jeffrey Bigler at EPA, (202) 260–1305, by consuming chemically-contaminated Docket#, CP96–687, 002, Iroquois Gas e-mail at [email protected]. Transmission System fish, and to make this information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: available to the public. Hydro Agenda The EPA will use the information to H–1. Affected Entities update existing advisory information in Reserved Entities potentially affected by this the EPA’s National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) electronic Electric Agenda action are those which issue fish consumption advisories within their database which has archived fish E–1. state, territory, or tribal jurisdictions. advisory data since 1994. The results of the nationwide data collection effort are Reserved Title shared with the states, territories, tribes, Oil and Gas Agenda Information Collection Request for the other federal agencies and the general National Listing of Advisories (EPA ICR public through access to the NLFWA I. Number 1959.01). This is a request for database which can be queried for Pipeline Rate Matters a new collection. specific information and through distribution of the annual Fish Advisory PR–1. Abstract Fact Sheet via the Internet. Results of Reserved Release of chemical contaminants into this and past surveys will be available II. our Nation’s waters from industrial at EPA’s NLFWA web site (http:// pollution, sprawling urbanization, and www.epa.gov/OST/fish/). Information Pipeline Certificate Matters introduction of new pesticides in from these surveys has stimulated PC–1. agriculture poses potentially serious nationwide dialogue on fish Reserved public health problems. Recent studies consumption advisories involving have confirmed that adverse health agencies and the public. This David P. Boergers, effects can result from consumption of information is being used to identify Secretary. chemically-contaminated fish from and clarify issues that will lead to the [FR Doc. 00–10204 Filed 4–19–00; 3:51 pm] contaminated waters. These adverse continued development of national BILLING CODE 6717±01±P affects have been one of EPA’s long guidance to assist states on sampling
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Dated: April 17, 2000. adjustments being proposed for land part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Oscar Morales, management, which may not be Federal Register document required Director, Collection Strategies Division. sufficient to protect/enhance the under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting [FR Doc. 00–10036 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] resource values, or comply with state comments on this collection of BILLING CODE 6560±50±P water quality standards. EPA requested information was published on 12/16/99; that the plan include both 2 comments were received and implementation and effectiveness discussed in the ICR. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION monitoring to measure progress in Burden Statement: The annual public AGENCY meeting goals/objectives, and to enable BLM and partners to make needed reporting and recordkeeping burden for [ER±FRL±6253±5] this collection of information is adjustments. ERP No. D–FHW–G40156–TX Rating estimated to average 7 hours per Environmental Impact Statements and EC2, TX–130 Construction, I–35 of response. Burden means the total time, Regulations; Availability of EPA Georgetown to I–10 near Seguin, effort, or financial resources expended Comments Funding, COE Section 404 Permit, by persons to generate, maintain, retain, Williamson, Travis, Caldwell, or disclose or provide information to or Availability of EPA Comments Guadalupe Counties, TX. for a Federal agency. This includes the Prepared April 3, 2000 Through April 7, 2000 Pursuant to the Environmental Summary: EPA expressed time needed to review instructions; environmental concerns regarding develop, acquire, install, and utilize Review Process (ERP), Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section impacts relating to farmlands, technology and systems for the purposes relocation/displacement, air quality, of collecting, validating, and verifying 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as Amended. Requests for wetlands, and cultural resources. EPA information, processing and requested that additional information on maintaining information, and disclosing copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at these issues be included in the final and providing information; adjust the document. existing ways to comply with any (202) 564–7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned ERP No. D–FHW–G40157–TX Rating previously applicable instructions and to draft environmental impact EC2, Tyler Loop 49 West, Construction requirements; train personnel to be able statements (EISs) was published in FR from the TX–155 Highway to I–20 to respond to a collection of dated April 09, 1999 (63 FR 17856). Highway, Funding, NPDES and COE information; search data sources; Section 404 Permits, Smith County, TX. complete and review the collection of Draft EISs Summary: EPA expressed information; and transmit or otherwise ERP No. D–AFS–L65345–WA Rating environmental concerns regarding disclose the information. NR, Deadman Creek Ecosystem farmland impacts, air quality impacts, Respondents/Affected Entities: State Management Projects, Implementation, and noise impacts. EPA requested that environment offices where RCRA Kettle Falls Ranger District, Colville additional information on these issues Corrective Action is authorized (33). National Forest, Ferry County, WA. be incorporated in the final EIS. ERP No. D–NPS–K65325–CA Rating Estimated Number of Respondents: Summary: EPA Region X used a LO, Merced Wild and Scenic River 1100. screening tool to conduct a limited review of this action. Based upon this Comprehensive Management Plan, Frequency of Response: One time screen, EPA does not foresee having any Implementation, Yosemite National only. environmental objections to the Park and the EL Portal Administrative Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: proposed project. Therefore, EPA will Site, Tuolumne, Merced, Mono, 1068 hours. not be conducting a detailed review. Mariposa and Madera Counties, CA. Estimated Total Annualized Capital ERP No. D–BLM–K67051–NV Rating SUMMARY: EPA had no objections to and Operating & Maintenance Cost EO2, Marigold Mine Expansion Project, the over all management plan, future Burden: $0. Implementation, COE Section 404 concerns might exist for specific tiered Permit, Special-Use-Permit, Humboldt projects. Send comments on the Agency’s need County, NV. ERP No. DA–AFS–L65155–00 Rating for this information, the accuracy of the Summary: EPA expressed objections EC2, Northern Spotted Owl provided burden estimates, and any with the project’s potential impacts to Management Plan, Updated Information suggested methods for minimizing surface and ground water quality from for Amendment to the Survey and respondent burden, including through mine facilities, including the post- Manage, Protection Buffer and Other the use of automated collection closure pit lake; and to air quality, Mitigating Measures, Standards and techniques to the following addresses. especially from mercury emissions. Guidelines (to the Northwest Forest Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1939.01 in Additional information was requested Plan), Late-Successional and Old any correspondence. regarding impacts to water and air Growth Forest Related Species Within Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental quality, ecological risks, bonding and the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Protection Agency, Office of closure, mitigation measures, and OR, WA and CA. Environmental Information, geochemical characterization. Summary: EPA expressed concern Collection Strategies Division (2822), ERP No. D–BLM–L65338–OR Rating regarding project impacts for those 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, EC2, John Day River Management Plan, species removed from protection and/or Washington, DC 20460; Implementation, John Day River Basin, provided less protection than in the Gilliam, Grant, Wheeler, Crook, Harney, original plan. EPA also expressed and Jefferson, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, concern about certain aspects of the Office of Information and Regulatory Union and Wasco Counties, OR. proposed management direction for Affairs, Office of Management and Summary: EPA expressed concern those species that will continue to be Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for about the degraded environmental covered by these Standards and EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, conditions in the wild and scenic Guidelines and about the social/ Washington, DC 20503. corridor and the relatively minor economic implications of the plan.
VerDate 18
ERP No. DS–COE–H36012–MO Rating EIS No. 200109, Draft Supplement, AFS, EIS No. 200117, Final EIS, SFW, AK, EU3, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid UT, Rhyohite Fuel Ecosystem Wolf Lake Area Natural Gas Pipeline Floodway, Channel Enlargement and Rehabilitation Project to the South Project, Construction, Approval Right- Improvement, Flood Control, National Spruce Ecosystem Rehabilitation of-Way Grant and COE Section 404 Economic Development (NED) Project, Implementation, Dixie Permit, Kenai National Wildlife Mississippi River & Tributaries, MO. National Forest, Cedar City Ranger Refuge, AK, Due: May 22, 2000, Summary:EPA expressed significant District, Iron County, UT, Due: June Contact: Brian Anderson (907) 786– objections regarding the lack of 05, 2000, Contact: Philip G. 3379. information regarding potential impacts Eisenhauer (435) 865–3200. to over 36,000 acres of wetlands in the EIS No. 200110, Final EIS, BLM, WY, EIS No. 200118, Final EIS, AFS, OR, Mississippi River floodplain. EPA South Baggs Natural Gas Development WA, Pacific Northwest Region requested that the Corps formally revise Area, Proposal to Drill and Develop Douglas-fir Tussock Moth (orgvia the Draft Supplemental EIS to include 50 Natural Gas Wells, Application for pseudotsugata) Project, To Partially further development of alternatives, Permit to Drill and COE Section 404 Control an Anticipated Outbreak of improved wetlands determinations, Permit, Carbon County, WY, Due: Douglas-fir tussock moth, To be cumulative impact analysis, water May 22, 2000, Contact: Larry Jackson Implemented in Nine National Forests quality impacts, and appropriate (307) 328–4231. in WA and OH, Due: May 22, 2000, mitigation measures. EIS No. 200111, Draft EIS, SFW, NV, Contact: Bill Funk (503) 808–2984. Final EISs Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge EIS No. 200119, Draft EIS, AFS, WA, Complex Comprehensive Upper Charley Subwatershed ERP No. F–FHW–K40216–AZ, AZ–260 Conservation Plan and Boundary Ecosystem Restoration Projects, Transportation Improvements, between Revision, Implementation, Churchill Implementation, Pomeroy Ranger Payson and Heber, Funding, NPDES and and Washoe Counties, NV, Due: June District, Umatilla National Forest, COE Section 404 Permits, Gila, 12, 2000, Contact: Don Delong (916) Garfield County, WA, Due: June 12, Coconino and Navajo Counties, AZ. 414–6500. Summary: No formal comment letter 2000, Contact: Monte Fujishin (509) EIS No. 200112, Revised Final EIS, COE, 843–1891. was sent to the preparing agency. FL, Lake Okeechobee Regulation ERP No. F–NPS–H61020–00, Missouri Schedule Study, To Maintain or EIS No. 200120, Draft EIS, AFS, ID, National Recreational River, General Improve Existing Water Storage, Brownlee Vegetation and Access Management Plan, Implementation, Revised Information, St. Lucie and Management Project, Implementation, Cedar and Dixon Counties, NB and Caloosahatchee River Estuaries, FL, Weiser Ranger District, Payette Yakton, Clay and Union Counties, SD. Due: May 22, 2000, Contact: Elmar National Forest, Washington County, Summary: EPA has no objections with Kurzbach (904) 232–2325. ID, Due: June 21, 2000, Contact: John the General Management Plan described EIS No. 200113, Final EIS, BOP, SC, Baglien (208) 549–4200. in the FEIS. South Carolina—Federal Correctional EIS No. 200121, Draft EIS, COE, DE, Dated: April 18, 2000. Institution, Construct and Operate, Fenwick Island Feasibility Study, B. Katherine Biggs, Possible Sites: Andrew, Bennettsville, Storm Damage Reduction, In the Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Oliver and Salters, SC, Due: May 22, Community of Fenwick Island, Sussex Division. 2000, Contact: David J. Dorworth County, DE, Due: June 05, 2000, (202) 514–6470. [FR Doc. 00–10029 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Contact: Robert L. Callegari (215) 656– EIS No. 200114, Draft EIS, AFS, PA, East BILLING CODE 6560±50±P 6555. Side Project, Improvements to Timber Management, Transportation System Amended Notices ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Development and Wildlife Habitat, AGENCY From Existing Condition (EC) to EIS No. 200003, Draft EIS, COE, WA, Desired Future Condition (DFC), Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon [ER±FRL±6253±4] Allegheny National Forest, Bradford Migration Feasibility Study, Environmental Impact Statements; and Marienville District, Elk, Forest, Implementation, To Increase the Notice of Availability McKean and Warren Counties, PA, Survival of Juvenile Anadromous Due: June 05, 2000, Contact: Carl Fish, Snake River, Walla Walla, WA, Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Leland (814) 776–6172. Due: May 01, 2000, Contact: Lonnie Activities, General Information (202) EIS No. 200115, Draft EIS, AFS, ID, Iron Mettler (509) 527–7268. Published FR 564–7167 or www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa. Honey Resource Area Project, on 1–14–2000: CEQ Comment Date Weekly Receipt of Environmental Aquatic, Vegetative and Wildlife has been extended from 03/31/2000 to Impact Statements Habitat Improvement Activities, 05/01/2000. Filed April 10, 2000 Through April 14, Implementation, Coeur d’Alene River Dated: April 18, 2000. 2000 Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 National Forests, Kootenai and B. Katherine Biggs, EIS No. 200108, Draft EIS, AFS, ID, Shoshone Counties, ID, Due: June 05, Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Lakeface-Lamb 2000, Contact: Kerry Arneson (208) Division, Office of Federal Activities. Fuel Reduction Project, To Reduce the 769–3000. [FR Doc. 00–10030 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Risk of Lethal Fires within a Wildland/ EIS No. 200116, Final EIS, FHW, HI, BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Urban Interface, Implementation, Idaho Puainako Street Extension and Panhandle National Forests, Priest Lake Widening, Traffic Circulation Ranger District, Bonner County, ID, Due: Improvements, Funding, South Hilo, June 05, 2000, Contact: David Asleson Hawaii County, HI, Due: May 22, (208) 2000, Contact: Abraham Wong (808) 443–2512. 541–2700.
VerDate 18
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION affected by certain changes in waste Montana (large, open meeting room on AGENCY application techniques and closure third floor). requirements incorporated into the A copy of the record supporting this [SW±FRL±6583±2] recently issued Montana hazardous proposal is available to the public at the Notice Proposing To Reissue a waste permit (No. MTHWP–99–02) and Parmly Library at 510 North Broadway, Variance From Land Disposal one failure to correctly manage a waste Billings, Montana, and is available for Restrictions Granted to Exxon Mobil stream whose hazardous status had public review during regular library Corporation, Billings, MT changed during the term of the original hours. Another copy of the record is variance. We concluded that these available in Helena, Montana, at the AGENCY: Environmental Protection factors did not materially affect the EPA Region VIII, Montana Operations Agency (EPA). overall demonstration of no-migration. Office, Federal Building, 301 South ACTION: Notice of proposed decision. The proposed variance reissuance again Park. The public may make includes specific conditions tailored to arrangements to view the documents in SUMMARY: This is a notice to interested reflect additions of a newly hazardous Helena by calling Tina Diebold at (406) parties that EPA is proposing to reissue waste stream (F037), modifications to 441–1130. The record is available for a no-migration variance for land how no-migration standards apply to inspection in Helena from 8 a.m. to 4 disposal of hazardous waste to Exxon specific SLTU monitoring systems, p.m., Monday through Friday, except Mobil Refining & Supply Company additional monitoring requirements, Federal holidays. Billings Refinery (‘‘Exxon’’), a division and improvements to the Exxon waste of Exxon Mobil Corporation, formerly FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina application tracking system. Certain known as Exxon Company U.S.A. Diebold, Mail Code 8MO, Montana conditions of the original variance are Authority for the decision has been Office, U.S. EPA Region VIII, 301 S. also included. The full set of variance delegated to the EPA Regional Park, Drawer 10096, Helena, Montana Administrator. The original July 27, conditions are presented below. 59626–0096, at (406) 441–1130. 1993 variance (58 FR 40134) approved RCRA regulations require that we SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wherever under Resource Conservation and provide for public comment on a ‘‘we’’ is used throughout this document, Recovery Act regulations (40 CFR 268.6) proposed no-migration variance it refers to EPA. allowed Exxon to place certain decision. In addition to seeking written comments through this notice, we have A. What Conditions and Reporting untreated hazardous wastes subject to Requirements Are Proposed for the the RCRA land disposal restrictions (42 elected to hold a public hearing in Exxon No-Migration Variance U.S.C. 36901 et. seq.) at their Billings Billings, Montana to gather comment on Reissuance? (Montana) refinery South Land this proposed decision from the local Treatment Unit (SLTU). In the original citizens near Exxon’s land treatment As part of this reissuance of the no- variance, the unit was referred to as the facility and other interested parties. All migration variance and addition of New South Land Treatment Unit. Exxon comments received will be entered into Primary Sludge (F037), we propose that submitted a request to EPA on March the public record for this decision Exxon comply with the following 24, 1998 for renewal of this no- making process. Details appear below in conditions. These conditions are in migration variance in conjunction with the DATES section of this document. A addition to those required of Exxon their State of Montana hazardous waste final decision will be made by EPA after under 40 CFR 268.6. EPA would permit reissuance. Exxon also considering and responding to public directly enforce these conditions, and a petitioned to amend the variance by comments. We will then publish a violation of a condition would adding the newly listed hazardous notice in the Federal Register of our constitute a violation of the RCRA land waste, Petroleum Refinery Primary Oil/ decision on the reissuance of the disposal restrictions. Unless otherwise Water/Solids Separation Sludge (EPA variance and the addition of Primary notified by EPA, Exxon shall provide hazardous waste code F037). The Sludge (F037). Copies of the statement the required notices and reports to the proposed variance reissuance includes of basis for the proposed decision are EPA Region VIII Montana Operations the F037 waste stream, ‘‘Primary available in the record for today’s Office, Federal Building, 301 South Sludge,’’ generated at the Exxon Billings document and can be requested from Park, Drawer 10096, Helena, MT, 59626. Refinery. Tina Diebold at the address or telephone Exxon shall provide a separate copy to In granting the original variance, we number listed below. the State of Montana of any report or concluded that Exxon demonstrated to a notice required by the variance if the DATES: Comments on the proposed reasonable degree of certainty that information is not combined with the decision must be received on or before hazardous constituents would not reports required under its Montana June 5, 2000. In addition to the written migrate out of the land treatment facility hazardous waste permit. Exxon shall comments received at EPA’s Montana at levels exceeding no-migration criteria provide copies to the State at the Office, written and oral comments on for as long as the wastes remain address specified for its Montana the proposed decision also will be hazardous. We have reviewed the SLTU hazardous waste permit reporting accepted by the Hearing Officer at the monitoring data submitted by Exxon for requirements. public hearing in Billings, Montana. The the period the variance was in effect We interpret the no-migration public hearing is scheduled for May 23, along with other relevant information, standard to mean that concentrations of 2000 from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and it still supports our original hazardous constituents cannot exceed conclusion on Exxon’s no-migration ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposal EPA-approved health-based levels in demonstration. We also concluded that should be sent to EPA at the following any environmental medium at the Exxon adequately met the conditions of address: Tina Diebold, Mail Code 8MO, boundary of the land disposal unit. the original variance, which were Montana Office, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Hazardous constituent levels exceeding included to ensure compliance with 301 S. Park, Drawer 10096, Helena, those presented in Table 1 of this their no-migration demonstration. Montana 59626–0096. The public document constitute migration into The present proposal considered how hearing will be held at the Parmly ground water at the unit boundary, as the terms of the original variance were Library at 510 North Broadway, Billings, measured by soil-pore liquid and below
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TABLE 1.ÐPROPOSED EXXON NO-MIGRATION VARIANCE LEACHATE AND SOIL-CORE STANDARDS
Leachate soil-pore Soil-core standards Constituents standards (mg/l) (mg/kg)
I. Volatiles: Benzene ...... 005 (EQL)ÐMCL .002 (EQL) Ethylbenzene ...... 7ÐMCL .65 Toluene ...... 1ÐMCL .56 Xylene(s) ...... 10ÐMCL 9.8 II. Semi-Volatiles: Anthracene ...... 10ÐRisk 620 Benzo(a)anthracene ...... 0001 (EQL)ÐRisk .08 (EQL) Benzo(b)fluoranthene ...... 0001(EQL)ÐRisk .25 (EQL) Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 0002(EQL)ÐMCL .41 Chrysene ...... 0012 (EQL)ÐRisk 9.3 Fluoranthene ...... 1.4ÐRisk 300 1-Methylnaphthalene ...... NSNS Naphthalene ...... 1.4ÐRisk 5.9 Phenanthrene ...... NS NS Pyrene ...... 1ÐRisk 220 2,4-Dimethyl phenol ...... 7ÐRisk .43 Phenol ...... 21ÐRisk 5.4 Cresol (o-) ...... 1.8ÐRisk .69 III. Metals: Antimony ...... 006ÐMCL Not proposed Arsenic ...... 05ÐMCL Do. Barium ...... 2ÐMCL Do. Beryllium ...... 004ÐMCL Do. Cadmium ...... 005ÐMCL Do. Chromium ...... 1ÐMCL Do. Lead ...... 015ÐMCL Do. Mercury ...... 002ÐMCL Do. Nickel ...... 7ÐRisk Do. Zinc ...... 10ÐRisk Do. Selenium ...... 05ÐMCL Do. Vanadium ...... 24ÐRisk Do.
An (EQL) indicates a risk-based unit, which may be several times a year. the F037 waste generated from the standard lying below the expected low- A tracking system must be in place sewer (e.g., ‘‘F037 sewer sludge’’) and level quantification limit for the routine which continually estimates and the F037 waste generated from the analytical methods assumed from updates the cumulative benzene waste Alkyllation Unit Neutralization Basins Exxon’s Montana hazardous waste loading during the operating season. (e.g., ‘‘F037 lime sludge’’). In the annual permit. Typical quantification limits Exxon must submit a summary of these report, Exxon must also include the would be: SW–846 Method 8260—.005 waste analyses demonstrating its total quantity of waste applied at the mg/l aqueous and .005 mg/kg clean soils compliance with the loading limit to SLTU during the last operating season and Method 8270—.01 mg/l aqueous EPA in an annual report. When the 49 and a break down of the total quantity and .33 mgl/kg clean soil. NS indicates Kg benzene limit is reached, Exxon of hazardous and of non-hazardous no standard. must not dispose of any additional waste. waste containing detectable levels of 4. Application of F037 Sewer Sludge 2. Annual Benzene Loading Limit benzene at the SLTU until the next calendar year. Exxon shall notify EPA Exxon’s application of Primary Sludge The total amount of benzene that may generated from the sewer system (F037 when the 49 Kg limit is reached within be disposed of at the SLTU may not sewer sludge) to the SLTU is restricted ten days of receiving the analytical exceed a cumulative mass loading of 49 to times when Exxon also applies API results. Kg per calendar year. Exxon must Separator Sludge (K051). Exxon must determine the benzene content of each 3. Waste Characterization combine the F037 sewer sludge with the wastestream, including each load of API Separator Sludge prior to or during Primary Sludge (F037) prior to Exxon must identify in the annual application at the SLTU. Exxon shall placement at the land treatment unit. report to EPA the following additional incorporate this condition in its waste Representative samples of each information for each applied waste at tracking system to ensure that any time wastestream must be analyzed for the SLTU: the location of waste F037 sewer sludge is cleared for benzene as they are generated during generation (e.g., Tank 17 sewer, Tank application to the SLTU, it is the land application season in 108 contaminated soil); analytical accompanied by K051 waste. accordance with the promulgated results of waste determination for any edition of SW–846. The term ‘‘as wastes for which the hazardous status 5. Application of F037 Lime Sludge generated’’ means each time the wastes was not known when it was generated, Exxon’s application of Primary Sludge are removed from the wastewater mass of waste; application date(s); the generated from the Alkyllation Unit system, created through a spill, or a tank hazardous waste code (if any); and the Neutralization Basin (F037 lime sludge) is cleaned out, and the wastes are taken matrix (e.g., soil or sludge). In the to the SLTU is limited to when it has or will be taken to the land treatment report, Exxon must distinguish between determined pH adjustment of the ZOI
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
2. In person or by courier. Deliver information claimed as CBI must be new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on your comments to: OPPT Document submitted for inclusion in the public the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and Control Office (DCO) in East Tower Rm. version of the official record. comply with the statutory provisions G–099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Information not marked confidential pertaining to the manufacture of new Washington, DC. The DCO is open from will be included in the public version chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through of the official record without prior 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to Friday, excluding legal holidays. The notice. If you have any questions about publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or telephone number for the DCO is (202) CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, an application for a TME and to publish 260–7093. please consult the person listed under periodic status reports on the chemicals 3. Electronically. You may submit FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. under review and the receipt of notices your comments electronically by e-mail E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare of commencement to manufacture those to: ‘‘[email protected],’’ or mail your My Comments for EPA? chemicals. This status report, which computer disk to the address identified covers the period from February 28, in this unit. Do not submit any You may find the following 2000 to March 17, 2000, consists of the information electronically that you suggestions helpful for preparing your PMNs, pending or expired, and the consider to be CBI. Electronic comments comments: notices of commencement to 1. Explain your views as clearly as must be submitted as an ASCII file manufacture a new chemical that the avoiding the use of special characters possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you Agency has received under TSCA and any form of encryption. Comments section 5 during this time period. and data will also be accepted on used. 3. Provide copies of any technical standard disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or III. Receipt and Status Report for PMNs information and/or data you used that ASCII file format. All comments in support your views. This status report identifies the electronic form must be identified by 4. If you estimate potential burden or PMNs, pending or expired, and the docket control number OPPTS–51944 costs, explain how you arrived at the notices of commencement to and the specific PMN number. estimate that you provide. manufacture a new chemical that the Electronic comments may also be filed 5. Provide specific examples to Agency has received under TSCA online at many Federal Depository illustrate your concerns. section 5 during this time period. If you Libraries. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve are interested in information that is not D. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want the notice or collection activity. included in the following tables, you to Submit to the Agency? 7. Make sure to submit your may contact EPA as described in Unit II. comments by the deadline in this Do not submit any information to access additional non-CBI document. information that may be available. electronically that you consider to be 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, CBI. You may claim information that be sure to identify the docket control In table I, EPA provides the following you submit to EPA in response to this number assigned to this action in the information (to the extent that such document as CBI by marking any part or subject line on the first page of your information is not claimed as CBI) on all of that information as CBI. response. You may also provide the the PMNs received by EPA during this Information so marked will not be name, date, and Federal Register period: the EPA case number assigned disclosed except in accordance with citation. to the PMN; the date the PMN was procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. received by EPA; the projected end date In addition to one complete version of II. Why is EPA Taking this Action? for EPA’s review of the PMN; the the comment that includes any Section 5 of TSCA requires any submitting manufacturer; the potential information claimed as CBI, a copy of person who intends to manufacture uses identified by the manufacturer in the comment that does not contain the (defined by statute to include import) a the PMN; and the chemical identity.
I. 73 PREMANUFACTURE NOTICES RECEIVED FROM: 02/28/00 TO 03/17/00
Projected Case No. Received Notice Manufacturer/Im- Use Chemical Date End Date porter
P±00±0557 02/28/00 05/28/00 CBI (G) Raw material for can coatings (G) Epoxy modified saturated polyester resin P±00±0558 02/28/00 05/28/00 BIC USA Inc. (G) A colorant for inks (G) Solvent black 46 P±00±0559 02/28/00 05/28/00 BIC USA Inc. (G) A colorant for inks (G) Solvent blue 43 P±00±0564 02/28/00 05/28/00 CBI (G) Raw material for coil coatings (G) Saturated polyester resin solid P±00±0565 02/29/00 05/29/00 Englehard Corpora- (S) A colorant for plastics (G) Azo violet pigment tion P±00±0566 02/29/00 05/29/00 Englehard Corpora- (S) A colorant for plastics (G) Azo violet pigment tion P±00±0567 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Component of coating with open (G) Melamine use P±00±0568 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Component of coating with open (G) Melamine use P±00±0569 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Component of coating with open (G) Melamine use P±00±0570 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Component of coating with open (G) Melamine use P±00±0571 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Component of coating with open (G) Melamine use
VerDate 18
I. 73 PREMANUFACTURE NOTICES RECEIVED FROM: 02/28/00 TO 03/17/00ÐContinued
Projected Case No. Received Notice Manufacturer/Im- Use Chemical Date End Date porter
P±00±0572 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Component of coating with open (G) Melamine use P±00±0573 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (S) A raw material to manufacture (G) Aryloxyalkanoic acid an agricultural chemical (pesticide or an intermediate to pesticide). P±00±0574 02/28/00 05/28/00 Choisy-Tek (USA) (S) Raw material surfactant for for- (S) Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)-N-[3- Ltd. mulators (hexyloxy)propyl]-, branched, momosodium salts P±00±0575 02/28/00 05/28/00 Choisy-tek (USA) Ltd. (S) Raw material surfactant for for- (S) Glycine, N-(3-aminopropyl)-, mono mulators (carboxymethyl) deriv., N′-coco alkyl derivs., disodium salts P±00±0576 02/28/00 05/28/00 Choisy-tek (USA) Ltd. (S) Raw material surfactant for for- (S) β-alanine, N-(2-carboxyethyl)-N-[3- mulators (dimethylamino)propyl]-, monosodium salt* P±00±0577 02/28/00 05/28/00 Choisy-tek (USA) Ltd. (S) Raw material surfactant for for- (S) β-alanine, N-(2-carboxyethyl)-N-[3-(1- mulators methylethoxy)propyl]-, monosodium salt* P±00±0578 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Coating of coating with open (G) Polyester use P±00±0579 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Coating of coating with open (G) Polyester use P±00±0580 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Coating of coating with open (G) Polyester use P±00±0581 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Coating of coating with open (G) Polyester use P±00±0582 02/29/00 05/29/00 CBI (G) Coating of coating with open (G) Polyester use P±00±0583 03/01/00 05/30/00 Johnson Matthey (G) Ink additive (S) 1-butanaminium, N,N,N-tributyl-, Catalog Company, hexafluorophosphate(1-)* Inc. P±00±0584 03/01/00 05/30/00 CBI (G) Open non-dispersive (coatings (G) Urethane acrylate resin, blocked resin) P±00±0585 03/01/00 05/30/00 CBI (S) Edible oil;industrial lubricant (G) Sunflower triacylglycerol, triacyglyceride of sunflower oil P±00±0586 03/01/00 05/30/00 CBI (G) Component of a primer product (G) Silane coupling agent P±00±0587 03/01/00 05/30/00 3M Company (G) Amine curative (G) Amine terminated resin P±00±0588 03/03/00 06/01/00 CBI (G) Adhesive binders (G) Ketoxime blocked ppdi/polyether prepolymers P±00±0589 03/03/00 06/01/00 CIBA Specialty (S) Optical brightner in uv reacting (S) 1h-pyrrole-2,5-dione, 1,1′-(1,2- Chemicals Cor- coatings to detect voids in auto- ethanediyl)bis[3,4-diphenyl-* poration motive clearcoats; component of security printing in the marking of paper currency, documents P±00±0590 03/06/00 06/04/00 Reichhold, Inc. (S) Polyester binders for baked in- (G) Polyester resin dustrial maintenance finishings P±00±0591 03/01/00 05/30/00 Exxon Mobil Chem- (S) Polymerization catalyst (G) Organometallic compound ical Company P±00±0592 03/06/00 06/04/00 3M Company (S) Low adhesion backside coating (G) Siloxyacrylate polymer for paper P±00±0593 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) Pentadecanedioic acid* P±00±0594 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) Heptadecanedioic acid* P±00±0595 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) Octadecanedioic acid* P±00±0596 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) Eicosanedioic acid* P±00±0597 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) 5-tetradecenedioic acid, (5z)-* P±00±0598 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) 7-hexadecenedioic acid, (7z)-* P±00±0599 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) 8-heptadecenedioic acid, (8z)-* P±00±0600 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) 9-octadecenedioic acid, (9z)-* P±00±0601 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis Corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) 6,9-octadecadienedioic acid, (6z,9z)-* P±00±0602 03/06/00 06/04/00 Cognis corporation (S) Specialty polymers (S) 9-eicosenedioic acid, (9z)-* P±00±0603 03/06/00 06/04/00 CBI (S) Film extrusion;tube extru- (G) Polyolefin-polyamide sion;injection molding P±00±0604 03/06/00 06/04/00 CBI (S) Film extrusion;tube extru- (G) Polyolefin-polyamide sion;injection molding P±00±0605 03/06/00 06/04/00 CBI (G) Acrylic pressure sensitive adhe- (G) Acrylic graft polymer sive P±00±0606 03/06/00 06/04/00 CBI (G) An open non-dispersive use. (G) Rosin modified phenolic resin P±00±0607 03/06/00 06/04/00 CBI (G) Semiconductor production (G) Phenolic copolymer P±00±0608 03/07/00 06/05/00 Choisy-tek (USA) Ltd. (S) Raw material surfactant for for- (S) β-alanine, N-(2-carboxyethyl)-N-[3- mulators [(2-carboxyethyl)amino]propyl]-n-coco alkyl derivs., monosodium salts*
VerDate 18
I. 73 PREMANUFACTURE NOTICES RECEIVED FROM: 02/28/00 TO 03/17/00ÐContinued
Projected Case No. Received Notice Manufacturer/Im- Use Chemical Date End Date porter
P±00±0609 03/07/00 06/05/00 Basf corp (S) Plasticizer in concrete (G) Polyglycolether - polycarboxylate P±00±0610 03/07/00 06/05/00 3m company (S) Fiber treatment (G) Perfluoroalkyl substituted poly- urethane P±00±0611 03/13/00 06/11/00 Basf corp (S) Plasticizer (S) Hexanedioic acid, polymer with 2,2- dimethyl-1,3-propanediol and 1,2- propanediol, isononyl ester* P±00±0612 03/13/00 06/11/00 Basf corp (S) Plasticizer (S) Hexanedioic acid, polymer with 2,2- dimethyl-1,3-propanediol and 3-hy- droxy-2,2-dimethylpropanoic acid, isononyl ester* P±00±0613 03/09/00 06/07/00 Lonza Inc. (G) Commercial emulsifier (S) 1,2,3-propanetriol, homopolymer, isooctadecanoate P±00±0614 03/10/00 06/08/00 Strem chemicals, Inc. (G) Commercial r & d (G) Metal derivatized tetrasubstituted al- kane compound P±00±0615 03/13/00 06/11/00 CBI (G) Destructive use (G) Alkylphenol polyether amine P±00±0616 03/10/00 06/08/00 Strem chemicals, Inc. (S) Chemical intermediate for the (G) Derivatized tetrasubstituted alkane production of product described in pmn ts-prd408 P±00±0617 03/10/00 06/08/00 Strem chemicals, Inc. (G) Commercial r & d (G) Metal derivatized tetrasubstituted al- kane compound P±00±0618 03/13/00 06/11/00 CBI (G) Processing aid (G) Substituted hydroxy alkane ether P±00±0619 03/13/00 06/11/00 CBI (G) Emulsifier (G) Salt of perfluoro fatty acids P±00±0620 03/15/00 06/13/00 CBI (G) Printing ink (G) Long chain fatty acids, polymer with a polyoxyalkylene and a cyclic diacid P±00±0621 03/15/00 06/13/00 CBI (G) Printing ink (G) Long chain fatty acids, polymer with a polyoxyalkylene and a cyclic diacid P±00±0622 03/15/00 06/13/00 CBI (G) Printing ink (G) Long chain fatty acids, polymer with a polyoxyalkylene and a cyclic diacid P±00±0623 03/15/00 06/13/00 CBI (G) Printing ink (G) Long chain fatty acids, polymer with a polyoxyalkylene and a cyclic diacid P±00±0624 03/15/00 06/13/00 CBI (G) Printing ink (G) Long chain fatty acids, polymer with a polyoxyalkylene and a cyclic diacid P±00±0625 03/15/00 06/13/00 CBI (G) Printing ink (G) Long chain fatty acids, polymer with a polyoxyalkylene and a cyclic diacid P±00±0626 03/15/00 06/13/00 CBI (G) Additive for inks and coatings (G) Polyurethane acrylate ester P±00±0627 03/14/00 06/12/00 CBI (G) Semiconductor production (G) Phenolic copolymer P±00±0628 03/16/00 06/14/00 CBI (G) Viscosity index improver (G) Alkyl methacrylate copolymer P±00±0629 03/15/00 06/13/00 Finetex, Inc. (S) Textile fiber lubricant with high (S) Benzoic acid, isooctadecyl ester* thermal stability;dispersant for ti- tanium dioxide, zincoxide, pig- ments, etc.;plasticizer for selected polymer systems requiring highthermal stability P±00±0630 03/16/00 06/14/00 CBI (G) (G) Dialkyl formamide P±00±0631 03/16/00 06/14/00 CBI (G) Destructive (G) Alkyl arylaminophenylcarboxylate P±00±0632 03/17/00 06/15/00 CBI (G) Component of manufactured (G) Acetamide, N-[[[3- consumer article ± contained use (dimethyloctadecylheteromonocycle) -4-hydroxyphenyl] sulfonyl] amino]phenyl]- P±00±0644 03/17/00 06/15/00 Union carbide cor- (G) A component of coatings, (G) Polycaprolactone diol poration elastomers and adhesives
In table II, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:
II. 46 NOTICES OF COMMENCEMENT FROM: 02/28/00 TO 03/17/00
Commencement/Im- Case No. Received Date port Date Chemical
P±00±0010 03/02/00 02/03/00 (G) Polyurethane P±00±0018 02/29/00 01/31/00 (S) Benzene, ethenyl-, polymer with 1-butene, (2e)-2-butene, (2z)-2- butene, cyclopentene, 2-methyl-1-propene and 1,3-pentadiene* P±00±0019 02/29/00 01/31/00 (S) 4,7-methano-1h-indene, 3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-, polymer with 1- butene, (2e)-2-butene, (2z)-2-benzene, cyclopentene, ethenylbenzene, ethenylmethylbenzene, 1h-indene, (1- methylethenyl)benzene, 2-methyl-1-propene, 1,3-pentadiene and 1- propenylbenzene*
VerDate 18
II. 46 NOTICES OF COMMENCEMENT FROM: 02/28/00 TO 03/17/00ÐContinued
Commencement/Im- Case No. Received Date port Date Chemical
P±00±0020 02/29/00 01/31/00 (S) 4,7-methano-1h-indene, 3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-, polymer with 1- butene, (2e)-2-butene, (2z)-2-butene, cyclopentene, ethenylbenzene, ethenylmethylbenzene, 1h-indene, 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene, (1- methylethenyl)benzene, 2-methyl-1-propene, 1,3-pentadiene and 1- propenylbenzene* P±00±0021 02/29/00 01/31/00 (S) 2,5-furandione, polymer with 1-butene, (2e)-2-butene, (2z)-2-butene, cyclopentene, ethenylbenzene, 2-methyl-1-propene and 1,3- pentadiene* P±00±0022 02/29/00 01/31/00 (S) Benzene, ethenyl-, polymer with 1-butene, (2e)-2-butene, (2z)-2- butene, cyclopentene, 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene, 2-methyl-1-propene and 1,3-pentadiene* P±00±0023 02/29/00 01/31/00 (S) Benzene, ethenyl-, polymer with cyclopentene and 2-methyl-1,3- butadiene* P±00±0052 03/14/00 02/29/00 (G) 1±(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-2-propane derivative P±00±0059 03/02/00 02/17/00 (S) 2,5-furandione, polymer with 1-butene and ethene* P±00±0060 03/02/00 02/17/00 (S) 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethene, 5-ethylidenebicyclo[2.2.1]hept- 2-ene and 1-propene** P±00±0081 03/03/00 02/25/00 (G) Acrylic copolymer P±00±0082 02/29/00 02/11/00 (G) Silicone modified waterborne polyurethane dispersion P±00±0103 03/15/00 02/22/00 (G) 1,4-butanediol, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, 1,2- ethanediamine, polyol and 5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3- trimethylcyclohexane P±00±0107 03/06/00 02/17/00 (G) Acrylic modified polyurethane polymer P±00±0180 03/17/00 03/09/00 (S) 2,5-furandione, telomer with ethenylbenzene and (1- methylethyl)benzene, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide* P±92±0558 03/06/00 02/07/00 (G) Ethylene interpolymer P±92±1016 03/06/00 02/03/00 (S) Fatty acids, C16±18 and C18-unsaturated branched and linear, sodium salts. P±94±0963 03/08/00 02/15/00 (G) Polycondensate of aliphatic dicarboxylic acid and alkaediol. poly- urethane of aliphatic polyesters P±95±1115 03/13/00 02/09/00 (S) 1,3-bis(1-hydroxy-2,2-dimethoxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone* P±95±2087 02/29/00 05/19/99 (G) Sulfurized vegetable oil P±97±0455 03/06/00 02/01/00 (S) Fatty acids, C4±24-branched, 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediyl ester* P±98±0065 03/09/00 02/10/00 (S) Poly(oxy-1,2-(ethanediyl), alpha-hydro-omega-hydroxy, monoethers with stearyl alc. distn. lights* P±98±1264 02/28/00 02/03/00 (G) Acrylated polyol P±98±1265 02/28/00 02/03/00 (G) Acrylated urethane P±99±0216 03/10/00 02/21/00 (G) Silica supported magnesium-titanium catalyst P±99±0849 03/06/00 02/19/00 (G) Stryene / acrylate copolymer aqueous dispersion P±99±0956 02/28/00 02/20/00 (G) Chromophore substituted polyoxyalkylene P±99±1007 03/14/00 02/21/00 (G) Polyimide precursor solution P±99±1038 03/06/00 02/09/00 (G) Acrylate ester P±99±1039 03/06/00 02/09/00 (G) Silicone bifunctional acrylate P±99±1049 03/13/00 02/24/00 (G) Alkyl amine P±99±1097 03/13/00 03/06/00 (S) Benzoic acid, 2-amino-, cyclohexyl ester* P±99±1155 03/07/00 02/10/00 (G) Fatty-sulfosuccinate P±99±1179 03/17/00 03/15/00 (G) Dialkylphenol P±99±1195 03/13/00 03/10/00 (G) Acrylic copolymer P±99±1209 03/15/00 02/03/00 (G) Alkyd resin P±99±1227 03/14/00 02/23/00 (G) Stabilized hypochlorite P±99±1228 03/14/00 02/23/00 (G) Stabilized hypochlorite P±99±1306 03/10/00 02/29/00 (G) Copolymer of methyl methacrylate, styrene and cyclohexyl maleimide P±99±1341 03/01/00 02/11/00 (G) Metallic salt of 2 naphthalene carboxylic acid 4,4′ methylene bis [3- hydroxy P±99±1342 03/01/00 02/15/00 (G) Metallic salt of 2 naphthalene carboxylic acid 4,4′ methylene bis [3- hydroxy P±99±1348 03/01/00 02/14/00 (G) Metallic salt of b-oxynaphthoic acid P±99±1384 02/28/00 01/31/00 (G) Lithium salt of disubstituted fluorene P±99±1386 02/28/00 02/15/00 (G) Dimethyl bis(substituted cylopentadienyl) metallocene P±99±1390 03/14/00 02/21/00 (G) Alanine, n±[3-(acetylamino)-4-[(substituted)azo]phenyl]-n-ethyl-, ethyl ester P±99±1393 02/28/00 02/23/00 (G) Blocked aromatic isocyanate P±99±1407 02/28/00 02/07/00 (G) Dilithium salt of methane bridged substituted bis cyclopentadiene
VerDate 18
List of Subjects Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number Environmental protection, Chemicals, Cat- NAICS Examples of poten- is (703) 305–5805. Premanufacturer notices. egories codes tially affected entities C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Dated: April 14, 2000. Industry 111 Crop production Comments? Deborah A. Williams, 112 Animal production You may submit comments through 311 Food manufacturing Acting Director, Information Management the mail, in person, or electronically. To Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and 32532 Pesticide manufac- Toxics. turing ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket [FR Doc. 00–10040 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] This listing is not intended to be control number PF–937 in the subject BILLING CODE 6560±50±F exhaustive, but rather provides a guide line on the first page of your response. for readers regarding entities likely to be 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: affected by this action. Other types of Public Information and Records ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information AGENCY entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Resources and Services Division Industrial Classification System (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs [PF±937; FRL±6555±6] (NAICS) codes have been provided to (OPP), Environmental Protection assist you and others in determining Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to whether or not this action might apply Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, Establish Tolerances for a Certain to certain entities. If you have questions DC 20460. Pesticide Chemical in or on Food regarding the applicability of this action 2. In person or by courier. Deliver to a particular entity, consult the person your comments to: Public Information AGENCY: Environmental Protection listed under ‘‘FOR FURTHER and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Agency (EPA). INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ Information Resources and Services ACTION: Notice. Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide B. How Can I Get Additional Programs (OPP), Environmental Information, Including Copies of this Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal SUMMARY: This notice announces the Document and Other Related Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, initial filing of a pesticide petition Documents? proposing the establishment of Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from regulations for residues of a certain 1. Electronically. You may obtain 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through pesticide chemical in or on various food electronic copies of this document, and Friday, excluding legal holidays. The commodities. certain other related documents that PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– might be available electronically, from 5805. DATES: Comments, identified by docket the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// 3.Electronically. You may submit your control number PF–937, must be www.epa.gov/. To access this comments electronically by e-mail to: received on or before May 22, 2000. document, on the Home Page select ‘‘[email protected],’’ or you can ‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look submit a computer disk as described ADDRESSES: Comments may be up the entry for this document under above. Do not submit any information submitted by mail, electronically, or in the ‘‘Federal Register—Environmental electronically that you consider to be person. Please follow the detailed Documents.’’ You can also go directly to CBI. Avoid the use of special characters instructions for each method as the Federal Register listings at http:// and any form of encryption. Electronic provided in Unit I.C. of the www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. submissions will be accepted in ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’ 2. In person. The Agency has Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is established an official record for this format. All comments in electronic form imperative that you identify docket action under docket control number PF– must be identified by docket control control number PF–937 in the subject 937. The official record consists of the number PF–937. Electronic comments line on the first page of your response. documents specifically referenced in may also be filed online at many Federal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By this action, any public comments Depository Libraries. mail: Mary L. Waller, EPA, Registration received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to D. How Should I Handle CBI That I Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Want to Submit to the Agency? Programs, Environmental Protection this action, including any information Do not submit any information Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 claimed as confidential business electronically that you consider to be Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are CBI. You may claim information that DC 20460; telephone number: (703) physically located in the docket, as well you submit to EPA in response to this 308–9354; e-mail address: as the documents that are referenced in document as CBI by marking any part or [email protected]. those documents. The public version of all of that information as CBI. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the official record does not include any Information so marked will not be information claimed as CBI. The public disclosed except in accordance with I. General Information version of the official record, which procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A. Does this Action Apply to Me? includes printed, paper versions of any In addition to one complete version of electronic comments submitted during the comment that includes any You may be affected by this action if an applicable comment period, is information claimed as CBI, a copy of you are an agricultural producer, food available for inspection in the Public the comment that does not contain the manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Information and Records Integrity information claimed as CBI must be Potentially affected categories and Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall submitted for inclusion in the public entities may include, but are not limited #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, version of the official record. to: Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Information not marked confidential
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
In a developmental study in rats via a. Slight anemia and increased serum 432, and 1,225 (HDT) mg/kg/day (males) dermal exposure for 6 hours/day on bilirubin in the 48.7 mg/kg/day dose and 0, 2.8, 28.5, 557, and 1,411 (HDT) intact skin with dosages of 0, 60, 180, group HDT. mg/kg/day (females) with a NOAEL of and 360 mg/kg/day HDT with a b. Increased absolute and/or relative 2.1 mg/kg/day (males) and 2.8 mg/kg/ developmental toxicity NOAEL of 60 weights for the testes, adrenals, liver, day (females) based on the following mg/kg/day and a maternal toxicity spleen, and thyroids in either the 4.9 or effects: NOAEL of 60 mg/kg/day based on the 48.7 mg/kg/day dose groups. i. Increased mortality in the highest following: Increased absolute liver c. A dose-related atrophy of the dose tested (HTD) as compared to weights at dose levels greater than 180 prostate in the 4.9 and 48.7 mg/kg/day controls. mg/kg/day, and decreased anogenital dose groups. ii. Decreased body weights and distance and index at dose levels greater d. Microscopic findings in the adrenal significant signs of clinical toxicity were than 180 mg/kg/day. and testes in the 48.7 mg/kg/day dose observed in both males and female mice ii. A developmental study in rabbits group and liver findings for both male at the upper two dose levels with a via oral gavage was conducted with and female dogs in the 48.7 mg/kg/day progression of severity, and an dosages of 0, 20, 80, and 300 mg/kg/day dose groups and in the females in the equivocal body weight gain decrease at HDT with a developmental toxicity 4.9 mg/kg/day dose group, only. the next lower dose. NOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day and a ii. A combination of two chronic iii. Hematological and clinical maternal toxicity NOAEL of 300 mg/kg/ feeding and one carcinogenicity study chemistry value changes were observed day based on no signs of maternal or that were performed separately, resulted at the highest dose tested. iv. Increased absolute and/or relative meaningful fetal toxicity at any of the in rats being fed combined dosages of 0, weights for adrenals and liver were dose levels mentioned. 1.2, 2.4, 7.0, 23, 71, 143, and 221 mg/ observed at the upper two dose levels, A second developmental study in kg/day (males) and 0, 1.6, 3.1, 9.0, 29, 88, 180, and 257 mg/kg/day (females) atrophic seminal vesicles and rabbits via oral gavage resulted in coagulation glands with reduced size of dosages of 0, 50, 200, and 800 mg/kg/ with a NOAEL of 1.2 mg/kg/day (males) and 1.6 mg/kg/day (females) based on the prostate and atrophic uteri were day highest dose tested (HDT) with a observed at the upper two dose levels. developmental toxicity NOAEL of 200 the following effects: a. Decreased body weights in both v. Microscopic findings were mg/kg/day and a maternal toxicity males and females at dose levels greater observed in the liver, adrenal, testes, NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day based on the than or equal to 23 mg/kg/day with a ovaries and uterus, and related sexual following: Severe maternal toxicity with progression of severity to the upper dose organs were seen in the upper two dose simultaneous change in hematological levels. levels. values changes and high number of b. Cataracts with associative vi. An increased incidence of abortions at the HDT, and increased histopathology at dose levels greater neoplasms occurred at dose levels absolute and/or relative weights for than or equal 23 mg/kg/day and greater than the maximum tolerated adrenals in the mid and high dose lenticular changes at dose levels greater dose (28.5 mg/kg/day) in the liver of groups. than or equal 7.0 mg/kg/day for male female mice. 4. Reproductive toxicity. Two 2– and female rats. 7. Animal metabolism—i. Oral generation reproduction studies in rats c. Hematological and clinical studies. BASF has submitted results were conducted: Study A-dose levels of chemistry value changes at dose levels from a number of metabolism studies 0, 2.0, and 4.1 mg/kg/day: Study B-dose greater than or equal to 71 mg/kg/day using Wistar rats. The results of these levels of 0, 4.9, 30, 96, and 290 mg/kg/ with an increase of severity at the higher studies can be summarized as follows: day (males) and 0, 5.3, 31, 101, and 290 doses tested. vinclozolin is well absorbed (ca. 85%) mg/kg/day (females). The results d. Increased absolute and/or relative and intensively metabolized, the liver demonstrated a reproductive NOAEL of weights for adrenals at dose levels playing an important role (ca. 65%) of 4.9 mg/kg/day based on feminization of greater than or equal 143 mg/kg/day, for the radioactivity administered was males and the ability not to mate at dose the liver at dose levels greater than or found in the bile and no unchanged levels greater than 100 mg/kg/day and equal 71 mg/kg/day, for the testes at active ingredient was excreted in the pup effects at 29 mg/kg/day; and with dose levels greater than or equal 23 mg/ urine). Excretion is rapid by both a parental NOAEL of 4.9 mg/kg/day kg/day, and for the ovaries at dose levels urinary and biliary routes. based on general toxicity consistent greater than or equal 143 mg/kg/day. ii. Dermal study. In an in vivo dermal with previous rat studies at levels e. Microscopic findings were observed absorption study, male Wistar rats were greater than 29 mg/kg/day. Study A was in the liver, adrenal, pancreas, testes, dosed with 14C vinclozolin. Dose levels performed to clarify an equivocal ovaries and uterus at dose levels of of 0.002, 0.02, 0.2, and 2.0 mg/cm were finding of decreased absolute and greater than or equal to 7.0 mg/kg/day administered to 24 rats per dose level, relative weight of the epididymides with a progression of severity of applied to a shaved area of without any morphological correlation histological effects in the upper dose approximately 13 cm2 on the back of the in the male FY and FZ generations in levels. rat. Groups of 4 rats were sacrificed at Study B. However, EPA stated ‘‘the f. An increased incidence of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 10, or 72 hours following effects at the 4.9 mg/kg/day dose level neoplasms occurred at dose levels application of the dose. Urine and feces was minimal and considered greater than or equal to the maximum were collected during this period. At the sufficiently close to a NOAEL. The tolerated dose (MTD) of 23 mg/kg/day in end of the exposure period (10 hours in study is acceptable and 4.9 mg/kg/day the liver, adrenals, pituitary, prostate, the case of the 72 hour treatment group), dose level was considered to be the uterus, and ovaries. In the testes (males), the skin site was washed with cotton NOAEL. neoplasms were seen slightly below the swabs moistened with water. A blood 5. Chronic toxicity—i. A 1–year MTD at dose levels greater than or equal sample was taken prior to sacrifice. The feeding study in dogs fed dosages of 0, 23.0 mg/kg/day due the antiandrogenic treated skin along with the 1.1 , 2.4, 4.9, and 48.7 mg/kg/day with nature of vinclozolin. gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidneys, a NOAEL of 2.4 mg/kg/day based on the 6. Oncogenicity. An oncogenicity adrenals, testes, eyes, brain and carcass following effects: study in mice fed dosages of 0, 2.1, 20.6, were subjected to radioactive mass
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Pathology, Physiology, and Mechanistic purposes of assessing the potential chronic exposure, EPA calculated a Considerations in Rats, The Toxicology chronic dietary exposure (food only) level of 1 parts per billion (ppb). Using Forum, 1994 Annual Summer Meeting, from the use of vinclozolin, EPA used standard EPA assumptions consumption p. 110). the percent of crop treated/percent of water containing 1 ppb would Consistent with the data and the imported data to refine the risk consume less than 2% of the RfD in the advice of the OPP Scientific Advisory estimates for selected commodities most exposed subgroup (children 1 to Panel and using its Guidelines for (apricots, beans, raspberries, cherries, 6). BASF believes this estimate to be Carcinogen Risk Assessment published cucumbers, lettuce, nectarines, onions, very conservative and is currently September 24, 1986 (51 FR 33992), EPA peaches, peppers, and strawberries), analyzing the available data to has classified vinclozolin as a Group C while other commodities were assumed determine a more realistic value for chemical-possible human carcinogen. to be 100% treated/imported drinking water exposure. The Agency Cancer Peer Review (caneberries (other than raspberries), 2. Non-dietary exposure. Vinclozolin Committee (CPRC) chose a non-linear cranberries, endive, garlic, wine/sherry, is included in a number of formulations approach margin (MOE) based on a kiwifruit, and shallots). No chronic used for professional treatment of golf- NOAEL of 4.9 mg/kg/day for hormone- anticipated residue refinement has been courses (tees, greens and collars only) related effects decreased epididymal performed. Therefore, the resulting and turf. The turf use is limited to non- weight at 30 mg/kg/day in the 2– exposure (food only) estimates should residential uses. BASF believes that generation oral rat reproductive toxicity be viewed as partially refined; further these uses do not contribute study to quantify human risk. The MOE refinement using anticipated residues significantly to the aggregates risk. approach was chosen because the and additional percent of crop treated/ D. Cumulative Effects remaining tumors (Leydig cell) were percent imported data would result in benign at dose levels which were not lower chronic dietary exposure BASF has considered the potential for considered to be excessive. estimates. The Anticipated Residue cumulative effects of vinclozolin and other substances that have a common C. Aggregate Exposure Contribution (ARC) for chronic dietary exposure estimates is equivalent to 12% mechanism of toxicity. BASF is aware of 1. Dietary exposure. The established of the RfD for the U.S. population (48 two other substance active ingredients reference dose (RfD) for vinclozolin is states). The ARC for infants and which are structurally similar, based on a 2–year feeding study in rats children and other subgroups ranged iprodione and procymidone. However, with a threshold NOAEL of 1.2 mg/kg/ from 7 to 15% of the RfD. The BASF believes that consideration of a day. Using an uncertainty factor of 100, incremental risk associated with canola common mechanism of toxicity is not the RfD is calculated to be 0.012 mg/kg/ will not significantly change this appropriate at this time. This day. assessment. conclusion was similarly drawn by i. Food—a. Acute risk. EPA has In addition, BASF has performed a Rhone-Poulenc the manufacturer of expressed concern for acute dietary risk more refined analysis of chronic dietary iprodione in a recent Notice of Filing for in the draft RED for the subgroup risk and finds that when market share that compound. population-women of childbearing age and average residues are considered, no The Agency has previously noted (13 years and older) due to the sub-population in the United States is both structural and toxicological hormonal effects of vinclozolin. In exposed to over 1% of the RfD. similarities between iprodione, response to this concern, BASF BASF concurs with the SAP and procymidone, and vinclozolin. BASF requested that ENVIRON, conduct an believes vinclozolin should be regulated believes that there are clear differences acute dietary analysis for vinclozolin under the margin of safety (MOS) in both the type and magnitude of that used the current consumption data approach for non-threshold effects. effects observed after exposure to and exposure models capable of BASF has calculated the MOS for food vinclozolin when contrasted with calculating a real world estimates of and water using the Agency’s iprodione. BASF believes that there is potential exposure to residues in food. conservative assessments discussed no reliable data to indicate cumulative The acute exposure analysis, utilized above. The MOS was calculated against effects should be considered in the principles of Tier 1 and Tier 3 a NOAEL of 4.9 mg/kg/day for hormone- reference to iprodione. As to analyzes presented to the FIFRA related effects (decreased epididymal procymidone, BASF is unaware of any Science Advisory Panel in September weight at 30 mg/kg/day) in the 2– conclusive data that would indicate a 1995, and subsequently implemented by generation oral rat reproductive toxicity common mode of action with OPP/EPA. Using appropriate study to quantify human risk. The procymidone. It should also be noted methodology, available residue resulting MOS for food is over 900,000. that procymidone’s tolerances are distribution data, and percent crop ii. Drinking water. Exposure to limited to grapes grown for wine treated information it was determined vinclozolin for the general population to production outside the United States. the margin of exposure to the most residues of vinclozolin are residues in EPA has expressed concern regarding sensitive sub-population exceeded 1,000 drinking water and exposure from non- a common metabolite of these three (the value currently being used by the occupational sources. For drinking compounds, 3,5–dichloroaniline (3,5– Agency for this compound) at the very water, based on the available DCA). Under FQPA, EPA is also conservative 99.9th percentile of the environmental fate data, BASF does not required to estimate the risk for population; when all crops having anticipate routine exposure to residues consumption of food and water tolerances; plus succulent beans, and of vinclozolin in drinking water. There containing 3,5–DCA across vinclozolin, canola, and cranberries were included is no established maximum iprodione, and procymidone. There is in the analysis. The margin of exposure concentration level (MCL) or health no toxicological data base; thus no RfD at the 99.9th percentile was determined advisory level (HAL) for vinclozolin or Q1* for 3,5–DCA. However, EPA has to be approximately 1,100 for women of under the Safe Drinking Water Act used the Q1* for p-chloroaniline (PCA) childbearing age. (SDWA). to assess the carcinogenic risk for other b. Chronic. In its review granting a In its 1997 assessment, EPA structurally-related chloroanilines temporary tolerance for vinclozolin in calculated drinking water exposure from because EPA does not have any succulent beans in October 1997, for extremely conservative models. For evidence that 3,5–DCA is not
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission’s London, England. It is the world’s third 1. Personnel actions (appointments, Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice largest oil company, with total promotions, assignments, is hereby given that the above-captioned worldwide revenues of more than $91 reassignments, and salary actions) consent agreement containing a consent billion in 1999. BP Amoco is engaged in involving individual Federal Reserve order to cease and desist, having been exploration, development, and System employees. filed with and accepted, subject to final production of crude oil on the Alaskan 2. Any matters carried forward from a approval, by the Commission, has been North Slope (‘‘ANS crude oil’’), which previously announced meeting. placed on the public record for a period it sells to refineries on the West Coast CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: of thirty (30) days. The following of the United States, Hawaii, and Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; Analysis to Aid Public Comment Alaska, and in markets abroad. It also 202–452–3204. describes the terms of the consent owns capacity on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (‘‘TAPS’’) and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may agreement, and the allegations in the leasehold interests in Jones Act tankers. call 202–452–3206 beginning at complaint. An electronic copy of the These specialized tankers are used by approximately 5 p.m. two business days full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC BP Amoco to transport ANS crude oil before the meeting for a recorded from the North Slope production fields announcement of bank and bank Home Page (for April 13, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http:// to its refinery customers. holding company applications ARCO is a Delaware corporation with scheduled for the meeting; or you may www.ftc.gov.ftc.formal.htm.’’ A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC headquarters in Los Angeles, California. contact the Board’s Web site at http:// In 1999, ARCO had total revenues of www.federalreserve.gov for an Public Reference Room, Room H–130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, more than $12 billion. ARCO is also electronic announcement that not only engaged in the exploration, lists applications, but also indicates Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326–3627. development, and production of ANS procedural and other information about crude. ARCO also owns capacity on the meeting. Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the TAPS, and it owns its own Jones Act Dated: April 19, 2000. Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania tankers, which it uses to transport ANS Robert deV. Frierson, Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. Two crude oil to the West Coast. ARCO also Associate Secretary of the Board. paper copies of each comment should owns and operates two refineries on the [FR Doc. 00–10078 Filed 4–19–00; 10:32 am] be filed, and should be accompanied, if West Coast that refine ANS crude oil. 1 BP Amoco and ARCO were the BILLING CODE 6210±01±P possible, by a 3 ⁄2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the pioneers in developing the Alaska North comment. Such comments or views will Slope, and today are the two most important oil companies doing business FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and there. They account for more than half [File No. 991 0192] copying at its principal office in of all ANS crude oil discovered over the accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of last decade, and currently produce BP Amoco p.l.c., et al.; Analysis to Aid the Commission’s Rules of Practice (16 about 74% of all ANS crude oil. BP Public Comment CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). Amoco and ARCO are the only two operators of ANS crude oil fields, they AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. Analysis of the Proposed Consent Order each own more proven ANS crude oil ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. and Draft Complaint to Aid Public reserves than any other oil company, Comment they have the largest leaseholds of SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this I. Introduction exploration and production acres, and matter settles alleged violations of they have drilled the largest number of federal law prohibiting unfair or The Federal Trade Commission exploration wells on the North Slope. deceptive acts or practices or unfair (‘‘Commission’’) has accepted for public Individually, each has won more methods of competition. The attached comment from BP Amoco p.l.c. (‘‘BP exploration tracts than any other Analysis to Aid Public Comment Amoco’’) and Atlantic Richfield company in the last decade. describes both the allegations in the Company (‘‘ARCO’’) (collectively, The Alaska North Slope is a major oil- draft complaint that accompanies the ‘‘Proposed Respondents’’) an Agreement producing region of the United States. consent agreement and the terms of the Containing Consent Orders (‘‘Proposed ANS crude oil is used to supply consent order—embodied in the consent Consent Order’’). The Proposed refineries in Alaska, Hawaii, the West agreement—that would settle these Respondents have also reviewed a draft Coast of the United States, and Asia. allegations. complaint that the Commission Approximately 90% of all ANS crude DATES: Comments must be received on contemplates issuing. The Commission oil is refined on the United States West or before May 15, 2000. and BP Amoco and ARCO have also Coast, and approximately 45% of all agreed to an Order to Hold Separate and ADDRESSES: Comments should be crude oil refined on the United States Maintain Assets (‘‘Hold Separate directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, West Coast is ANS crude oil. Order’’) that requires the Proposed Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, BP Amoco and ARCO entered into an Respondents to hold separate and Washington, DC 20580. agreement on March 31, 1999, to merge maintain certain divested assets. The their companies. The size of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Consent Order is designed to transaction, based upon the value of the Richard Parker or Phillip Broyles, FTC/ remedy the likely anticompetitive deal when it was announced, was about H–374, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, effects arising from BP Amoco’s $26 billion. Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–2574 proposed acquisition of ARCO. or 326–2805. III. The Proposed Complaint and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant II. The Parties and the Transaction Consent Order to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade BP Amoco is a United Kingdom The proposed complaint alleges that Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. corporation with headquarters in merger of BP Amoco and ARCO would
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Phillips is headquartered in B. The Proposed Order Resolves its determination of whether it should Bartlesville, Oklahoma and is the sixth Competitive Concerns in Cushing by make final the Proposed Consent Order. largest United States oil company. In Requiring That All of ARCO’s Cushing This analysis is not intended to 1999 it had total revenues of about $14 Assets Be Sold Within 120 Days to an constitute an official interpretation of billion. Phillips currently has about a Acquirer Approved by the Commission the Proposed Consent Order, nor is it one percent interest in ANS crude oil Under the terms of the Proposed intended to modify the terms of the production and about a 1.4% interest in Consent Order, BP Amoco agreed to Proposed Consent Order in any way. TAPS. Phillips also owns oil and gas divest ARCO’s assets related to its By direction of the Commission. leases in the National Petroleum Cushing, Oklahoma crude oil business Donald S. Clark, Reserve area of the North Slope. to an acquirer to be approved by the Secretary. Commission and in a manner approved The divestiture of ARCO’s Alaska Statement of Chairman Robert Pitofsky Businesses is intended to preserve the by the Commission. Those assets include all of ARCO’s assets, properties, and Commissioner Mozelle W. level of competition that existed before Thompson, Concurring in Part and the merger in the production, sale and businesses and goodwill, tangible and intangible, in the Seaway Crude Oil Dissenting in Part delivery of crude oil to the West Coast, Pipeline and the Mid-Continent Crude The Commission accepts for public bidding for exploration rights on the Oil Logistics Services Businesses. comment today a consent order that Alaskan North Slope, and in pipeline The ARCO assets and properties that requires BP Amoco plc (‘‘BP’’), as a transportation services for ANS crude BP Amoco and ARCO are required to condition of its acquisition of Atlantic oil. divest include the following: (a) ARCO’s Richfield Company (‘‘ARCO’’), to divest 1. The Proposed Respondents Have crude oil interest in Seaway Pipeline all of ARCO’s crude oil exploration and Thirty (30) Days To Divest Most of the Company, a partnership with production assets in Alaska and related ARCO Alaska Assets to Phillips subsidiaries of Phillips; (b) ARCO’s pipeline rights, maritime assets, seismic crude oil terminal facilities in Cushing, data and technical information. In Except for those ARCO Alaska assets Oklahoma and Midland, Texas, effect, BP agrees to divest ‘‘all of ARCO’’ that require consents, waivers, or including the line transfer and in Alaska. In addition, the consent order approvals by regulatory authorities or pumpover business at each location; (c) requires BP to divest all ARCO pipeline other third parties before they may be ARCO’s undivided ownership interest and storage facilities in and around the transferred to Phillips (e.g., pipelines, in the Rancho Pipeline, a 400-mile, 24- crude oil marketing and trading hub at oil and gas leases, rights of way), the inch diameter crude oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to a buyer to be Proposed Respondents must complete West Texas to Houston; (d) ARCO’s approved by the Commission within the required divestitures of the Alaska undivided ownership interest in the 120 days of the date on which BP and assets within thirty (30) days of the Basin Pipeline, a 416-mile crude oil ARCO sign the consent order. acquisition. The Proposed Respondents pipeline running from Jal, NM, to The consent order provides that the must cooperate with Phillips and use Wichita Falls, Texas and then on to divested Alaska assets will be acquired Cushing, Oklahoma; and (e) the ARCO reasonable best efforts to assist Phillips by Phillips Petroleum Co. (‘‘Phillips’’). West Texas Trunk System of receipt and Phillips is an integrated petroleum in securing the consent and waivers that delivery pipelines, which is centered company with oil and gas exploration may be required from private entities. around Midland. and production interests in several The Proposed Respondents must BP Amoco and ARCO must complete countries and (as of 1999) assets of complete all other divestitures within the required divestitures of the Cushing about $15 billion and annual revenues six (6) months of consummating their assets, within 120 days of their singing of about $13.9 billion. Phillips currently merger. the Proposed Consent Order, to an has some Alaska oil and gas exploration 2. Transition Services acquirer or acquirers that receive the and production interests of its own, but prior approval of the Commission. these are tiny relative to those of BP and The Proposed Consent Order requires VII. Opportunity for Public Comment ARCO. Phillips is engaged in refining that the Proposed Respondents enter and gasoline marketing in several of the into a transition services agreement with The Proposed Consent Order has been United States, but not on the West Phillips. Under this agreement, the placed on the public record for thirty Coast. BP selected Phillips as the buyer Proposed Respondents must provide (30) days fro receipt of comments by of ARCO’s Alaska assets, and Phillips with the transition services it interested persons. Comments received Commission today unanimously may need in order to conduct the ARCO during this period will become part of approves Phillips as the buyer, subject businesses as they are currently being the public record. After thirty (30) days, to public comment. the Commission will again review the conducted. In most respects, this consent order Proposed Consent Order and the achieves all the Commission sought, 3. Licensing Agreements comments received and will decide and all the relief that would likely have whether it should withdraw from the been achieved if the Commission The Proposed Consent Order requires Proposed Consent Order or make it prevailed in litigation. We write that the Proposed Respondents enter final. separately, however, to express our into various licensing agreements with By accepting the Proposed Consent concern with the majority’s decision not Phillips for intellectual property Order subject to final approval, the to include in the consent order a necessary or related to the ARCO Alaska Commission anticipates that the provision prohibiting BP and Phillips Assets. These agreements are in competitive problems alleged in the from exporting ANS crude oil at a loss addition to the absolute transfer of other complaint will be resolved. The purpose for the purpose of maintaining oil prices intellectual property. of this analysis is to invite public on the West Coast of the United States.1 comment on the Proposed Consent Order, including the proposed 1 The provision that we would favor is explained, divestitures, to aid the Commission in and its terms defined, further below.
VerDate 18
BP currently has the largest share— period of time exported ANS crude at a This provision is narrower than the about 40%—of all crude oil produced loss in Asia and to other regions in the parties’ public statements, thereby on the Alaska North Slope (‘‘ANS’’); has United States in order to curtail or assuring that it would in no way affect the largest interest—about 50%—in the tighten supply to refiners on the U.S. normal, competitive business conduct, Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (‘‘TAPS’’) West Coast and to maintain crude oil such as exporting oil abroad when the that is used to transport crude oil to port prices in that market.3 The Commission price offered abroad (net of at Valdez, Alaska; and has the largest was prepared to substantiate its charge transportation and other costs) is higher fleet that is available for transporting with a series of documents, cited in its than on the West Coast. Instead, it ANS crude oil from Alaska to refineries memorandum supporting the complaint would target the systematic export of in the rest of the United States. ARCO but currently under seal in the United United States’ crude oil to Asia or is its largest rival in each of these States District Court.4 The Commission elsewhere at a loss (relative to the profit respects, with a share of over 30% of alleged that the pattern of exports that could have been obtained on the ANS crude production; a 22% stake in reflected BP’s market power, and that same crude oil within PADD V) for the TAPS; and the second largest available such market power would increase as a purpose of raising U.S. West Coast fleet. BP and ARCO’s dominance of the result of the proposed merger. Prices—a practice that we consider an market is even greater when measured When litigation was suspended for extraordinary exercise of market power. in terms of exploration assets and settlement negotiations, the issue of If engaged in through coordinated operatorships in Alaska. BP, which does exports designed to raise price was action—and the Commission’s not own any West Coast refineries, addressed. BP and Phillips reportedly memorandum alleges that BP currently sells all of its ANS crude in stated publicly that they would not ‘‘mop[ped] up ‘excess’ supplies of ANS’’ the merchant market. ARCO, which export U.S. crude resources out of crude from others 8—such conduct owns two of the largest refineries on the PADD V (the technical term for the U.S. would be illegal per se. See United West Coast, consumers the bulk of its West Coast market, specifically, the States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 ANS production internally. However, States of Alaska, Arizona, California, U.S. 150, 190–91, 216, 218–28 ARCO also sells on the merchant Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and (1940)(holding illegal per se agreements market, thereby according to the Washington).5 to purchase ‘‘distress gasoline’’ in order Commission’s complaint, serving as We believe that the Commission to raise prices or prevent price ‘‘the firm most likely to constrain BP’s should follow the logic of its own decreases). Regardless of its legality, exercise of monopoly power,’’ a complaint and require BP and Phillips exporting at a loss in order to raise West constraint that ‘‘likely would increase’’ to affirm their public statements in our Coast prices plainly threatens 2 over time but for the merger. consent agreement in this matter. That competition in a market where this Because Phillips will acquire all of would require the following provision agency has a duty to ensure that ARCO’s assets in Alaska, the consent in the order: competition is fully restored. see, e.g., order is likely to restore competition on Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 the Alaska North Slope. In the market BP and Phillips shall not knowingly and 6 U.S. 562, 573 (1972); United States v. for the supply of ANS crude oil to intentionally Sell for Export ANS crude oil for the purpose of increasing the Spot Price 7 E.I. du Point de Nemours & Co., 366 targeted refineries on the West Coast, of ANS crude oil in PADD V, PROVIDED, U.S. 316, 326 (1961). Phillips will be in a different position however, that a Sale for Export at a price Because the Commission was from ARCO because, unlike ARCO, reasonably anticipated to produce a higher prepared to prove that intentional Phillips is neither a refiner nor a profit than a contemporaneous sale in PADD manipulation of supply on the West gasoline marketer on the West Coast. V shall be presumed not to violate this Order. Coast occurred in the past, and could This difference should leave Phillips occur again in the future, the provision with more crude oil to sell on the open 3 See FTC v. BP Amoco plc, Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23; would be appropriate relief for the market than ARCO currently has after Points and Authorities in Support of FTC Motion Commission to require. See, e.g., FTC v. supplying its own refineries, and, if not for a Preliminary Injunction at 7, 9–11. 4 See id. at 7, n.13, 9–10 & nn. 16–18. (The public National Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 429, undermined by private conduct, may version of the FTC’s Points and Authorities, with 430 (1957)(a remedy is proper if it bears actually improve upon the level of the parties’ confidential information redacted, is a ‘‘reasonable relation to the unlawful competition in that market. In Cushing, available at /http://www.ftc.gov/os/bpamoco/ practices found to exist’’ and ‘‘decrees a clean sweep of ARCO’s pipeline and index.htm. All references in this concurrence to the memorandum supporting the complaint are to that often suppress a lawful device when it storage assets to a buyer to be approved version.) is used to carry out an unlawful by the Commission should also suffice 5 See, e.g., H. Josef Hebert, ‘‘Company ties offer to purpose’’) (citations omitted); cf. FTC v. to restore competition. halt exporting Alaska crude to merger’’ (Associated Ruberoid Co., 343 U.S. 470, 473 (1952) Negotiations leading to this settlement Press, March 24, 2000) (citing a letter from BP to (‘‘[I]f the Commission is to obtain the have been extensive and complicated. U.S. Representative Don Young of Alaska); Associated Press, ‘‘BP Amoco Would End Alaska objectives Congress envisioned, it Nevertheless, once the outline of a Exports’’ (March 24, 2000); Reuters, ‘‘BP Amoco, cannot be required to confine its road settlement was agreed upon—that is, Phillips to halt Alaskan oil exports’’ (March 24, block to the narrow lane the transgressor divestiture of ‘‘all of ARCO’’ in Alaska 2000) (citing a letter from BP to U.S. Representative has traveled; it must be allowed George Miller of California). and in and around Cushing—BP, ARCO effectively to close all roads to the and Commission staff worked out the 6 ‘‘Sell for Export’’ and ‘‘Sale for Export’’ would prohibited goal, so that its order may details with dispatch. be defined terms, referring to the sale, exchange, not be by-passed with impunity.’’) In one respect, however, the delivery or transfer of ANS crude oil for refining at a refinery located outside of PADD V, PROVIDED, Notwithstanding the substantial Commission’s action in this matter is however, that they would not include any sale, evidence of manipulation supporting disappointing. In its original complaint exchange, delivery or transfer of ANS crude oil in the allegations in the complaint and and in its memorandum supporting the return for which ANS crude oil from another person memorandum, a majority of the complaint, the Commission alleged that is tendered or delivered to Respondents at a location in PADD V. Commission declines to require this BP systematically and over an extended 7 ‘‘Spot Price’’ would be a defined term, referring to the amount paid for a single delivery of crude 8 FTC v. BP Amoco plc, Points and Authorities in 2 See FTC v. BP Amoco plc, Civ. No. 00–0416– oil as part of an arms-length transaction as reported Support of FTC Motion for a Preliminary Injunction SI (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 4, 2000), Compl. ¶ 18. by Reuters, Telerate or Platts. at 10.
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Resource Based Relative Value Scale, surgeons never went into effect. Instead, employers, and third-party payers make similar to the system used by the federal respondents caused general surgery fees for the services of surgeons; government in its Medicare program. for United’s various plans to increase at • Fixing the terms and conditions The effect of this change was to increase least 12% to 40% above the fees that upon which general surgeons would rates paid to primary care physicians, United announced in October 1997. deal with third-party payers; and and to reduce rates to all physician In early November 1997, United • Raising the prices that individuals specialists, including general surgeons. received a written notice from the Texas and employers pay for health plan Soon thereafter, respondents, through Surgeons IPA that all of its members coverage offered by third-party payers. the Texas Surgeons IPA, began would be terminating their contracts The Proposed Consent Order collectively negotiating higher rates. with United effective January 1, 1998 Despite multiple attempts by Blue due to the proposed fee reductions for The proposed order is designed to Cross to negotiate individually with the 1998. The Texas Surgeons IPA indicated prevent recurrence of the illegal six respondent medical practice groups, its desire to collectively negotiate higher concerted actions alleged in the those groups insisted on negotiating fees and rejected United’s request to complaint, while allowing respondents only through the Texas Surgeons IPA. In negotiate with the six respondent to engage in legitimate joint conduct. September 1997, the Texas Surgeons medical practice groups on an The Commission notes that in 1999, IPA sent Blue Cross a package of individual basis. United explored the some time after the investigation of this identically worded contract termination possibility of creating a panel of general matter began, the State of Texas enacted notices for each general surgeon surgeons that did not include general legislation that permits the State member of the Texas Surgeons IPA, surgeons from the six respondent Attorney General to approve, under with a cover letter stating that the medical practice groups, but it certain conditions, joint negotiations termination notices were due to Blue concluded that such a panel would not between health plans and groups of Cross’s ‘‘unacceptable’’ rate reductions. provide adequate general surgery competing physicians. Texas Senate Bill In November 1997, the Texas Surgeons coverage and that it had no realistic 1468, 76th Leg., R.S. ch., 1586 (1999). IPA asked Blue Cross to waive its right alternative to beginning collective fee That conduct that gave rise to the to bring a private antitrust action negotiations with the Texas Surgeons investigation and consent agreement regarding the Texas Surgeons IPA’s rate IPA. predated enactment of the law, and thus negotiations with Blue Cross, but Blue Prior to the start of a collective fee was not approved under its terms. Cross refused to sign the waiver. In negotiation session in November 1997, Moreover, the conduct described in the December 1997, 26 members of the the Texas Surgeons IPA required United complaint would not necessarily have Texas Surgeons IPA, dissatisfied with to sign a waiver of its right to bring a met the conditions for approval set forth Blue Cross’s payment offers, collectively private antitrust action against the Texas in the Act. effected their resignations from Blue Surgeons IPA or its members stemming Enactment of the statute does not Cross, and jointly announced that action from those fee negotiations. At that eliminate the need for an order in this in a prominent advertisement in collective fee negotiation session, matter. The statute permits only Austin’s major daily newspaper. respondents demanded and received an collective negotiations that are approved In early 1998, Blue Cross experienced agreement from United to pay higher by the Attorney General, imposes difficulty in securing the services of a fees in 1998 and 1999, as described conditions under which that approval general surgeon for an emergency room above. Representatives from the six may be granted, and by its terms expires patient. At about the same time, two respondent medical practice groups on September 1, 2003. As is discussed more general surgeons resigned from assembled together and collectively below, the Commission’s order does not Blue Cross. These two general surgeons participated in this collective fee prohibit future conduct that is approved had been advised by one of the negotiation session through frequent and supervised by the State of Texas respondent medical practice groups that telephone and fax contact with the pursuant to its statute and protected their inclusion in an arrangement with Texas Surgeons IPA’s lead negotiator. from federal antitrust liability under the that practice group regarding back-up The Texas Surgeons IPA did not state action doctrine. It is necessary and surgical coverage would end if they engage in any activity that might justify appropriate, however, to provide a continued to deal with Blue Cross. collective agreements on the prices they remedy against future conduct by the After these events, Blue Cross would accept for their services. respondents that is not approved and concluded that it needed to reach a rate Respondents’ actions have restrained supervised by the State of Texas. agreement with the respondents as soon competition among general surgeons in The core operative provisions of the as possible to avoid inadequate general the Austin area and thereby have proposed order are contained in Section surgery coverage for Blue Cross harmed, or tended to harm, consumers II. Section II.A prohibits respondents subscribers in the Austin area. The (including third-party payers, from entering into or facilitating any collective rate agreement between the subscribers, and their employers) by: agreement: (1) To negotiate physician six respondent medical practice groups • Depriving consumers of the benefits services on behalf of any physicians and Blue Cross that resulted in early of competition; with any payer or provider; (2) to deal, 1998 increased Blue Cross general • Increasing by over one million refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to surgery rates nearly 30% above the dollars the amount that Blue Cross, deal with any payer or provider; (3) April 1997 levels. United, their individual subscribers, regarding any term on which any Respondents began collective price and employers (including the State of physicians deal, or are willing to deal, negotiations with United soon after it Texas Employees Retirement System with any payer or provider; (4) to announced fee reductions for general and other self-insured employers that restrict the ability, or facilitate the surgeons and other physicians in utilize Blue Cross or United physician refusal, of any physician to deal with October 1997. The new fees went into network) paid for the services of any payer or provider on an individual effect on January 1, 1998 for surgical surgeons during the period from January basis or through any other arrangement; procedures not usually performed by 1, 1998 to December 31, 1999; or (5) to convey to any payer or general surgeons, but comparable • Fixing the payments or co- provider, through any Austin area proposed fee reductions for general payments that individual patients, their physician, any information concerning
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
National School Health Leadership working in tobacco control; collect and guidelines, and standards for cancer Conference. distribute information regarding global prevention and control activities. women and tobacco issues; and develop Project 2. Comprehensive Cancer E. Assist in developing and evaluating strategies to counter tobacco advertising Control Activities professional training opportunities for and promotion. Strategies might include cancer prevention and control, A. Collaborate with state health maintaining a website, a member particularly in the areas of prevention, departments on comprehensive cancer directory and newsletter. early detection, surveillance, data control training, planning, B. Provide assistance with the analysis and cost-effectiveness. implementation, and evaluation organization and planning of F. Give guidance on cancer issues activities. Develop leadership models conferences on tobacco control such as for state health departments to utilize. management topics to be considered the World Tobacco Conference. and timing of consideration. Assess comprehensive cancer control C. Collaborate with state health collaboration models. departments to address tobacco use and E. Application Content B. Coordinate and support activities prevention among women and girls. Use the information in the ‘‘Program related to colorectal and prostate cancer D. Provide presentations on women Requirements,’’ ‘‘Other Requirements,’’ education and awareness. Collaborate and tobacco, with a strong emphasis on and ‘‘Evaluation Criteria’’ sections to with state health departments in the tobacco company marketing tactics at develop the application content. Your replication and evaluation of prostate state and national meetings in the application will be evaluated on the and colorectal cancer training for United States. criteria listed, so it is important to providers and health care systems that E. Promote female leadership in promotes informed decisions; provides follow them in laying out your program initiating the development of tobacco plan. The narrative should be no more current, balanced information on the control organizations internationally. benefits and limitations of screening than 20 (twenty) double-spaced pages, and treatment for these cancers; and Project 4. Dissemination of Information printed on one side, with one-inch provides information that will enable on Oral Cancer margins, and unreduced font. participants to overcome system barriers A. Inventory and assess existing A separate narrative is required for to implementing screening. Collaborate educational materials and other forms of each Project which contains— with appropriate agencies in reaching information on oral cancer available to 1. Statement of Need.—Identify primary care providers with written the public and health care providers. opportunities for enhancement/ information regarding screening for B. Based on the assessment, revise improvement and existing gaps in the colorectal cancer and messages for their educational materials and other forms of support of comprehensive cancer patients to raise awareness of the need information on oral cancer to reflect up- control and prevention activities. for colorectal cancer screening. to-date, science-based knowledge. Describe the extent to which the C. Identify the critical components of C. Conduct and evaluate outreach proposed programs will fill existing effective breast and cervical cancer activities to increase knowledge and gaps and provide a brief description of screening outreach/education awareness among dental and other each programmatic plan or research partnerships between state health health care providers of information activity. departments and other organizations, resources that address oral cancer including ACS. 2. Objectives. Establish and submit D. Develop evaluation measures to issues. short- and long-term objectives for each determine the impact of project D. Coordinate these activities with project proposed in Section 1 (statement activities and identify effective cancer major organizations in dental health, of need) above. Objectives must be prevention and control projects for such as the American Dental specific, measurable, attainable, time future continuation, replication and/or Association and its component state phased, and realistic. dissemination. associations, the National Institute of 3. Operational Plan.—Submit an E. Develop clear cancer education Dental and Cranial Facial Research, and operational plan that addresses means materials and/or other items that the Association of State and Territorial for achieving each of the objectives accurately and effectively convey Dental Directors. established in Section 2 (objectives) appropriate health messages and 2. CDC Activities above. Provide a concise description of behaviors to the targeted populations each component or major activity and regarding lung, breast, cervical, A. Collaborate on and provide how it will be implemented. The plan colorectal, prostate, and skin cancers. technical assistance for program must identify and establish a time line F. Identify opportunities for cancer activities. for the completion of each component issues management forums; coordinate B. Assist in the conduct of or major activity. epidemiologic studies, research, and and support cancer issues management 4. Evaluation Plan.—Submit a forums among a variety of public, analysis using existing or newly created databases. quantitative plan for monitoring private, and not-for-profit agencies at progress toward achieving each of the the national, state, tribal, and C. Participate in the development of plans for the sharing and dissemination objectives stated in Section 2 community level. (objectives) above. G. Develop and implement studies of research, data analysis, evaluation that explore the effects and interactions efforts, demonstration projects and 5. Program Management.—Describe between various lifestyle factors and interventions, and other cancer the need, functions, and qualification health services on the risk of cancer and information. Sponsor information for each program or research personnel cancer mortality. exchanges through workshops, requested. conferences, and other group 6. Budget.—Submit a detailed budget Project 3. International Network of mechanisms as appropriate . and narrative justification for each of Women Against Tobacco (INWAT) D. Assist in defining the scope, the projects that is consistent with the A. Provide contacts primarily to development, and dissemination of purpose of the program and the women, individuals, and organizations plans and education materials, proposed activities.
VerDate 18
F. Submission and Deadline 8. The degree to which the applicant Management Specialist Grants Submit the original and two copies of has met the CDC Policy requirements Management Branch, Procurement and PHS 5161–1 (OMB Number 0937–0189). regarding the inclusion of women, Grants Office Announcement 00037 By May 1, 2000, submit the ethnic, and racial groups in the Centers for Disease Control and application to the Grants Management proposed research. This includes: Prevention (CDC) Room 3000, 2920 Specialist identified in the ‘‘Where to 1. The proposed plan for the inclusion Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Obtain Additional Information’’ section of both sexes and racial and ethnic telephone (770)–488–2754, E-mail of this announcement. minority populations for appropriate address [email protected] See also the CDC home page on the 1. Deadline: Applications will be representation. 2. The proposed justification when Internet: http://www.cdc.gov considered as meeting the deadline if representation is limited or absent. For program technical assistance, they are either: 3. A statement as to whether the contact: Corinne Graffunder, Chief, a. Received on or before the stated design of the study is adequate to Section A, Program Services Branch, deadline date; or measure differences when warranted. Division of Cancer Prevention and b. Sent on or before the deadline date. 4. A statement as to whether the plans Control, National Center for Chronic (Applicants must request a legibly dated for recruitment and research for study Disease Prevention and Health U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain participants include the process of Promotion, Centers for Disease Control a legibly dated receipt from a establishing partnerships with and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford commercial carrier or the U.S. Postal community(ies) and recognition of Highway, NE., Mailstop K–57, Atlanta, Service. mutual benefits. GA 30341–3724, telephone (770) 488– Private metered postmarks shall not 4880, fax (770) 488–3230. be acceptable proof of timely mailing.) H. Other Requirements Dated: April 17, 2000. 2. Late Applications: Applications Technical Reporting Requirements which do not meet the criteria in 1(a) or John L. Williams, 1(b) above are considered late Provide CDC with the original plus Director, Procurement and Grants Office, applications and will be returned to the two copies of the following: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention applicant. 1. Annual written progress report (CDC). must be submitted 30 days after the end [FR Doc. 00–9956 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] G. Evaluation Criteria of each budget period. BILLING CODE 4163±18±P The application will be evaluated 2. Financial status report (FSR) must according to the following criteria by an be submitted 90 days after the end of independent review group appointed by each budget period. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND CDC. 3. Final financial and performance HUMAN SERVICES 1. Need statement. The extent to reports, must be submitted 90 days after Food and Drug Administration which the applicant identifies specific the end of the project period. opportunities and existing gaps related Send all reports to the Grants [Docket No. 93D±0139] to the purpose of the program. (10 Management Specialist identified in the points) ‘‘Where to Obtain Additional International Conference on 2. Objectives. The degree to which Information’’ section of this Harmonisation; Draft Revised short- and long-term objectives are announcement. Guidance on Q1A(R) Stability Testing specific, measurable, attainable, time The following additional of New Drug Substances and Products requirements are applicable to this phased, and realistic. (20 points) AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 3. Operational Plans. The adequacy of program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the HHS. the applicant’s plan to carry out the ACTION: Notice. proposed activities, including the extent application package. to which the applicant plans to work AR–1 Human Subjects Requirement SUMMARY: The Food and Drug collaboratively with other organizations AR–2 Requirements for Inclusion of Administration (FDA) is publishing a and individuals who may have an Women and Racial and Ethnic Minorities draft revised guidance entitled ‘‘Q1A(R) impact on cancer prevention and in Research Stability Testing of New Drug AR–9 Paperwork Reduction Act control objectives. (25 points) Requirements Substances and Products.’’ The draft 4. Evaluation Plan. The extent to AR–10 Smoke-Free Workplace revised guidance, which updates a which the evaluation plan appears Requirements guidance on the same topic published in capable of monitoring progress toward AR–11 Healthy People 2010 the Federal Register of September 22, meeting project objectives. (25 points) AR–12 Lobbying Restrictions 1994 (the 1994 guidance), was prepared 5. Program Management. The extent AR–20 Conference Support under the auspices of the International to which proposed staff appear to be Conference on Harmonisation of qualified and possess capacity to I. Authority and Catalog of Federal Technical Requirements for Registration perform the project. (20 points) Domestic Assistance Number of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use 6. Budget. The extent to which each This program is authorized under (ICH). The draft revised guidance line-item budget and narrative sections 301(a), 317(k)(2) of the Public clarifies the 1994 guidance, adds justification for Projects 1, 2, 3 and 4 are Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 241(a) and information, and provides consistency reasonable and consistent with the 247b(k)(2)], as amended. The Catalog of with more recently published ICH purpose and objectives of the program. Federal Domestic Assistance Number guidances. The draft revised guidance is (Not weighted) for this program is 93.283. intended to reflect formal scientific 7. Human Subjects. Does the principles for stability testing of drugs application adequately address the J. Where To Obtain Additional and should be useful to applicants requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for Information submitting new drug applications for the protection of human subjects? (Not To obtain additional information new molecular entities and associated Weighted) contact: Nealean K. Austin, Grants drug products.
VerDate 18
DATES: Submit written comments by Manufacturers Association, the Centers Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for June 5, 2000. for Drug Evaluation and Research and New Drug Substances and New Drug ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Biologics Evaluation and Research, Products: Chemical Substances,’’ and (3) on the draft revised guidance to the FDA, and the Pharmaceutical Research ‘‘Q6B Specifications: Test Procedures Dockets Management Branch (HFA– and Manufacturers of America. The ICH and Acceptance Criteria for 305), Food and Drug Administration, Secretariat, which coordinates the Biotechnological/Biological Products.’’ 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, preparation of documentation, is This draft guidance applies in general MD 20852. Copies of the draft revised provided by the International to new dosage forms and guidance are available from the Drug Federation of Pharmaceutical biotechnological/biological products as Information Branch (HFD–210), Center Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA). does the original Q1A guidance. for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food The ICH Steering Committee includes Additional guidance specific to the representatives from each of the ICH and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers stability testing of new dosage forms sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827– and biotechnological/biological observers from the World Health 4573. Single copies of the draft revised products can be found in two previously Organization, the Canadian Health guidance may be obtained by mail from published ICH guidances entitled ‘‘Q1C: Protection Branch, and the European the Office of Communication, Training, Stability Testing of New Dosage Forms’’ Free Trade Area. and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM– and ‘‘Q5C: Quality of Biotechnological 40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and In October 1999, the ICH Steering Committee agreed that a draft revised Products: Stability Testing of Research (CBER), or by calling the CBER guidance entitled ‘‘Q1A(R) Stability Biotechnological/Biological Products,’’ Voice Information System at 1–800– Testing of New Drug Substances and respectively. 835–4709 or 301–827–1800. Copies may Products’’ should be made available for This draft revised guidance represents be obtained from CBER’s FAX public comment. The draft revised the agency’s current thinking on Information System at 1–888–CBER– guidance is a revision of an ICH stability testing of new drug substances FAX or 301–827–3844. guidance on the same topic published in and products. It does not create or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Federal Register of September 22, confer any rights for or on any person Regarding the guidance: Chi Wan 1994 (59 FR 48754). The draft revised and does not operate to bind FDA or the Chen, Center for Drug Evaluation guidance is the product of the Quality public. An alternative approach may be and Research (HFD–830), Food and Expert Working Group of the ICH. used if such approach satisfies the Drug Administration, 9201 Comments about this draft will be requirements of the applicable statute, Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD considered by FDA and the Quality regulations, or both. 20850, 301–827–2001. Expert Working Group. Regarding the ICH: Janet J. Showalter, Interested persons may submit to the In accordance with FDA’s good Dockets Management Branch (address Office of Health Affairs (HFY–20), guidance practices (62 FR 8961, Food and Drug Administration, above) written comments on the draft February 27, 1997), this document is revised guidance on or before June 5, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD now being called a guidance, rather than 20857, 301–827–0864. 2000. Two copies of any comments are a guideline. to be submitted, except that individuals SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In recent The draft revised guidance provides may submit one copy. Comments are to years, many important initiatives have guidance on the information to be be identified with the docket number been undertaken by regulatory submitted in the stability data package found in brackets in the heading of this authorities and industry associations to for a new drug substance or drug document. The draft revised guidance promote international harmonization of product. The revisions add information and received comments may be seen in regulatory requirements. FDA has on stability storage conditions: (1) For the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 participated in many meetings designed drug substances and products intended p.m., Monday through Friday. An to enhance harmonization and is to be stored in a refrigerator or freezer electronic version of this guidance is committed to seeking scientifically and (2) for drug products packaged in available on the Internet at http:// based harmonized technical procedures semipermeable containers. The www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm for pharmaceutical development. One of revisions clarify the guidance on: (1) or http://www.fda.gov/cber/ the goals of harmonization is to identify Testing frequencies for stability studies publications.htm. and then reduce differences in technical at accelerated and intermediate requirements for drug development conditions and (2) stability The text of the draft revised guidance among regulatory agencies. commitments. follows: ICH was organized to provide an The draft revised guidance recognizes Q1A(R): Stability Testing of New Drug opportunity for tripartite harmonization certain regional regulatory constraints. Substances and Products 1 initiatives to be developed with input The Preamble and Objective sections of Preamble from both regulatory and industry the 1994 guidance were revised to representatives. FDA also seeks input recognize that, in some regions, The following guidance defines the from consumer representatives and guidance does not constitute a stability data package for a new drug others. ICH is concerned with substance or drug product that is sufficient regulatory requirement. The Storage for a registration application within the three harmonization of technical Conditions sections of the 1994 regions of the EC, Japan, and the United requirements for the registration of guidance were revised to recognize that, States. It does not seek necessarily to cover pharmaceutical products among three in some regions, stability amendments regions: The European Union, Japan, to pending applications are not 1 This draft revised guidance represents the and the United States. The six ICH permissable. agency’s current thinking on stability testing of new sponsors are the European Commission, The draft revised guidance includes drug substances and products. It does not create or the European Federation of references to three recently published confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative Pharmaceutical Industries Associations, ICH guidances: (1) ‘‘Q1B Photostability approach may be used if such approach satisfies the the Japanese Ministry of Health and Testing of New Drug Substances and requirements of the applicable statute, regulations, Welfare, the Japanese Pharmaceutical Products,’’ (2) ‘‘Q6A Specifications: Test or both.
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Study Storage Condition Minimum Time Period at Submission
Long-term 25 °C ± 2 °C/60% RH ± 5% RH 12 months Intermediate 30 °C ±2 °C/60% RH ± 5% RH 6 months Accelerated 40 °C ± 2 °C/75% RH ± 5% RH 6 months
When ‘‘significant change’’ occurs at any time during 6 months’ storage at the accelerated storage condition, additional testing at the intermediate storage condition should be conducted and evaluated against significant change criteria. The initial application should include a minimum of 6 months’ data from a 12-month study at the intermediate storage condition. Drug Substances Intended for Storage in a Refrigerator
Study Storage Condition Minimum Time Period at Submission
Long-term 5 °C ± 3 °C 12 months Accelerated 25 °C ± 2 °C/60% RH ± 5% RH 6 months
Data from refrigerated storage should be assessed according to the evaluation section of this guidance, except where explicitly noted below. If significant change occurs between 3 and 6 months’ testing at the accelerated storage condition, the proposed retest period should be based on the real-time data available at the long-term storage condition. If significant change occurs within the first 3 months’ testing at the accelerated storage condition, data should be supplied to cover use of the drug substance outside of the label storage condition. It is not necessary to continue to test a product to 6 months when an obvious significant change has occurred within the first 3 months. Drug Substances Intended for Storage in a Freezer
Study Storage Condition Minimum Time Period at Submission
Long-term ¥20 °C ± 5 °C 12 months
For drug substances intended for storage in these studies through the proposed retest An acceptable approach for quantitative a freezer, the retest period should be based period and to place additional production characteristics that are expected to change on the real-time data presented at the long- batches, to a total of at least three, on long- with time is to determine the time at which term storage condition. In the absence of an term stability studies through the proposed the 95 percent one-sided confidence limit for accelerated storage condition for drug retest period. the mean degradation curve intersects the substances intended to be stored in a freezer, 3. If the submission does not include acceptable specification limit. If analysis testing at an elevated temperature (e.g., 5 °C stability data on production batches, a shows that the batch-to-batch variability is ± 3 °C or 25 °C ± 2 °C) on a single batch commitment should be made to place the small, it is advantageous to combine the data should be conducted to support use of the first three production batches on long-term into one overall estimate, and this can be drug substance outside of the proposed label stability studies through the proposed retest done by first applying appropriate statistical storage condition. period. tests (e.g., p values for level of significance The stability protocol used for long-term of rejection of more than 0.25) to the slopes Drug Substances Intended for Storage Below of the regression lines and zero time ¥ ° studies for the stability commitment should 20 C be the same as that for the primary batches intercepts for the individual batches. If it is Drug substances intended for storage below unless otherwise scientifically justified. inappropriate to combine data from several ¥20 °C should be treated on a case-by-case batches, the overall retest period may depend basis. Evaluation on the minimum time a batch may be The design of the stability study is to expected to remain within acceptable and Stability Commitment establish, based on testing a minimum of justified limits. When available long-term stability data on three batches of the drug substance and The nature of any degradation relationship primary batches do not cover the proposed evaluating the stability information (covering will determine the need for transformation of retest period granted at the time of approval, as appropriate the physical, chemical, the data for linear regression analysis. the studies should be continued postapproval biological, and microbiological attributes), a Usually the relationship can be represented in order to firmly establish the retest period. retest period applicable to all future batches by a linear, quadratic, or cubic function on Where the submission includes long-term of the drug substance manufactured under an arithmetic or logarithmic scale. Statistical storage data from three production batches similar circumstances. The degree of methods should be employed to test the covering the proposed retest period, no variability of individual batches affects the goodness of fit of the data on all batches and postapproval commitment is necessary. confidence that a future production batch combined batches (where appropriate) to the Otherwise, the appropriate alternative from will remain within specification throughout assumed degradation line or curve. those shown below should be followed: the assigned retest period. Limited extrapolation of the real-time data 1. If the submission includes stability data The data may show so little degradation from the long-term testing storage condition on at least three production batches, a and so little variability that it is apparent beyond the observed range to extend the commitment should be made to continue from looking at the data that the requested retest period at approval time may be these studies through the proposed retest retest period will be granted. Under these undertaken, particularly where the period. circumstances, it is normally unnecessary to accelerated data support this. However, this 2. If the submission includes stability data go through the formal statistical analysis; assumes that the same degradation on fewer than three production batches, a providing a full justification for the omission relationship will continue to apply beyond commitment should be made to continue would be sufficient. the observed data. Hence the use of
VerDate 18
Study Storage Condition Minimum Time Period at Submission
Long-term 25 °C ± 2 °C/60% RH ± 5% RH 12 months Intermediate 30 °C ± 2 °C/60% RH ± 5% RH 6 months Accelerated 40 °C ± 2 °C/75% RH ± 5% RH 6 months
VerDate 18
When ‘‘significant change’’ occurs at any containers that provide a permanent barrier be carried out under conditions of low time during 6 months’ storage at the to passage of moisture or solvent, e.g., relative humidity as discussed below. Other accelerated storage condition, additional semisolids in sealed aluminum tubes, comparable approaches may be developed testing at the intermediate storage condition solutions in sealed glass ampules. Thus, and reported for nonaqueous, solvent-based should be conducted and evaluated against stability studies for products stored in products. significant change criteria. The initial impermeable containers may be conducted Ultimately, the shelf life for aqueous-based application should include a minimum of 6 under any relative humidity. drug products stored in semipermeable months’ data from a 12-month study at the containers should justify storage in low Drug Products Packaged in Semipermeable intermediate storage condition. relative humidity environments. To Containers accommodate this, it should be demonstrated Drug Products Stored in Impermeable Aqueous-based products packaged in that the drug product will remain within its Containers semipermeable containers should be approved acceptance criteria throughout the The sensitivity to moisture or the potential evaluated for potential water loss in addition proposed shelf life if stored at a temperature for solvent loss is not a concern for drug to physical, chemical, biological, and of 25 °C and at the reference relative products packaged in impermeable microbiological stability. This evaluation can humidity of 40 percent RH.
Study Storage Condition Minimum Time Period at Submission
Long-term 25 °C ± 2 °C/40% RH ± 5% RH 12 months Intermediate 30 °C ± 2 °C/60% RH ± 5% RH 6 months Accelerated 40 °C ± 2 °C/not more than (NMT) 25% RH 6 months (water loss after 3 months)
An acceptable alternative approach to container has occurred when there has been alternative relative humidity at the same storage at the reference reduced humidity (for a water loss of greater than 5 percent after 3 temperature is described below. A linear rate both long-term and accelerated storage) is to months’ storage equivalent to 40 °C/NMT 25 of moisture loss over the storage period perform the stability studies under higher percent RH. However, for small single-dose should be demonstrated. relative humidity and to derive the water loss products, a water loss of greater than 5 A mean percentage weight loss at the at reduced relative humidity through percent after 3 months’ storage equivalent to reference relative humidity should be calculation. This may be done by 40 °C/NMT 25 percent RH may be acceptable calculated from that measured at the experimentally determining the permeation if justified. alternative relative humidity at a given coefficient for the container and closure A significant change in water loss alone temperature after a specified storage period. system or the ratio of water loss between the will not necessitate testing at the For example, the equivalent weight loss two humidity conditions at the same intermediate storage condition. after 3 months’ storage at NMT 25 percent RH temperature as shown in the example below. (at 40 °C) is the product of the percentage The permeation coefficient for any packaging Example Approach for Determining weight loss at 75 percent RH (at 40 °C) after system may be experimentally determined to Percentage Water Loss 3 months, multiplied by 3.0 from the table cover a worst case alternative relative to the An appropriate approach for calculating an below. proposed drug product. equivalent percentage water loss for a Other valid calculated relative humidity A significant change in water loss for a product stored at a reference relative ratios than those in the table below may also product packaged in a semipermeable humidity from data generated from an be used.
Alternative Humidity Nominated Humidity Ratio
60% RH 25% RH 2.4 60% RH 40% RH 1.5 75% RH 25% RH 3.0
Drug Products Intended for Storage in a Refrigerator
Study Storage Condition Minimum Time Period at Submission
Long-term 5 °C ± 3 °C 12 months Accelerated 25 °C ± 2 °C/60% RH ± 5% RH 6 months
Data from refrigerated storage should be assessed according to the evaluation section of this guidance except where explicitly noted below. If significant change occurs between 3 and 6 months’ testing at the accelerated storage condition, the proposed shelf life should be based on the real-time data available from the long-term storage condition. If significant change occurs within the first 3 months’ testing at the accelerated storage condition, data should be supplied to cover use of the drug product outside of the label storage condition. It is not necessary to continue to test a product to 6 months when an obvious significant change has occurred within the first 3 months.
VerDate 18
Drug Products Intended for Storage in a Freezer
Study Storage Condition Minimum Time Period at Submission
Long-term ¥20 °C ± 5 °C 12 months
For drug products intended for storage in Evaluation of fit of any mathematical model, batch size, a freezer, the shelf life should be based on A systematic approach should be adopted existence of supportive data, etc. the real-time data presented at the long-term in the presentation and evaluation of the Any evaluation should consider not only storage condition. In the absence of an stability information, which should cover, as the assay, but the levels of degradation accelerated storage condition for drug appropriate, physical, chemical, biological, products and appropriate attributes. Where products intended to be stored in a freezer, and microbiological quality attributes, appropriate, attention should be paid to data from elevated temperature (e.g., 5 °C ± including particular properties of the dosage reviewing the adequacy of the mass balance 3 °C or 25 °C ± 2 °C) on a single batch should form (for example, dissolution rate for solid and different stability and degradation be obtained to support use of the drug oral dosage forms). performance. product outside of the proposed label storage Where the data show so little degradation The stability of the drug product after condition. and so little variability that it is apparent reconstituting or diluting according to from looking at the data that the requested labeling should be addressed to provide Drug Products Intended for Storage Below shelf life will be granted, it is normally appropriate and supportive information. ¥20 °C unnecessary to go through the formal Statements/Labeling Drug products intended for storage below statistical analysis; providing a justification ¥20 °C should be treated on a case-by-case for the omission should be sufficient. A storage temperature range may be used basis. The design of the stability study is to in accordance with relevant national/regional establish, based on testing a minimum of requirements. The range should be based on Stability Commitment three batches of the drug product, a shelf life the stability evaluation of the drug product. When available long-term stability data on and label storage instructions applicable to Where applicable, specific instruction should primary batches do not cover the proposed all future batches of the drug product be provided, particularly for drug products shelf life granted at the time of approval, the manufactured and packed under similar that cannot tolerate freezing. studies should be continued postapproval in circumstances. The degree of variability of The use of terms such as ‘‘ambient conditions’’ or ‘‘room temperature’’ is order to firmly establish the shelf life. individual batches affects the confidence that unacceptable. Where the submission includes long-term a future production batch will remain within There should be a direct linkage between storage data from three production batches specification throughout its shelf life. the label statement and the demonstrated covering the proposed shelf life, no An acceptable approach for quantitative stability characteristics of the drug product. postapproval commitment is necessary. characteristics that are expected to change Otherwise, the appropriate alternative from with time is to determine the time at which Annex 1 the 95 percent one-sided confidence limit for those shown below should be followed. Glossary and Information 1. If the submission includes stability data the mean degradation curve intersects the on at least three production batches, a acceptance criterion. If analysis shows that The following terms have been in general commitment should be made to continue the batch-to-batch variability is small, it is use, and the following definitions are advantageous to combine the data into one provided to facilitate interpretation of the these studies through the proposed shelf life. overall estimate, and this can be done by first guidance. 2. If the submission includes stability data applying appropriate statistical tests (e.g., p Accelerated testing: Studies designed to on fewer than three production batches, a values for level of significance of rejection of increase the rate of chemical degradation or commitment should be made to continue more than 0.25) to the slopes of the physical change of a drug substance or drug these studies through the proposed shelf life regression lines and zero time intercepts for product by using exaggerated storage and to place additional production batches, the individual batches. If it is inappropriate conditions as part of the formal stability to a total of at least three, on long-term and to combine data from several batches, the studies. These data, in addition to long-term accelerated stability studies through the overall shelf life may depend on the stability studies, may also be used to assess proposed shelf life. minimum time a batch may be expected to longer-term chemical effects at 3. If the submission does not include remain within acceptable and justified limits. nonaccelerated conditions and to evaluate stability data on production batches, a The nature of the degradation relationship the impact of short-term excursions outside commitment should be made to place the will determine the need for transformation of the label storage conditions such as might first three production batches on long-term the data for linear regression analysis. occur during shipping. Results from and accelerated stability studies through the Usually the relationship can be represented accelerated testing studies are not always proposed shelf life. by a linear, quadratic, or cubic function on predictive of physical changes. The stability protocol used for studies on an arithmetic or logarithmic scale. Statistical Bracketing: The design of a stability commitment batches should be the same as methods should be employed to test the schedule so that at any time point only the that for the primary batches unless otherwise goodness of fit on all batches and combined samples on the extremes, for example, of scientifically justified. batches (where appropriate) to the assumed container size and/or dosage strengths, are Where a significant change has occurred at degradation line or curve. tested. The design assumes that the stability the accelerated storage condition for the Limited extrapolation of the real-time data of the intermediate condition samples are primary batches, testing on the commitment presented from the long-term storage represented by those at the extremes. batches should be conducted at the condition beyond the observed range to Where a range of dosage strengths is to be intermediate storage condition instead of the extend the shelf life at approval time, tested, bracketing designs may be particularly accelerated storage condition. As an particularly where the accelerated data applicable if the strengths are very closely alternative, testing may be conducted at the support this, may be undertaken. However, related in composition (e.g., for a tablet range accelerated storage condition for the this assumes that the same degradation made with different compression weights of commitment batches. However, if significant relationship will continue to apply beyond a similar basic granulation, or a capsule range change occurs at the accelerated storage the observed data, and hence the use of made by filling different plug fill weights of condition on the commitment batches, extrapolation should be justified in each the same basic composition into different testing at the intermediate storage condition application in terms of what is known about size capsule shells). Where a range of sizes should also be conducted. the mechanisms of degradation, the goodness of immediate containers is to be evaluated,
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amended, which authorizes the Director HUMAN SERVICES program announcement consists of four ‘‘to make grants to, and enter into parts: contracts with, public or private Administration for Children and Part I: Background, legislative nonprofit agencies for projects Families authority, funding availability, CFDA specifically designed—(i) to assist Number, applicant eligibility, project refugees in obtaining the skills which [Program Announcement No. CFDA 93.576] and budget periods, length of are necessary for economic self application, and for each of the six sufficiency, including projects for job Technical Assistance to Special program areas: purpose and scope, training, employment services, day care, Programs allowable activities, and review criteria. professional refresher training, and Part II: General instructions for other recertification services; (ii) to AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement preparing a full project description. provide training in English where (ORR), ACF, DHHS. Part III: The Review Process— necessary (regardless of whether the ACTION: Notice of availability of FY 2000 Intergovernmental review, initial ACF refugees are employed or receiving cash discretionary funds for technical screening, competitive review, and or other assistance); and (iii) to provide assistance in six categories of programs funding reconsideration. where specific needs have been shown Part IV: The Application— that assist refugees. and recognized by the Director, health Application materials, application (including mental health) services, SUMMARY: ORR invites eligible entities development, application submission social services, education and other to submit competitive applications for information and certifications, and services.’’ The FY 2000 Appropriation cooperative agreements to provide regulations and reporting. technical assistance to agencies that Act for the Department of Health and serve in the following program areas: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. Human Services (Pub. L. 106–113) Program Area 1—Technical assistance L. 104–13) appropriates funds for refugee and for special programs in designated Public reporting burden for each entrant assistance activities authorized initiatives; collection of information is estimated to by these provisions of the INA. Program Area 2—Technical assistance average 8 hours, including the time for Funding Availability: ORR expects to for employment services; reviewing instructions, gathering and make available approximately $2 Program Area 3—Technical assistance maintaining the data needed, and million for up to 6 cooperative to English language training providers; reviewing the collection of information. agreements one for each program area. Program Area 4—Technical assistance The following information collections The Director reserves the right to to agencies with Individual are included in the program award less, or more, than the funds Development Account (IDA) projects for announcement: OMB Approval No. described, in the absence of worthy refugees; 0970–0139, ACF UNIFORM PROJECT applications, or under such other Program Area 5—Technical assistance DESCRIPTION (UPD) which expires 10/ circumstances as may be deemed to be for refugee child welfare services; and 31/2000. An agency may not conduct or in the best interest of the government. Program Area 6—Technical assistance sponsor, and a person is not required to CFDA Number: 93.576. for refugee housing services. respond to, a collection of information Applications will be screened and unless it displays a currently valid OMB Applicant Eligibility: Eligible evaluated as indicated in this program control number. applicants are public and private non- announcement. Awards will be Part I: Background profit organizations and agencies of contingent on the outcome of the State governments that are responsible In recent years, ORR has supported competition and the availability of for the refugee program under 45 CFR the work of its grantees in various funds. 400.5. program areas through several Applications will be accepted ‘‘technical assistance’’ grants with Project and Budget Periods: This pursuant to the Director’s discretionary organizations uniquely qualified to announcement invites applications for authority under section 412(c) of the advance the field, improve program project periods up to 3 years. Awards, Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) achievement and develop organizational on a competitive basis, will be for a one- (8 U.S.C. 1522), as amended. capacity to improved performance. ORR year budget period, although project DATES: The closing date for submission has supported technical assistance for periods may be for 3 years. Applications of applications is June 20, 2000. See Part employment, English language training, for continuation grants funded under IV of this announcement for more microenterprise, services to the elderly, these awards beyond the one-year information on submitting applications. and the impact of welfare reform on budget period but within the 3 year FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: refugees. Under this announcement, project period will be entertained in Program Areas 1 and 5—Marta Brenden ORR continues its practice of providing subsequent years on a noncompetitive at (202) 205–3589, technical assistance to the field of basis, subject to availability of funds, [email protected]; Program grantees in several new or expanded satisfactory progress of the grantee and Areas 2, 4 and 6—Henley Portner at categories. ORR’s intent through this a determination that continued funding (202) 401–5363, support is to equip grantees with the would be in the best interest of the [email protected]; Program best technical help for continuous Government. Area 3—Nguyen Kimchi at (202) 401– improvement in programs, in their Length of Application: Applicants are 4556, [email protected]. capacity to serve refugees, and in their encouraged to limit program narratives Application materials are also available impact on refugee lives and economic to 25 pages (double-spaced on standard, from Marta Brenden at the Office of independence. letter-size paper, in 12-point font) plus Refugee Resettlement, 370 L’Enfant Legislative Authority: This program is no more than 25 pages of appended Promenade SW, Washington DC 20447 authorized by Section 412(c)(1)(A) of material. This limitation of 25 pages per and on the ORR website at the Immigration and Nationality Act program area should be considered as a www.acf.dhhs.gov/program/orr. (INA)(8 U.S.C. 1522 (c)(1)(A)), as maximum, and not necessarily a goal.
VerDate 18
Program Area 1 • Facilitating the electronic exchange attachment to the labor force and the of information through a network opportunity to earn a living wage. ORR Technical Assistance for Special website, listserve, and through the proposes to award one cooperative Programs in Designated Initiatives collection and reporting of program agreement to an agency that will Program Purpose and Scope performance, performance provide technical assistance to ORR The Office of Refugee Resettlement measurement, and impact information; employment service providers. • (ORR) proposes to award one Providing on-site or group training This announcement continues ORR’s cooperative agreement for the purpose or technical assistance meetings and longstanding support for technical of providing technical assistance to workshops; assistance to refugee employment • designated programs of special interest Developing training curricula and service providers for multiple purposes: to the Director. For fiscal year 2000 materials; to identify model and best practices and • funds, three special programs have been Conducting on-site program to disseminate this information broadly; designated: microenterprise reviews; to assist local programs in implementing • development; model projects for Maintenance of a database of performance measures under the comprehensive cash assistance and characteristics and achievements of the Government Performance and Results employment services; and projects for programs and preparation and Act (GPRA); to develop and conduct refugees who have experienced long- dissemination of reports on the program training and on-site peer reviews; and to term difficulties in assimilation. characteristics and achievements. perform on-site analysis of employment Through this award, ORR intends to Program Area 1 services in such areas as staff training, provide technical planning and multi-agency collaboration, and assistance to grantees for multiple Application Review Criteria employer and/or refugee involvement in purposes: to strengthen organizational 1. Approach. The technical assistance the design of services. capacity; to share policies, procedures, plan is clearly described and Approximately $275,000 has been and materials through a grantee appropriate, and the proposed activities allocated for this program area. One network; to collaborate on performance and timeframes are reasonable. The cooperative agreement may be awarded measures; to report program technical assistance plan describes for one national project. Through this performance; and to assist grantees in clearly and in detail the manner in cooperative agreement, ORR intends to their efforts at continuous performance which the applicant will assess the need review and approve (1) the technical improvement and its impact on refugee for technical assistance, the proposed assistance plan, including proposed site economic self-sufficiency. activities, and how the proposed visits and technical assistance activities Approximately $500,000 has been activities are expected to address known and schedules; (2) all written materials allocated for this program area. One technical assistance needs of agencies developed prior to the release of such cooperative agreement may be awarded and communities. (20 points) documents; and (3) locations of for one national project. Successful 2. Results or Benefits Expected. The proposed workshops, proposed topics applicants will have demonstrated results or benefits expected are clearly and formats, and agendas. expertise in both organizational and explained and are appropriate to the community development as well as technical assistance activities proposed. Allowable Activities more specialized experience in the field (15 points) Applicants may propose all or a of micro-finance and the development 3. Organizational Profiles. The combination of the activities described of microenterprise projects. capacity of the applicant to achieve the below. Applicants may also propose Through this cooperative agreement, project’s objectives is clearly new or innovative approaches to ORR intends to review and approve (1) demonstrated. Organizational expertise providing technical assistance for A technical assistance plan, including and experience in the provision of employment services. proposed site visits and technical technical assistance and information • assistance activities and schedules; (2) sharing are appropriate for the proposed On-site visits to assess technical all written materials developed and project. (30 points) assistance needs, to provide technical proposed for dissemination to the field; 4. Staff and Position Data. Staff assistance and training directly to and (3) locations of proposed qualifications are clearly presented and agencies, and to ascertain best practices workshops, proposed topics and are appropriate to achieving the in providing employment services; formats, and agendas. project’s objectives. The description of • Preparation of a variety of reports to be distributed to agencies to assist them Allowable Activities staff qualifications demonstrates experience in providing technical in providing employment services, Applicants may propose all or some assistance to refugee programs and including site visit reports and best combination of the following, as well as communities. (20 points) practices reports; other innovative strategies for technical 5. Budget and Budget Justification. • Organization and operation of assistance: The budget is clearly presented and is • workshops for agencies in the area of Assessing technical assistance and detailed, reasonable, and cost effective. employment services, to include training needs in agencies and (15 points) facilitated discussions, training, and communities; presentations; and • Disseminating information, Program Area 2 • Provision of technical assistance, materials and technical advice related to Technical Assistance for Employment both in writing and by telephone, to employment, subsidized employment, Services self-employment, effective case agencies. management, financial management Purpose and Scope • Maintenance of a database of systems, and micro-finance; The primary goal of refugee characteristics and achievements of the • Collecting and summarizing data resettlement is to assist refugees in programs and preparation and and information on program becoming self-sufficient. Two factors dissemination of reports on the program performance; critical to achieving this goal are characteristics and achievements.
VerDate 18
Program Area 2 mental health and in the use of new or • Development of, or participation in innovative classroom technologies. the development of, employment-based Application Review Criteria Training may include topics such as ELT curricula; 1. Approach. The technical assistance identifying cultural adjustment/learning • Facilitation of a network of plan is clearly described and disabilities/mental health issues, providers to share information and to appropriate; and the proposed activities accommodating such issues in the resolve problems. and timeframes are reasonable. The classroom and/or seeking professional Program Area 3 technical assistance plan describes consultation, and developing clearly and in detail the manner in appropriate curricula. Training may also Review Criteria for Technical Assistance which the applicant will assess the need include introducing teachers to new to Organizations Providing English for technical assistance, the proposed and/or innovative ELT technologies, Language Training activities, and how the proposed such as using software programs in 1. Approach. The technical assistance activities are expected to address known classroom instruction. plan is clearly described and technical assistance needs of agencies • Organization and facilitation of appropriate; and the proposed activities that provide employment services. (30 consultative and information-sharing and timeframes are reasonable. The points) sessions. Such sessions may include technical assistance plan describes 2. Results or Benefits Expected. The staff from similar types of agencies or clearly and in detail the manner in results or benefits expected are clearly from agencies serving similar groups of which the applicant will assess the need explained and are appropriate to the refugees. The purpose of the sessions for technical assistance, the proposed technical assistance activities proposed. would be to provide an opportunity for activities, and how the proposed (15 points) ELT staff to share experiences. These activities are expected to address known 3. Organizational Profiles. The sessions may also provide opportunities ELT technical assistance needs. (30 capacity of the applicant to achieve the for different types of staff—ELT points) project’s objectives is clearly teachers, case managers, employment 2. Results or Benefits Expected. The demonstrated. Organizational expertise specialists, public health results or benefits expected are clearly and experience in the provision of professionals—to meet to develop explained and are appropriate to the employment services and in the strategies for effective working technical assistance activities proposed. provision of technical assistance are relationships. (15 points) described and are appropriate and Applicants should propose technical 3. Organization Profiles. The capacity adequate for the proposed project. (20 assistance projects that are to be of the applicant to achieve the project’s points) implemented nationally. Under the objectives is clearly demonstrated. 4. Staff and Position Data. Staff cooperative agreement for these Organizational expertise and experience qualifications are clearly presented and projects, ORR intends to review and in the provision of ELT and/or in ELT are appropriate to achieving the approve: (1) The technical assistance technical assistance to ELT staff and to project’s objectives. The description of plan, including proposed sites and agencies are described and are staff qualifications demonstrates participants; (2) assessment tools to be appropriate and adequate for the experience in providing employment used to evaluate technical assistance proposed project. (20 points) services and in providing technical needs; (3) subject areas for which 4. Staff and Position Data. Staff assistance. (20 points) technical assistance curricula will be qualifications are clearly presented and 5. Budget and Budget Justification. are appropriate to achieving the used; and (4) materials prepared for use The budget is clearly presented and is project’s objectives. The description of in the delivery of the technical detailed, reasonable, and cost effective. staff qualifications demonstrates assistance. (15 points) experience in providing ELT services Allowable Activities and in providing ELT and cross-cultural Program Area 3 Applicants may propose all or a communication technical assistance. (20 Technical Assistance to English combination of the activities described points) Language Training Providers 5. Budget and Budget Justification. below. Applicants may also propose The budget is clearly presented, Purpose and Scope additional or innovative approaches for detailed, reasonable, and cost effective. The Office of Refugee Resettlement technical assistance for ELT providers. • (15 points) (ORR) proposes to award one Assessment of ELT technical cooperative agreement in the amount of assistance needs in agencies and Program Area 4 $275,000 for a project to provide communities; • Technical Assistance to Agencies With technical assistance and training to Organization and operation of Individual Development Account (IDA) providers of English language training training and facilitated sessions on Refugee Projects (ELT). Technical assistance may be identified ELT technical assistance proposed for the following purposes: needs. These sessions may include both Purpose and Scope • Design and improvement of single agency and multi-site or multi- ORR invites eligible entities to submit employment-related ELT. Technical project training and facilitated competing applications for a assistance and training may be provided discussion; cooperative agreement to provide both to teachers and to programs; the • Provision of technical assistance, technical assistance and information technical assistance and training may be both in writing and by telephone, to sharing activities to providers of focused on curricula, teaching ELT providers; Individual Development Account (IDA) strategies, and/or program development • Review of existing materials and Programs for Refugees. Under the such as integrating ELT with recommendations on usefulness/ cooperative agreement, the grantee employment-focused services, work-site appropriateness for use in refugee- would implement various activities ELT, and family literacy. oriented ELT; and preparation and intended to assist ORR-funded IDA • Training in the areas of cultural distribution of materials relevant to grantees in the administration of their adjustment, learning disabilities, and identified ELT needs; projects.
VerDate 18
Allowable Activities timeframes are reasonable and feasible. from their refugee experiences. Finally, Allowable activities could include: The plan describes in detail how the they may live in low income • On-site visits to assess technical proposed activities will be neighborhoods with high crime rates assistance needs, provide technical accomplished. (30 points) and without the benefit of an ethnic assistance and training directly to 2. Results or Benefits Expected. The community to provide information, grantees, and to ascertain best practices results or benefits expected are clearly guidance, protection and support. in both administering IDA programs and explained and are appropriate to the As a result of these factors, a small addressing the specific needs of refugees technical assistance activities proposed. number of refugee families encounter participating in these programs; (15 points) and may require the assistance of child • Preparation of a variety of reports to 3. Staff and Position Data. Staff protective services and other services of be distributed to IDA grantees to assist qualifications are clearly presented and the judicial system. These experiences them in administering their IDA are appropriate to achieving the may not be easily understood by the programs, including site visit reports project’s goals. Staff qualifications show refugee family and the larger refugee and best practices reports; experience in providing technical community and serve to make the whole • Organization and operation of assistance and information-sharing refugee community insecure with the workshops for IDA grantees, to include activities in the areas of administering U.S. child welfare and child protective facilitated discussions, training, and financial programs and providing systems. This may result in difficulties presentations; financial training to low-income for refugee families to establish homes • Provision of technical assistance, populations. (20 points) that promote the well-being of its both in writing and by telephone, to IDA 4. Organization Profiles. The members, where parents are secure in grantees; applicant demonstrates the capacity of their role of providing a nurturing and • Facilitation of a network of IDA the organization to achieve the project’s educational environment for their grantees to share information and to objectives. Organizational expertise and children and youth. Children may also resolve problems, through, for example, experience in the provision of technical confront conflicts in meeting the the maintenance of a listserve, assistance and information-sharing expectations of their parents, fitting in conference calls, etc.; and activities is described. (20 points) with their peers or finding a sense of • Maintenance of a database of 5. Budget and Budget Justification. belonging in the schools and social characteristics and achievements of IDA The budget is reasonable, clearly groups. programs and preparation and presented, and cost-effective. (15 points) Many U.S. community public services do not have the cultural expertise or dissemination of reports on IDA Program Area 5 program characteristics and language capability to work effectively with refugee families. While the Civil achievements. Technical Assistance for Refugee Child Applicants may propose additional Welfare Services Rights Act of 1964 mandates equal techniques for providing technical Program Purpose and Scope access to public services, frequently assistance and information sharing public resources are limited, and Well-being of refugee families is an cultural and linguistic capacity is activities to IDA grantees. important contributing factor to family Approximately $250,000 has been seldom available for refugee families. self-sufficiency. ORR proposes to award In recent years, ORR has funded allocated for this program area. Under one cooperative agreement to an agency initiatives for recreation for refugee the cooperative agreement(s), ORR that will provide technical assistance to youth, crime prevention among refugee intends to review and approve: (1) public and private agencies in youth, parenting classes, and Proposed site visits and technical promoting collaboration among refugee intergenerational activities. Currently, assistance activities; (2) all written communities, the network of refugee ORR has approximately 30 grantees in materials developed prior to the release resettlement services, and the child and these program areas, but is likely to of such documents; (3) locations of youth services including child award funds to additional grantees proposed workshops, proposed topics protective services to promote the well- during this fiscal year. It has become and formats, and agendas; and (4) being of refugee families. clear over time that a productive database program and structure. ORR Refugee families residing in U.S. relationship with child welfare services, expects that applicants for the communities may encounter significant child protective services, youth shelters cooperative agreement(s) for technical differences in child rearing practices and other youth transitional services is assistance will demonstrate in their compared to the ethnic or national also needed to promote the refugee applications expertise in the areas of customs of their country of origin. First, families’ capacity to care for their administering financial programs such traditional cultures with a strong children and youth in their new as IDA programs, providing financial authoritarian parental role may communities. training to low-income populations, and frequently conflict with the more ORR is interested in supporting a in providing technical assistance and egalitarian American family, resulting, national technical assistance effort to information-sharing activities. for example, in differences in refugee promote collaboration among refugee Program Area 4 youth’s desire for early independence. families, refugee service providers and Second, refugee families may the children and youth service agencies IDA Review Criteria experience trauma as a result of the that promote the welfare of refugee Proposed projects to provide persecution or flight, the effects of families, refugee youth and children. Technical Assistance and Information- which may be destabilizing to family The cooperative agreement is also Sharing Activities to Individual life. Third, refugee families may need intended to promote cultural and Development Account Programs will be income from both parents, unlike the linguistic services or access to services evaluated according to the following practice of their home country, to for refugee families. ORR is interested in criteria: adequately provide for their needs. the grantee selecting approximately six 1. Approach. The technical assistance Fourth, single parent families face specific communities in which to plan is clearly described and similar stresses that U.S. single parent concentrate assessment and training appropriate; the proposed activities and families face in addition to the trauma activities with child welfare services
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Part III: The Review Process Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 Florida CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days Intergovernmental Review: State Single from the application deadline to Cherie L. Trainor, Coordinator, Florida Point of Contact (SPOC) comment on proposed new or State Clearinghouse, Department of This program is covered under competing continuation awards. SPOCs Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Executive Order 12372, are encouraged to eliminate the Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal submission of routine endorsements as 32399–2100, Telephone: (850) 922– Programs,’’ and 45 CFR Part 100, official recommendations. Additionally, 5438 or (850) 414–5495, FAX: (850) ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of SPOCs are requested to clearly 414–0479, e-mail: Department of Health and Human differentiate between mere advisory [email protected] Services Programs and Activities.’’ comments and those official State Georgia Under the Order, States may design process recommendations which may their own processes for reviewing and trigger the ‘‘accommodate or explain’’ Debra S. Stephens, Coordinator, Georgia commenting on proposed Federal rule. When comments are submitted State Clearinghouse, 270 Washington assistance under covered programs. directly to ACF, they should be Street, SW.—8th Floor, Atlanta, Note: State/territory participation in the addressed to: Department of Health and Georgia 30334, Telephone: (404) 656– intergovernmental review process does not Human Services, Administration for 3855, FAX: (404) 656–7901, e-mail: signify applicant eligibility for financial Children and Families, Office of Refugee [email protected] assistance under a program. A potential Resettlement, 370 L’Enfant Promenade Illinois applicant must meet the eligibility SW, 6th Floor, Washington DC, 20447 requirements of the program for which it is Attn: Ms. Daphne Weeden. Virginia Bova, State Single Point of applying prior to submitting an application A list of the Single Points of Contact Contact, Illinois Department of to its SPOC, if applicable, or to ACF. for each State and Territory follows: Commerce and Community Affairs, In accordance with Executive Order James R. Thompson Center, 100 West #12372, ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of OMB State Single Point of Contact Listing Randolph, Suite 3–400, Chicago, Federal Programs,’’ this listing Illinois 60601, Telephone: (312) 814– represents the designated State Single Arizona 6028, FAX: (312) 814–1800 Points of Contact. The jurisdictions not listed no longer participate in the Joni Saad, Arizona State Clearinghouse, Indiana process but grant applicants are still 3800 N. Central Avenue, Fourteenth Frances Williams, State Budget Agency, eligible to apply for the grant even if Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, 212 State House, Indianapolis, your state, territory, commonwealth, etc. Telephone: (602) 280–1315, FAX: Indiana 46204–2796, Telephone: (317) does not have a ‘‘state single point of (602) 280–8144, e-mail: 232–5619, FAX: (317) 233–3323 contact.’’ Jurisdictions without ‘‘state [email protected] single points of contacts’’ include: Arkansas Iowa Alabama; Alaska; American Samoa; Mr. Tracy L. Copeland, Manager, State Colorado; Connecticut; Kansas; Hawaii; Steven R. McCann, Division for Clearinghouse, Office of Idaho; Louisiana; Massachusetts; Community Assistance, Iowa Intergovernmental Services, Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Department of Economic Department of Finance and Jersey; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Palau; Development, 200 East Grand Administration, 1515 W. 7th St., Pennsylvania; South Dakota; Tennessee; Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Room 412, Little Rock, Arkansas Vermont; Virginia; and Washington. Telephone: (515) 242–4719, FAX: 72203, Telephone: (501) 682–1074, This list is based on the most current (515) 242–4809 FAX: (501) 682–5206 information provided by the States. Kentucky Information on any changes or apparent California errors should be provided to the Office Kevin J. Goldsmith, Director, John-Mark Grants Coordinator, Office of Planning Hack, Deputy Director, Sandra of Management and Budget and the and Research/State Clearinghouse, State in question. Changes to the list Brewer, Executive Secretary, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121, Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of will only be made upon formal Sacramento, California 95814, notification by the State. Also, this the Governor 700 Capitol Avenue, Telephone: (916) 323–7480, FAX: Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, listing is published biannually in the (916) 323–3018 Catalogue of Federal Domestic Telephone: (502) 564–2611, FAX: Assistance. Delaware (502) 564–2849 Jurisdictions that participate in the Francine Booth, State Single Point of Maine Executive Order process have Contact, Executive Department, Office established SPOCs. Applicants from of the Budget, 540 S. du Pont Joyce Benson, State Planning Office, 184 participating jurisdictions should Highway, Suite 5, Dover, Delaware State Street, 38 State House Station, contact their SPOCs as soon as possible 19901, Telephone: (302) 739–3326, Augusta, Maine 04333, Telephone: to alert them of the prospective FAX: (302) 739–5661 (207) 287–3261, FAX: (207) 287–6489 applications and receive instructions. Maryland Applicants must submit any required District of Columbia material to the SPOCs as soon as Charles Nichols, State Single Point of Linda C. Janey, JD, Manager, possible so that the program office can Contact, Office of Grants Management Clearinghouse and Plan Review Unit, obtain and review SPOC comments as and Development, 717 14th Street, Maryland Office of Planning, 301 W. part of the award process. The applicant NW—Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. Preston Street—Room 1104, must submit all required materials, if 20005, Telephone: (202) 727–6537, Baltimore, Maryland 21201–2305, any, to the SPOC and indicate the date FAX: (202) 727–1617, e-mail: Telephone: (410) 767–4491, FAX: of this submittal (or the date of contact [email protected] or cnichols- (410) 767–4480 e-mail: if no submittal is required) on the [email protected] [email protected]
VerDate 18
Michigan Rhode Island Planning Board, Federal Proposals Richard Pfaff, Southeast Michigan Kevin Nelson, Review Coordinator, Review Office, Minillas Government Council of Governments, 660 Plaza Department of Administration, Center, P.O. Box 41119, San Juan, Drive—Suite 1900, Detroit, Michigan Division of Planning, One Capitol Puerto Rico 00940–1119, Telephone: 48226, Telephone: (313) 961–4266, Hill, 4th Floor, Providence, Rhode (809) 727–4444 or (809) 723–6190, FAX: (313) 961–4869 Island 02908–5870, Telephone: (401) FAX: (809) 724–3270 or (809) 724– 222–2656, FAX: (401) 222–2083 3103 Mississippi Northern Mariana Islands Cathy Mallette, Clearinghouse Officer, South Carolina Department of Finance and Omegia Burgess, State Single Point of Mr. Alvaro A. Santos, Executive Officer, Administration, 455 North Lamar Contact, Budget and Control Board, Office of Management and Budget, Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39202– Office of State Budget, 1122 Ladies Office of the Governor, Saipan, MP 3087, Telephone: (601) 359–6762, Street—12th Floor, Columbia, South 96950, Telephone: (670) 664–2256, FAX: (601) 359–6764 Carolina 29201, Telephone: (803) FAX: (670) 664–2272 734–0494, FAX: (803) 734–0645 Please direct all questions and Missouri correspondence about Texas Lois Pohl/Carol Meyer, Federal intergovernmental review to: Assistance Clearinghouse, Office Of Tom Adams, Single Point of Contact, Ms. Jacoba T. Seman, Federal Programs Administration, P.O. Box 809, Room State of Texas, Governor’s Office of Coordinator, Telephone: (670) 664– 915, Jefferson Building, Jefferson City, Budget and Planning, Director, 2289, FAX: (670) 664–2272 Missouri 65102, Telephone: (573) Intergovernmental Coordination, P.O. 751–4834, FAX: (573) 522–4395 Box 12428, Austin, Texas 78711– Virgin Islands 2428, Telephone: (512) 463–1771, Nevada Nellon Bowry, Director, Office of FAX: (512) 936–2681, e-mail: Management and Budget, #41 Heather Elliott, Department of [email protected] Norregade Emancipation Garden Administration, State Clearinghouse, Utah Station, Second Floor, Saint Thomas, Capitol Complex, Carson City, Nevada Virgin Islands 00802 Carolyn Wright, Utah State 89710, Telephone: (702) 687–6367, Please direct all questions and FAX: (702) 687–3983 Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Budget, Room 116 State Capitol, Salt correspondence about New Hampshire Lake City, Utah 84114, Telephone: intergovernmental review to: Jeffrey H. Taylor, Director, New (801) 538–1535, FAX: (801) 538–1547 Daisey Millen, Telephone: (809) 774– 0750, FAX: (809) 776–0069 Hampshire Office of State Planning, West Virginia Attn: Intergovernmental Review Initial ACF Screening Process, Mike Blake, Office of State Judith Dryer, Chief Program Manager, Each application submitted under this Planning, 21⁄2 Beacon Street, Concord, West Virginia Development Office, New Hampshire 03301, Telephone: Building #6, Room 645, State Capitol, program announcement will undergo a (603) 271–2155, FAX: (603) 271–1728 Charleston, West Virginia 25305, pre-review to determine that (1) the Telephone: (304) 558–0350, FAX: application was received by the closing New Mexico (304) 558–0362 date and submitted in accordance with the instructions in this announcement Nick Mandell, Local Government Wisconsin Division, Room 201, Bataan Memorial and (2) the applicant is eligible for Building, Santa Fe, New Mexico Jeff Smith, Section Chief, State/Federal funding. Relations, Wisconsin Department of 87503, Telephone: (505) 827–4991, Competitive Review FAX: (505) 827–4948 Administration, 101 East Wilson Street—6th Floor, P.O. Box 7868, Applications which pass the initial New York Madison, Wisconsin 53707, ACF screening will be evaluated and Marsha Roth, New York State Telephone: (608) 266–0267, FAX: rated by an independent review panel Clearinghouse, Division of the Budget, (608) 267–6931 on the basis of specific evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are State Capitol, Albany, New York Wyoming 12224, Telephone: (518) 474–1605, designed to assess the quality of a FAX: (518) 486–5617 Matthew Jones, State Single Point of proposed project, and to determine the Contact, Office of the Governor, 200 likelihood of its success. The evaluation North Carolina West 24th Street, State Capital, Room criteria are closely related and are Chrys Baggett, Director, North Carolina 124, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, considered as a whole in judging the State Clearinghouse, Office of the FAX: (307) 632–3909 overall quality of an application. Points Secretary of Administration 116 West Territories are awarded only to applications which Jones Street—Suite 5106, Raleigh, are responsive to the evaluation criteria North Carolina 27603–8003, Guam within the context of this program Telephone: (919) 733–7232, FAX: Mr. Giovanni T. Sgambelluri, Director, announcement. (919) 733–9571 Bureau of Budget and Management Funding Reconsideration North Dakota Research, Office of the Governor, P.O. Box 2950, Agana, Guam 96910, After Federal funds are exhausted for Jim Boyd, North Dakota Single Point of Telephone: 011–671–472–2285, FAX: this grant competition, applications Contact, Office of Intergovernmental 011–671–472–2825 which have been independently Assistance, 600 East Boulevard reviewed and ranked but have no final Avenue, Department 105, Bismarck, Puerto Rico disposition (neither approved nor North Dakota 58505–0170, Telephone: Norma Burgos/Jose E. Caro, disapproved for funding) may again be (701) 328–2094, FAX: (701) 328–2308 Chairwoman/Director, Puerto Rico considered for funding. Reconsideration
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Officer. The mailing address is: Ms. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. This request is for OMB approval of Daphne Weeden, Administration for Chapter 35). To request a copy of these proposed revisions to the annual UFDS Children and Families, Office of Refugee documents, call the SAMHSA Reports survey. Several major changes are Resettlement, 370 L’Enfant Promenade Clearance Officer on (301)443–7978. proposed, including: (1) The UFDS SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20447. Drug and Alcohol Services survey will be conducted by mail, rather A final Financial and Program Report Information System (DASIS) (OMB No. than by telephone; (2) Non-treatment shall be due 90 days after the budget (prevention) facilities will no longer be 0930–0106, Revision)—The DASIS expiration date or termination of grant included in the annual survey; (3) Some consists of three related data systems: support. questions will be reinstated (e.g., the National Master Facility Inventory Dated: April 18, 2000. whether facility provides DUI/DWI ´ (NMFI), the Uniform Facility Data Set Lavinia Limon, services, percent of clients treated for (UFDS), and the Treatment Episode Data alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or both); (4) Director, Office of Refuge Resettlement. Set (TEDS). The NMFI includes all Several questions will be added (e.g., [FR Doc. 00–10018 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] known substance abuse treatment whether facility treats only incarcerated BILLING CODE 4184±01±P facilities. The UFDS is an annual survey or DUI/DWI clients, whether services of all substance abuse treatment are provided in languages other than facilities listed in the NMFI. The TEDS English, availability of fully subsidized DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND is a compilation of client-level care or a sliding fee scale, receipt of HUMAN SERVICES admission data and discharge data public funding); (5) Some questions will submitted by States on clients treated in Substance Abuse and Mental Health be deleted (e.g., whether facility is a facilities that receive State funds. Services Administration school, social services agency, Together, they provide information on community mental health center, Agency Information Collection the location, scope and characteristics of community health center, or private Activities: Submission for OMB review; all known drug and alcohol treatment group practice; facility accreditation; comment request facilities in the United States, and the percent of clients being treated for characteristics of clients receiving substance abuse); (6) Several questions Periodically, the Substance Abuse and services. This information is needed to will be revised. Changes to the TEDS Mental Health Services Administration assess the nature and extent of these and NMFI are not planned. (SAMHSA) will publish a list of resources, to identify gaps in services, Estimated annual burden for the information collection requests under and to provide a database for treatment DASIS activities is shown in the table OMB review, in compliance with the referrals. below.
Number of Responses/ Hours/re- Type of respondent and activity respondents respondent sponse Total hours
States: TEDS Admission Data 1 ...... 52 4 6 1,248 TEDS Discharge Data 1 ...... 13 4 6 312 TEDS Discharge Crosswalks 1 ...... 5 1 10 50 NFR Update1, 2 Additions ...... 56 17 0.08 76 Revisions ...... 56 24 0.05 67
State Subtotal1 ...... 56 ...... 1,753 Facilities Network Update ...... 1,000 1 .1 100
UFDS Questionnaire ...... 19,000 1 .6 11,400 Pre-screening of newly-identified facilities ...... 2,000 1 .08 160
Facility Subtotal ...... 21,000 ...... 11,660
Total ...... 21,056 ...... 13,413 1 The burden estimates for these activities are unchanged. 2 States forward to SAMHSA information on newly licensed/approved facilities and on changes in facility name, address, status, etc. This is done electronically by nearly all States.
Written comments and Dated: April 12, 2000. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND recommendations concerning the Richard Kopanda, URBAN DEVELOPMENT proposed information collection should Executive Officer, SAMHSA. be sent within 30 days of this notice to: [FR Doc. 00–9957 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] [Docket No. FR±4557±N±16] Clarissa Rodrigues-Coelho, Human BILLING CODE 4162±20±P Resources and Housing Branch, Office Federal Property Suitable as Facilities of Management and Budget, New To Assist the Homeless Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503. AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice.
VerDate 18
SUMMARY: This Notice identifies opportunity to utilize a suitable Dated: April 14, 2000. unutilized, underutilized, excess, and property, providers should submit their Fred Karnas, Jr., surplus Federal property reviewed by written expressions of interest as soon Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs HUD for suitability for possible use to as possible. For complete details Assistance Programs. assist the homeless. concerning the processing of Title V, Federal Surplus Property FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this Program Federal Register Report for 4/ Clifford Taffet, room 7266, Department 21/00 of Housing and urban Development, 451 program 24 CFR part 581. Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC For properties listed as suitable/to be Suitable/Available Properties excess, that property may, if 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234; TTY Building (by State) number for the hearing- and speech- subsequently accepted as excess by impaired (202) 708–2565 (these GSA, be made available for use by the California telephone numbers are not toll-free), or homeless in accordance with applicable Bldg. 4156 call the toll-free Title V information line law, subject to screening for other Tract 12–135 at 1–800–927–7588. Federal use. At the appropriate time, National Park Land HUD will publish the property in a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Yosemite Co: Mariposa CA 95389– Notice showing it as either suitable/ accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and Landholding Agency: Interior available or suitable/unavailable. section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Property Number: 61200020001 For properties listed as suitable/ Status: Unutilized Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. unavailable, the landholding agency has Comment: 499 sq. ft. seasonal housing, 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing decided that the property cannot be off-site use only this Notice to identify Federal buildings declared excess or made available for and other real property that HUD has use to assist the homeless, and the Mississippi reviewed for suitability for use to assist property will not be available. Quarters #193 the homeless. The properties were Properties listed as unsuitable will Jeff Busby Park reviewed using information provided to not be made available for any other Rt. 3 HUD by Federal landholding agencies purpose for 20 days from the date of this Ackerman Co: Choctaw MS 39725– regarding unutilized and underutilized Notice. Homeless assistance providers Landholding Agency: Interior buildings and real property controlled interested in a review by HUD of the Property Number: 61200020015 by such agencies or by GSA regarding determination of unsuitability should Status: Unutilized its inventory of excess or surplus call the toll free information line at 1– Comment: 1121 sq. ft., presence of Federal property. This Notice is also 800–927–7588 for detailed instructions asbestos, most recent use—residence, published in order to comply with the or write a letter to Clifford Taffet at the off-site use only December 12, 1988 Court Order in address listed at the beginning of this New York National Coalition for the Homeless v. Notice. Included in the request for Veterans Administration, No. 88–2503– Former RPH Property review should be the property address Tract 273–01 OG (D.D.C.). (including zip code), the date of E. Fishkill Town Co: Dutchess NY Properties reviewed are listed in this publication in the Federal Register, the 10701– Notice according to the following landholding agency, and the property Landholding Agency: Interior categories: Suitable/available, suitable/ number. Property Number: 61200020002 unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and For more information regarding Status: Unutilized unsuitable. The properties listed in the particular properties identified in this Comment: garage, 748 sq. ft./concrete three suitable categories have been Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing block, off-site use only reviewed by the landholding agencies, sanitary facilities, exact street address), and each agency has transmitted to providers should contact the Pennsylvania HUD: (1) Its intention to make the appropriate landholding agencies at the (F) Romig Property property available for use to assist the following addresses: COE: Ms. Shirley Tract 367–10, Kuhn Road homeless, (2) its intention to declare the Middleswarth, Army Corps of Boiling Springs Co: Cumberland PA property excess to the agency’s needs, or Engineers, Management & Disposal 17007– (3) a statement of the reasons that the Division, Pulaski Bldg., Room 4224, 20 Landholding Agency: Interior property cannot be declared excess or Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Property Number: 61200020014 made available for use as facilities to Washington, DC 20314–1000; (202) 761– Status: Unutilized assist the homeless. 0515; GSA: Mr. Brian K. Polly, Assist Comment: 665 sq. ft., most recent use— Properties listed as suitable/available Commissioner, General Services residence, off-site use only will be available exclusively for Administration, Office of Property Tennessee homeless use for a period for 60 days Disposal, 18th and F Streets, NW, from the date of this Notice. Homeless Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501–0052; Naval Hospital assistance providers interested in any INTERIOR: Mr. Al Barth, Property 5720 Integrity Drive Millington Co: Shelby TN 38054– such property should send a written Management, Department of the Location: Bldgs, 98, 100, 103, 105, 111, expression of interest to HHS, addressed Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 114, 116, 117, 118 to Brian Rooney, Division of Property 5512–MIB, Washington, DC 20240; (202) Landholding Agency: GSA Management, Program Support Center, 208–7283; NAVY: Mr. Charles C. Cocks, Property Number: 54200020005 HHS, room 5B–41, 5600 Fishers Lane, Director, Department of the Navy, Real Status: Excess Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443–2265. Estate Policy Division, Naval Facilities Comment: 9 bldgs., various sq. ft., need (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS Engineering Command, Washington major rehab will mail to the interested provider an Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE, GSA Number: 4–N–TN–648 application packet, which will include Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374– instructions for completing the 5065; (202) 685–9200; (These are not West Virginia application. In order to maximize the toll-free numbers). Residence/Garage
VerDate 18
109 Pine Street Tract 05–118 Lincoln Co: Middlesex MA 00000– Monongahela National Forest National Park Land Landholding Agency: Interior Petersburg Co: Grant WV 26847– Yosemite Co: Mariposa CA 95389– Property Number: 61200020018 Landholding Agency: GSA Landholding Agency: Interior Status: Unutilized Property Number: 54200020006 Property Number: 61200020008 Reason: Extensive deterioration Status: Excess Status: Unutilized Nelson House Comment: 1800 sq. ft. residence, 365 sq. Reason: Extensive deterioration 47 Virginia Road ft. garage, good condition Bldg. 4077 Lincoln Co: Middlesex MA 00000– GSA Number: 4–A–WV–534 Tract 08–118 Landholding Agency: Interior Suitable/Available Properties National Park Land Property Number: 61200020019 Yosemite Co: Mariposa CA 95389– Status: Unutilized Land (by State) Landholding Agency: Interior Reason: Extensive deterioration Pennsylvania Property Number: 61200020009 Michigan Status: Unutilized Portion of Tract 119 Reason: Extensive deterioration Federal Bldg. State Rt 969 Benton Harbor Curwensville Co: Clearfield PA 16833– ‘‘Putnam House’’ Yosemite National Park 174/5 Territorial Road Landholding Agency: COE Benton Harbor Co: Berrien MI 49022– Wawona Co: Mariposa CA 95389– Property Number: 31200010005 Landholding Agency: GSA Landholding Agency: Interior Status: Unutilized Property Number: 54200020003 Property Number: 61200020016 Comment: approx. 17 acres, hilly Status: Excess Status: Unutilized wooded terrain Reason: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties explosive material Bldg. 17A GSA Number: 1–G–MI–796 Buildings (by State) Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow Co: San Bernardino CA 92311– Minnesota California Landholding Agency: Navy Nike Battery Site, MS–40 Bldg. 4159 Property Number: 77200020001 Castle Rock Township Tract 12–135 Status: Unutilized Farmington Co: Dakota MN 00000– National Park Land Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Landholding Agency: GSA Yosemite Co: Mariposa CA 95389– deterioration Property Number: 54200020004 Landholding Agency: Interior Georgia Status: Surplus Property Number: 61200020003 Reason: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or Status: Unutilized Range Rear Light explosive material Reason: Extensive deterioration Blythe Island GSA Number: 1–I–MN–451–B Bldg. 4160 Brunswick Co: Glynn GA 31525– Tract 12–135 Landholding Agency: GSA New York National Park Land Property Number: 54200020001 Former Baker Property Yosemite Co: Mariposa CA 95389– Status: Excess Tract 270–19 Landholding Agency: Interior Reason: Extensive deterioration Beekman Co: Dutchess NY 12570– Property Number: 61200020004 GSA Number: 4–U–GA–863 Landholding Agency: Interior Status: Unutilized Federal Bldg. Property Number: 61200020011 Reason: Extensive deterioration 202 North Harris St. Status: Unutilized Bldg. 4161 Sandersville Co: GA 31082– Reason: Extensive deterioration Tract 12–135 Landholding Agency: GSA (F) Depot Hill Property National Park Land Property Number: 54200020002 Tract 270–07 Yosemite Co: Mariposa CA 95389– Status: Excess Beekman Co: Dutchess NY 12564– Landholding Agency: Interior Reason: Within airport runway clear Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200020005 zone Property Number: 61200020012 Status: Unutilized GSA Number: 4–G–GA–862 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Reason: Extensive deterioration Massachusetts Bldgs. 4091, 4092 (F) Yegella Property Tract 08–136 Petricca House Tract #268–33 National Park Land 97 North Great Road Pawling Co: Dutchess NY 12564– Yosemite Co: Mariposa CA 95389– Lincoln Co: Middlesex MA 01773– Landholding Agency: Interior Landholding Agency: Interior Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200020013 Property Number: 61200020006 Property Number: 61200020010 Status: Unutilized Status: Unutilized Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Reason: Extensive deterioration Reason: Extensive deterioration Vagim House/Garage/Laundry Willow Pond Kitchen North Carolina Tract 08–155 751 Lexington Road Bldg. BA114 National Park Land Concord Co: Middlesex MA 01742– Marine Corps Base Yosemite Co: Mariposa CA 95389– Landholding Agency: Interior Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542– Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200020017 0004 Property Number: 61200020007 Status: Unutilized Landholding Agency: Navy Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Property Number: 77200020003 Reason: Extensive deterioration Schlberg House Status: Unutilized Bldg. 4166 44 Virginia Road Reason: Extensive deterioration
VerDate 18
Bldg. H16 Naval Weapons Station Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Marine Corps Base Yorktown Co: VA 23691– or explosive material, Secured Area, Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542– Landholding Agency: Navy Extensive deterioration 0004 Property Number: 77200020011 Bldg. 532 Landholding Agency: Navy Status: Unutilized Naval Weapons Station Property Number: 77200020004 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Status: Unutilized or explosive material, Secured Area Landholding Agency: Navy Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 34 Property Number: 77200020019 Bldg. TC816 Naval Weapons Station Status: Unutilized Marine Corps Base Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542– Landholding Agency: Navy or explosive material, Secured Area, 0004 Property Number: 77200020012 Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: Navy Status: Unutilized Bldgs. 646–651 Property Number: 77200020005 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Naval Weapons Station Status: Unutilized or explosive material, Secured Area, Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Reason: Extensive deterioration Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: Navy Bldg. TC818 Bldg. 108 Property Number: 77200020020 Marine Corps Base Naval Weapons Station Status: Unutilized Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542– Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable 0004 Landholding Agency: Navy or explosive material, Secured Area, Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200020013 Extensive deterioration Property Number: 77200020006 Status: Unutilized Bldgs. 758, 759 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Naval Weapons Station Reason: Extensive deterioration or explosive material, Secured Area, Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Bldg. SM145 Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: Navy Marine Corps Base Bldg. 299 Property Number: 77200020021 Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542– Naval Weapons Station Status: Unutilized 0004 Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Landholding Agency: Navy Landholding Agency: Navy or explosive material, Secured Area, Property Number: 77200020007 Property Number: 77200020014 Extensive deterioration Status: Unutilized Status: Unutilized Bldg. 764 Reason: Extensive deterioration Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Naval Weapons Station Bldg. BA113 or explosive material, Secured Area, Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Marine Corps Base Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: Navy Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542– Bldg. 400 Property Number: 77200020022 0004 Naval Weapons Station Status: Unutilized Landholding Agency: Navy Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Property Number: 77200020008 Landholding Agency: Navy or explosive material, Secured Area, Status: Unutilized Property Number: 77200020015 Extensive deterioration Reason: Extensive deterioration Status: Unutilized Bldg. 784 Pennsylvania Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Naval Weapons Station Tract 105–03 or explosive material, Secured Area, Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Beach Lake Co: Wayne PA 18405–9737 Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: Navy Landholding Agency: Interior Bldg. 436 Property Number: 77200020023 Property Number: 61200020020 Naval Weapons Station Status: Unutilized Status: Excess Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Reason: Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: Navy or explosive material, Secured Area, Property Number: 77200020016 Extensive deterioration Virginia Status: Unutilized Bldg. 786 Bldg. 7 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Naval Weapons Station Naval Weapons Station or explosive material, Secured Area, Yorktown Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Extensive deterioration Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Landholding Agency: Navy Bldgs. 442, 443 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200020009 Naval Weapons Station Property Number: 77200020024 Status: Unutilized Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Landholding Agency: Navy Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area Property Number: 77200020017 or explosive material, Secured Area, Bldg. 12 Status: Unutilized Extensive deterioration Naval Weapons Station Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Bldg. 788 Yorktown Co: VA 23691– or explosive material, Secured Area, Naval Weapons Station Landholding Agency: Navy Extensive deterioration Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Property Number: 77200020010 Bldg. 530 Landholding Agency: Navy Status: Unutilized Naval Weapons Station Property Number: 77200020025 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Status: Unutilized or explosive material, Secured Area, Landholding Agency: Navy Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Extensive deterioration Property Number: 77200020018 or explosive material, Secured Area, Bldg. 24 Status: Unutilized Extensive deterioration
VerDate 18
Bldg. 790 Cheatham Annex and Wildlife Service issued five permits Naval Weapons Station Williamsburg Co: VA 23185–5830 for the incidental take of threatened and Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Landholding Agency: Navy endangered species, pursuant to section Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200020031 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Property Number: 77200020026 Status: Unutilized Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. Of the Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive five permits issued, three are for the Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable deterioration golden-cheeked warbler (GCW) and two or explosive material, Secured Area, Bldg. 3023 are for the Houston toad (HT), and all Extensive deterioration Naval Amphibious Base are issued to Permittees in the greater Bldg. 814 Norfold Co: VA 23521–3229 Austin, Texas area. Copies of the five Naval Weapons Station Landholding Agency: Navy permits and associated decision Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Property Number: 77200020032 documents are available upon request. Landholding Agency: Navy Status: Excess In addition, between October 1, 1999 Property Number: 77200020027 Reason: Extensive deterioration and March 31, 2000, one permit had a Status: Unutilized Facility 3063 minor administrative amendment. Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Naval Amphibious Base ADDRESSES: or explosive material, Secured Area, Norfold Co: VA 23521–3229 If you would like copies of Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: Navy any of the above documents, please Bldgs. 1955–1957 Property Number: 77200020033 contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Naval Weapons Station Status: Unutilized Service, Ecological Services, P.O. Box Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Reasons: Extensive deterioration 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Landholding Agency: Navy Land (by State) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Property Number: 77200020028 Leslie Dierauf, Regional Habitat Status: Unutilized Washington Conservation Plan Coordinator, at the Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable above address, 505–248–6651. Further or explosive material, Secured Area, 0.7 acres details of these permits may also be Extensive deterioration Coulee Dam/Switching Station Nespelem Co: Okanogan WA viewed on the Internet at http:// Bldgs. 1960, 1961, 1964 Landholding Agency: Interior ecos.fws.gov. Naval Weapons Station Property Number: 61200020021 Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Status: Excess SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 9 Landholding Agency: Navy Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable of the Act and Federal Regulation Property Number: 77200020029 or explosive material prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of wildlife species Status: Unutilized listed as threatened or endangered Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable [FR Doc. 00–9775 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] species. Under the Act, the term ‘‘take’’ or explosive material, Secured Area, BILLING CODE 4210±29±M means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, Extensive deterioration shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or Bldgs. 1980, 1981 collect listed wildlife, or to attempt to Naval Weapons Station DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR engage in any such conduct. The Yorktown Co: VA 23691– Service may, under limited Landholding Agency: Navy Fish and Wildlife Service circumstances, issue permits to Property Number: 77200020030 Notice of Issuance of Five Permits for authorize incidental take, i.e. that is Status: Unutilized incidental to, and not the purpose of, Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species. the carrying out of an otherwise lawful or explosive material, Secured Area, activity. Regulations governing permits Extensive deterioration SUMMARY: Between October 1, 1999, and for endangered species are at 50 CFR Bldg. 160 March 31, 2000, Region 2 of the Fish 17.22.
FIVE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS ISSUED
Date of Permittee Permit No. Issuance
David C. Anderson (TX), GCW ...... TE±019709±0 02/04/00 Tamera M. Smith (TX), HT ...... TE±020079±0 02/22/00 Shelby D. Gregory (TX), HT ...... TE±020080±0 02/22/00 Brent Mayberry (TX), GCW ...... TE±012963±0 12/15/99 Anthony J. Franzetti (TX), GCW ...... TE±016491±0 01/20/00
ONE ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT
Date of Permittee Permit No. amendment
Spicewood at Bull Creek Amendment #4 ...... PRT±783564 03/02/00
VerDate 18
Geoffrey L. Haskett, proceeds will be used to compensate for DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, injury, destruction, or loss of natural New Mexico. resources under trusteeship of the Bureau of Land Management [FR Doc. 00–9958 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Department of the Interior and the State [WY±920±1310±01; WYW 147278] BILLING CODE 4510±55±P of New Hampshire. The Plan is being released in accordance with the Natural Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Resource Damage Assessment Terminated Oil and Gas Lease DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Regulations found at 15 CFR part 990. April 14, 2000. It is intended to describe the trustees’ Fish and Wildlife Service Pursuant to the provisions of 30 proposals to restore natural resources U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR Notice of Availability, Restoration Plan injured as a result of releases of 3108.2–3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for contaminants from the Site. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, reinstatement of oil and gas lease Department of the Interior. The Plan describes a number of WYW147278 for lands in Campbell ACTION: Notice of availability. habitat restoration and protection County, Wyoming, was timely filed and alternatives and discusses the was accompanied by all the required SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife environmental consequences of each. rentals accruing from the date of Service (Service), on behalf of the The primary goal is to implement a termination. The lessee has agreed to Department of the Interior and the State restoration project that compensates for the amended lease terms for rentals and of New Hampshire, announces the impacts to wetlands that provide habitat royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or release for public review of the draft for migratory birds. Based on an fraction thereof, per year and 162⁄3 Restoration Plan (Plan) for the South evaluation of the various restoration percent, respectively. Municipal Wellfield Superfund Site alternatives, acquisition of equivalent The lessee has paid the required $500 (Site). The Plan describes the trustees’ resources is the preferred alternative. administrative fee and $125 to proposal to restore natural resources This alternative maximizes the benefit reimburse the Department for the cost of injured as a result of the release of to wetland-dependent wildlife, this Federal Register notice. The lessee hazardous substances from the Site. preventing the imminent destruction has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in DATES: Written comments must be and degradation of an extensive wetland Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral submitted on or before June 1, 2000. system. The trustees believe that the ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. proposed action will not have 188), and the Bureau of Land Plan may be made to: U.S. Fish and significant impacts on the quality of the Wildlife Service, New England Field Management is proposing to reinstate physical, biological, and cultural lease WYW147278 effective February 1, Office, 22 Bridge Street, Unit 1, environment. Concord, New Hampshire 03301. 2000, subject to the original terms and Written comments or materials Interested members of the public are conditions of the lease and the regarding the Plan should be sent to the invited to review and comment on the increased rental and royalty rates cited same address. Plan. Copies of the Plan are available for above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: review at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Mary Jo Rugwell, Service’s New England Field Office in Molly B. Sperduto or Kenneth C. Carr, Acting Chief, Leasable Minerals Section. Concord, New Hampshire (22 Bridge Environmental Contaminants Program, [FR Doc. 00–9952 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 22 Street, Unit 1, Concord, New BILLING CODE 4310±22±M Bridge Street, Unit 1, Concord, New Hampshire). Additionally, the Plan will Hampshire 03301. be available for review at the Interested parties may also call (603) Peterborough Town Library. Written DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 225–1411 for further information. comments will be considered and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South addressed in the final Plan at the Bureau of Land Management Municipal Wellfield Superfund Site, is conclusion of the restoration planning [WY±920±1310±01; WYW140574] located in Peterborough, New process. Hampshire. Contamination from an on- Authority: The authority for this action is Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Site ball bearings manufacturing facility, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Terminated Oil and Gas Lease including volatile organic compounds, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as April 14, 2000. polychlorinated biphenyls and amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Pursuant to the provisions of 30 adversely affected adjacent wetlands. Dated: April 14, 2000. U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR These wetlands were impaired due to Ronald E. Lambertson, 3108.2–3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for food web contamination or the Regional Director, Region 5, U.S. Fish and reinstatement of oil and gas lease reduction and/or loss of their biological Wildlife Service. WYW140574 for lands in Johnson diversity and productivity. In turn, [FR Doc. 00–9948 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] County, Wyoming, was timely filed and was accompanied by all the required injury to wetland-dependent wildlife, BILLING CODE 4310±55±M primarily migratory birds, occurred. rentals accruing from the date of In 1995, the United States of America termination. The lessee has agreed to settled claims for natural resource the amended lease terms for rentals and damages associated with the South royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre, or Municipal Wellfield Superfund Site fraction thereof, per year and 162⁄3 under the authority of the percent, respectively. Comprehensive Environmental The lessee has paid the required $500 Response, Compensation, and Liability administrative fee and $125 to Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The settlement reimburse the Department for the cost of
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
SUMMARY: The Immigration and Dated: April 14, 2000. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Naturalization Service (Service), has Doris Meissner, established a District Advisory Council Commissioner, Immigration and Employment and Training on Immigration Matters (DACOIM) to Naturalization Service. Administration provide the New York District Director [FR Doc. 00–9989 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] of the Service with recommendations on BILLING CODE 4410±10±M [TA±W±37,328 and TA±W±37,328A] ways to improve the response and reaction to customers in the local Thaw Corporation, Snow Creek jurisdiction and to develop new DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Division, Wenatchee, Washington, and partnerships with local officials and Thaw Corporation, Cutting Bureau of Prisons Department, Kent, Washington; community organizations to build and Amended Certification Regarding enhance a broader understanding of Notice of Availability and Publication Eligibility To Apply for Worker immigration policies and practices. The of the Final Environmental Impact Adjustment Assistance purpose of this notice is to announce Statement the forthcoming meeting. The Federal Bureau of Prisons In accordance with Section 223 of the DATES AND TIMES: The ninth meeting of announces the publication of a Final Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the the DACOIM is scheduled for May 25, Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Department of Labor issued a 2000, at 1 p.m. regarding a proposed medium-security Certification of Eligibility to Apply for federal correctional facility in South Worker Adjustment Assistance on ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Carolina. February 18, 2000, applicable to the Jacob Javitts Federal Building, 26 Two preferred alternative locations workers of Thaw Corporation, Snow Federal Plaza, Room 537, New York, are named in the document: the ‘‘Salters Creek Division, Wenatchee, New York 10278. Site’’ in Williamsburg County and the Washington. The notice was published in the Federal Register on March 31, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ‘‘Bennettsville Site’’ in Marlboro 2000 (65 FR 17312). Christian A. Rodriguez, Designated County. Federal Officer, Immigration and The document is being made available At the request of the company, the to provide for timely public comment Naturalization Service, 26 Federal Plaza, Department reviewed the certification and understanding of federal plans and Room 14–100, New York, New York for workers of the subject firm. The programs with possible environmental 10278, telephone: (212) 264–0736. workers are engaged in the production consequences as required by the of fleece outerwear and thermal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meetings National Environmental Policy Act of underwear. New information shows that will be held tri-annually on the fourth 1969, as amended. workers separations occurred at the Thursday during the months of January, The purpose of the document is to subject firms’ Cutting Department, Kent, May, and September. afford the public and local officials an Washington in March, 2000. Workers opportunity to learn of the Bureau’s perform cutting operations for all Thaw Summary of Agenda proposed planning, construction, and Corporation’s production facilities, operation of a federal correctional The purpose of the meeting will be to including Snow Creek Division, institution near the communities of Wenatchee, Washington. conduct general business, review Salters and/or Bennettsville, South subcommittee reports and facilitate Carolina. The document is available at Based on these new findings, the public participation. The DACOIM will local libraries or a copy of the FEIS can Department is amending the be chaired by Jack Byrnes, Section be obtained by contacting the Bureau of certification to cover workers at the Chief, New York District, Immigration Prisons. Cutting Department, Kent, Washington and Naturalization Service. Interested persons are encouraged to location. express their views and comments on Public Participation The intent of the Department’s the FEIS by submitting written certification is to include all workers of The DACOIM meeting is open to the comments to the Bureau of Prisons. Thaw Corporation adversely affected by public, but advance notice of attendance Items addressed in the FEIS include, increased imports. is requested to ensure adequate seating. but are not limited to: utilities, traffic, The amended notice applicable to Persons planning to attend should noise, cultural resources and socio- TA–W–37,328 is hereby issued as notify the contact person at least two (2) economic impacts. follows: Written statements will be accepted days prior to the meeting. Members of until May 22, 2000. All workers of Thaw Corporation, Snow the public may submit written Written comments may be directed to: Creek Division, Wenatchee, Washington statements at any time before or after the David J. Dorworth, Chief, Site Selection (TA–W–37,328) and the Cutting Department, meeting for consideration by the and Environmental Review Branch, Kent, Washington (TA–W–37,328A) who became totally or partially separated from DACOIM. Written statements should be Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First sent to Christian A. Rodriguez, employment on or after January 28, 1999 Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20534, through February 18, 2002 are eligible to Designated Federal Officer, Immigration Telephone (202) 514–6470, apply for adjustment assistance under and Naturalization Service, 26 Federal Telefacsimile (202) 616–6024 Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. Plaza, Room 14–100, New York, New [email protected] Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of York 10278, telephone: (212) 264–0736. Dated: March 29, 2000. April, 2000. Only written statements received by 5 David J. Dorworth, Grant D. Beale, p.m. on May 22, 2000, will be Chief, Site Selection and Environmental Program Manager, Division of Trade considered for presentation at the Review Branch. Adjustment Assistance. meeting. Minutes of the meeting will be [FR Doc. 00–8119 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 00–9969 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] available upon request. BILLING CODE 4110±05±U BILLING CODE 4510±30±M
VerDate 18
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Tultex Corporation who were adversely DEPARTMENT OF LABOR affected by increased imports. Employment and Training Employment and Training The amended notice applicable to Administration Administration TA–W–37,208 is hereby issued as [T±W±37,387] follows: [NAFTA±3578 and TA±W±37,035; Court Metal Finishing, Inc., Flint, Michigan] Timbergon, Redmond, Oregon; Notice All workers of Tultex Corporation, South of Termination of Investigation Boston, Virginia (TA–W–37,208) and Notice of Revised Determination on California Shirt Sales, Inc., Fullerton, Reconsideration Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade California (TA–W–37,208A), Honolulu, Act of 1974, an investigation was Hawaii (TA–W–37,208B), Las Vegas, Nevada On March 31, 2000, the Department initiated on February 28, 2000 in (TA–W–37,208C), Oakland, California (TA– issued an Affirmative Determination response to a worker petition which was W–37,208D), Kent, Washington (TA–W– Regarding Application for filed on behalf of workers at Timbergon, 37,208F) and Tempe, Arizona (TA–W– Reconsideration for the workers and Redmond, Oregon. 37,208G) who became totally or partially former workers of the subject firm The petitioner has requested that the separated from employment on or after denied eligibility to apply for North petition be withdrawn. Consequently, December 16, 1998 through January 13, 2002 American Free Trade Agreement- further investigation in this case would are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance Transitional Adjustment Assistance serve no purpose, and the investigation under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. (NAFTA–TAA). The notice was has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of published in the Federal Register on Signed in Washington, DC, this 6th day of April, 2000. April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19390). The petitioners presented information April, 2000. Grant D. Beale, Grant D. Beale, regarding customer imports from Program Manager, Division of Trade Mexico of articles like or directly Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Adjustment Assistance. competitive with those produced at the [FR Doc. 00–9976 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 00–9975 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] workers’ firm. BILLING CODE 4510±30±M The January 6, 2000, denial of BILLING CODE 4510±30±M NAFTA–TAA for workers of Court Metal Finishing, Inc., Flint, Michigan, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR engaged in employment related to the production of valves was based on the Employment and Training Employment and Training finding that criteria (3) and (4) of the Administration Administration Group Eligibility Requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of section 250 of the [TA±W±37,208, et al.] [NAFTA±03839] Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were Tultex Corporation, South Boston, not met. The investigation revealed that Virginia; Amended Certification Ametek Aerospace, Wilmington, there were no company or customer Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Massachusetts; Notice of Termination imports of valves from Mexico or Worker Adjustment Assistance of Investigation Canada during the time period relevant to the investigation. Court Metal In accordance with Section 223 of the Pursuant to Title V of the North Finishing, Inc. did not shift production Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the American Free Trade Agreement of valves from the Flint, Michigan plant Department Labor issued a Certification Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103–182) to Mexico or Canada. of Eligibility to Apply for Worker concerning transitional adjustment On reconsideration, the Department Adjustment Assistance on January 13, assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA– conducted an additional survey of the 2000, applicable to workers of Tultex TAA), and in accordance with Section subject firm’s major declining Corporation, South Boston, Virginia. 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, customers. The responses revealed that The notice was published in the Federal of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended a major declining customer increased Register on February 4, 2000 (65 FR (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was imports of valves from Mexico or 5690). Canada while reducing purchases from At the request of the company, the initiated on February 18, 2000 in response to a petition filed on behalf of Court Metal Finishing, Inc. Department reviewed the certification The Department, on its own motion, for workers of the subject firm. The workers at Ametek Aerospace, reviewed the findings of the January 6, workers are engaged in employment Wilmington, Massachusetts. 2000 Trade Adjustment Assistance related to the production of fleece In a letter dated April 10, 2000, the (TAA) negative determination activewear. New findings show that petitioner requested that the petition for applicable to workers of the subject California Shirt Sales, Inc., is a wholly NAFTA–TAA be withdrawn. firm, petition number TA–W–37,035. owned subdivision of Tultex Consequently, further investigation in The investigation review shows that Corporation. Worker separations this case would serve no purpose, and with the new customer information occurred at various locations of the investigation has been terminated. obtained on reconsideration of NAFTA– California Shirt Sales when Tultex 3578, all criteria of the Group Eligibility Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of Corporation closed all locations, Requirements of section 222 of the April, 2000. including the South Boston, Virginia Trade Act of 1974 are met. plant, in February, 2000. The workers Grant D. Beale, provided distribution of finished fleece Program Manager, Division of Trade Conclusion activewear manufactured by Tultex Adjustment Assistance. After careful consideration of the new Corporation to its customers. [FR Doc. 00–9974 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] facts obtained on reconsideration, it is The intent of the Department’s BILLING CODE 4510±30±M concluded that the workers of Court certification is to include all workers of Metal Finishing, Inc., Flint, Michigan,
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TA–W–37,382; Alaska Petroleum the workers did not become totally or TA–W–37,064; Val Originals, Inc., Contractor, Alpine Project Kenai, partially separated from employment as Providence, RI: October 30, 1998. Kenai, AK required for certification. Sales or TA–W–37,336; ISA Cutting Room In the following cases, the production did not decline during the Service, El Paso, TX: February 4, investigation revealed that the criteria relevant period as required for 1999. for eligibility have not been met for the certification. TA–W–37,411 & A; The Monet Group, reasons specified. TA–W–37,152; Goss Graphics Systems, Inc., West Providence, RI; and New TA–W–37,473; Far East International, Inc., Wyomissing, PA York, New York: May 5, 2000. Huntington Beach, CA The investigation revealed that TA–W–37,410; Trico Products, TA–W–37,464; Republic Supply Co., criteria (1) and criteria (3) have not been Lawrenceburg, TN: February 4, Sidney, MT met. A significant number or proportion 1999. TA–W–37,456; General Electric Engine of the workers did not become totally or TA–W–37,396; Elliott Corp., Gillett, WI: Services, Inc., Ontario, CA partially separated from employment as February 10, 1999. TA–W–37,339 & A; Cominco LTD, required for certification. Increases of TA–W–37,399; Tanner Companies Glenbrook Operations, Riddle, OR imports of articles like or directly Limited Partnership, Manufacturing and Coos Bay, OR competitive with articles produced by Div., Rutherfordton, NC: February TA–W–37,415; Parker Drilling Co., the firm or an appropriate subdivision 16, 1999. Tulsa, OK have not contributed importantly to the TA–W–37,226; Burgett Geothermal TA–W–37,420; Western Gas Resources, separations of threat thereof, and the Greenhouse, Inc., Animas, NM: Midkiff, TX absolute decline in sales or production. December 28, 2000. TA–W–37,400; Renfro Corp., South TA–W–37,440; Terry Products, Inc., Affirmative Determinations for Worker Pittsburg, TN Kannapolis, NC: March 2, 1999. Adjustment Assistance TA–W–37,371; Burlington Industries, TA–W–37,335; Calvin Klein, New York, Burlington Industries The following certifications have been NY: February 1, 1999. Transportation, Belmont, NC issued; the date following the company TA–W–37,215; Item House, Inc., TA–W–37,319; Furon Co., Laguna name and location of each Tacoma, WA: December 15, 1998. Niguel, CA determination references the impact TA–W–37,353; Danskin, Inc., York, PA: TA–W–37,489; Hasbro Manufacturing date for all workers of such February 1, 1999. Services, El Paso, TX determination. TA–W–37,219; The Boeing Co., Melbourne, AR: December 20, 1998. The workers firm does not produce an TA–W–37,105; Weiser Lock, A Masco TA–W–37,280; The John Plant Co., article as required for certification under Subsidiary, Tucson, AZ: November Ramseur, NC: January 13, 1999. Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 19, 1998. TA–W–37,263; Fayette Glove Co, d/b/a TA–W–37,462; Brandon Manufacturing, TA–W–37,417; Microtek Medical, Inc., Columbus, MS: February 16, 1999. Best Manufacturing, Fayette, AL: Inc., Shreveport, LA January 11, 1999. TA–W–37,429; Bassett Furniture TA–W–37,245; Pioneer Wear, Albuquerque, NM: December 30, TA–W–37,386; Southside Sportswear, Industries of North Carolina, Inc., Florence, SC: February 15, Upholstery Div., Dumas, AR 1998. TA–W–37,285; R.L.F. Neckwear, Inc., 1999. TA–W–37,379; Emerson Electric Co., Air TA–W–37,374; T&K Manufacturing, Moving Motor Div., Rogers, AR Belleville, NJ: January 11, 1999. TA–W–37,237: International Paper Co., Inc., Brownstown, PA: February 7, TA–W–37,446; Mulay Plastics, Casa Natchez Mill, Natchez, MS: 1999. Grande, AZ December 13, 1998. TA–W–37,323; Russell T. Bundy TA–W–37,437; Elliott Turbomachinery, TA–W–37,230; E–Town Sportswear Associates, Inc., d/b/a/ Durashield Jeannette, PA Corp., Elizabethville, KY: December USA, Sunbury, OH: January 28, TA–W–37,405; GCC Cutting, Inc., El 29, 1998. 1999. Paso, TX TA–W–37,236; Chicago Pneumatic Tool TA–W–37,310; Boyt Harness Co LLC, TA–W–37,486; Down River Forest Co., Rock Hill, SC: December 15, Bob Allen Sportswear Div., Products, Inc., Woodland, WA 1998. Arlington, SD: January 18, 1999 TA–W–37,284; Martin Mills Inc., Sewing TA–W–37,298; Apparel Specialists, Inc., TA–W–37,312; Florence Eiseman, Inc., Dept., St. Martinville, LA Green Bay, WI: January 14, 1999. Milwaukee, WI: January 18, 1999. TA–W–37,340; Alltex Laminating Corp., TA–W–37,338 & A, B, C, D & E; TA–W–37,388; Sullivan Die Castings, Mount Vernon, NY Johnstown Knitting Mill Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ: February 9, TA–W–37,260; L.P.F. Apparel Corp., Glenfield Div., Glenfield, NY, 1999. New York, NY Montgomery St. Div., Johnstown, TA–W–37,449; New River Apparel, TA–W–37,176; Intersil Corp., Findlay, NY, Comrie Ave. Div., Johnstown, Fries, VA: February 28, 1999. OH NY, Fort Plain Div., Fort Plain, NY, TA–W–37,342; Assembly USA, Inc., TA–W–37,368; ITT Industries—Jabsco, New York City Div., NY, NY, and Macon, MO: February 3, 1999. Springfield, OH The Diana Knitting Corp., TA–W–37,451 & A; Cross Creek TA–W–37,492; ISO Electronics, Inc., Johnstown, NY: February 3, 1999. Apparel, Inc., Mt Airy, NC and Indianapolis, IN TA–W–37,375; Mitec Wireless, Inc., Walnut Cove, NC: February 21, Increased imports did not contribute Tinton Falls, NJ: January 21, 1999. 1999. importantly to worker separations at the TA–W–37,273; Cumberland Apparel, TA–W–37,349; RNV Apparel, Inc., firm. Monticello, KY: January 10, 1999. Shade Gap, PA: February 1, 2000. TA–W–37,337; G & M Cutting Services TA–W–37,379; Sterling Diagnostic TA–W–37,317; Sewell Clothing Co., Inc., of El Paso, Inc., El Paso, TX Imaging, Inc., Brevard, NC: January Temple, GA: January 26, 1999. The investigation revealed the criteria 6, 1999. TA–W–37,434 & A; Bula, Inc., Durango (1) and criteria (2) have not been met. TA–W–37,385; Kryptonite Corp., CO and Montezuma Creek, UT: A significant number of proportion of Canton, MA: February 7, 1999. February 24, 1999.
VerDate 18
TA–W–37,478; Hartwell Industries, the subject firm to Canada or Mexico NAFTA–TAA–03695; The Eureka Co., Hartwell Sports, Hartwell, GA: during the relevant period. Div. of White Consolidated February 25, 1999. NAFTA–TAA–03685; ASC Incorporated, Industries, Inc., Bloomington, IL: TA–W–37,309; A & B; Wharton Knitting Rancho Dominguez, CA January 4, 1999. Mills, Inc., Knitting Dept., NAFTA–TAA–03709; Boyt Harness Co NAFTA–TAA–03726; Trico Products, Ridgewood, NY, Sewing Dept, LLC, Bob Allen Sportswear Div., Lawrenceburg, TN: January 29, Ridgewood, NY and Rita Knitting Arlington, SD 1999. Mills, Ridgewood, NY: January 20, NAFTA–TAA–03702 & A; Shelby Yarn NAFTA–TAA–03779; Atessa, Inc., 1999. Co., Including all Locations in Philadelphia, PA: March 2, 1999. TA–W–37,516; Finishing 2000 LLC, El Shelby, NC and Cherryville, NC NAFTA–TAA–03739; Southside Paso, TX: March 14, 1999. NAFTA–TAA–03658; Martin Mills, Inc., Sportswear, Inc., Florence, SC: TA–W–37,467; Hartz and Co., Inc., Sewing Dept., St. Martinville, LA February 15, 1999. Oakloom Plant, Baltimore, MD: NAFTA–TAA–03642; DeZurik NAFTA–TAA–03678; The John Plant March 6, 1999. Corporation, McMinnville, TN Co., Ramseur, NC: January 13, 1999. NAFTA–TAA–03731; Renewable NAFTA–TAA–03737; Elloit Corp., Also, pursuant to Title V of the North Energies, Inc., Slatyfork, WV American Free Trade Agreement Gillett, WI: February 10, 1999. NAFTA–TAA–03765; Bassett Furniture NAFTA–TAA–03734; FNA Acquisitions, Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103–182) Industries of North Carolina, d/b/a Superba, Mooresville, NC: concerning transitional adjustment Upholstery Div., Dumas, AR February 18, 1999. assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA– NAFTA–TAA–03771 & A; Bula, Inc., TAA) and in accordance with Section Durango, CO and Montezuma NAFTA–TAA–03673; Apparel 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, Creek, UT Specialists, Inc., Green Bay, WI: of the Trade Act as amended, the NAFTA–TAA–03774; Brandon January 14, 1999. Department of Labor presents Manufacturing, Inc., Shreveport, LA NAFTA–TAA–03753; GCC Cutting, El summaries of determinations regarding NAFTA–TAA–03716; A&B; Wharton Paso, TX: January 19, 1999. eligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAA Knitting Mills, Inc., Knitting Dept., NAFTA–TAA–03783; Link Door issued during the month of March and Ridgewood, NY, Sewing Dept., Controls, Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY: April, 2000. Ridgewood, NY and Rita Knitting February 4, 1999. In order for an affirmative Mills, Inc., Ridgewood, NY. NAFTA–TAA–03757; A,B,C,D, & E; determination to be made and a NAFTA–TAA–03797; Raytheon Systems Conoco, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK & certification of eligibility to apply for Co., Microwave Div., El Sugundo, Operating in the Following NAFTA–TAA the following group CA. Locations: Hennessay, OK, Cashion, eligibility requirements of Section 250 NAFTA–TAA–03788; ISO Electronics, OK, Tuttle, OK, Carney, OK and of the Trade Act must be met: Inc., Indianapolis, IN. Washington, OK: February 23, 1999. (1) That a significant number or NAFTA–TAA–03650; Ball Foster Glass NAFTA–TAA–03785 & A; Cross Creek proportion of the workers in the Container Co., LLC, Marion, IN. Apparel, Inc., Mt. Airy, NC and workers’ firm, or an appropriate The investigation revealed that the Walnut Cove, NC: February 21, subdivision thereof, (including workers criteria for eligibility have not been met 1999. in any agricultural firm or appropriate for the reasons specified. NAFTA–TAA–03760; Burnsville subdivision thereof) have become totally NAFTA–TAA–3719; Burlington Apparel Co., Wadesboro, NC: or partially separated from employment Industries, Burlington Industries February 17, 1999. and either— Transportation, Belmont, NC. NAFTA–TAA–03749; Emerson Electric (2) That sales or production, or both, NAFTA–TAA–03742; Target Retail Co., Air Moving Motor Div., Rogers, of such firm or subdivision have Store, Mt. Carmel, IL. AR: February 3, 1999. decreased absolutely, The investigation revealed that NAFTA–TAA–03686; General Electric (3) That imports from Mexico or workers of the subject firm did not Co., Industrial Systems, Tell City, Canada of articles like or directly produce an article within the meaning IN: August 25, 1998. competitive with articles produced by of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as NAFTA–TAA–03800; Hartwell such firm or subdivision have increased, amended. Industries, Hartwell Sparts, and that the increases in ports NAFTA–TAA–03715; G&M Cutting Hartwell, GA: February 25, 1999. contributed importantly to such Services of El Paso, Inc., El Paso, NAFTA–TAA–03832; Finishing 2000 workers’ separations or threat of TX. LLC, El Paso, TX: March 14, 1999. separation and to the decline in sales or The investigation revealed that NAFTA–TAA–03759; John Clark, Inc., production of such firm or subdivision; criteria (1) and criteria (2) have not been Denver, CO: February 23, 1999. or met. A significant number or proportion NAFTA–TAA–03784; Eastman Kodak (4) That there has been a shift in of the workers in such workers’ firm or Co., Color Film Mfg-Commercial/ production by such workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision (including Professional Finishing Div., subdivision to Mexico or Canada of workers in any agricultural firm or Graphics Workcenter, Rochester, articles like or directly competitive with appropriate subdivision thereof) have NY: February 25, 1999. articles which are produced by the firm become totally or partially separated NAFTA–TAA–03710; United States or subdivision. from employment. Sales or production Leather, Inc., Pfister & Vogel Leather, Milwaukee, WI: February 4, Negative Determinations NAFTA–TAA did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification. 1999. In each of the following cases the I hereby certify that the investigation revealed that criteria (3) Affirmative Determinations NAFTA– aforementioned determinations were and (4) were not met. Imports from TAA issued during the month of March and Canada or Mexico did not contribute NAFTA–TAA–03606; Nucor Corp., April, 2000. Copies of these importantly to workers’ separations. Nucor Fastener Div., Conway, AR: determinations are available for There was no shift in production from November 12, 1998. inspection in Room C–4318, U.S.
VerDate 18
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution employment on or after January 28, 1999 volume causes procedures to be Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 through February 18, 2002 are eligible to impractical and contrary to the public during normal business hours or will be apply for NAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of interest. mailed to persons who write to the the Trade Act of 1974. General wage determination above address. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of decisions, and modifications and April, 2000. Dated: April 13, 2000. supersedes decisions thereto, contain no Grant D. Beale, expiration dates and are effective from Grant D. Beale, Program Manager, Division of Trade their date of notice in the Federal Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Register, or on the date written notice Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 00–9973 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] is received by the agency, whichever is [FR Doc. 00–9970 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510±30±M earlier. These decisions are to be used BILLING CODE 4510±30±M in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR Parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR applicable decision, together with any DEPARTMENT OF LABOR modifications issued, must be made a Employment Standards Administration part of every contract for performance of Employment and Training Wage and Hour Division Administration the described work within the geographic area indicated as required by Minimum Wages for Federal and [NAFTA±03705 Thaw Corporation, Snow an applicable Federal prevailing wage Federally Assisted Construction; Creek Division, Wenatchee, Washington; law and 29 CFR Part 5. The wage rates General Wage Determination Decisions and NAFTA±3705A Thaw Corporation, and fringe benefits, notice of which is Cutting Department, Kent, Washington] General wage determination decisions published herein, and which are Amended Certification Regarding of the Secretary of Labor are issued in contained in the Government Printing Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA accordance with applicable law and are Office (GPO) document entitled Transitional Adjustment Assistance based on the information obtained by ‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued the Department of Labor from its study Under The Davis-Bacon And Related In accordance with section 205(a), of local wage conditions and data made Acts,’’ shall be the minimum paid by subchapter 2, title II, of the Trade Act available from other sources. They contractors and subcontractors to of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), specify the basic hourly wage rates and laborers and mechanics. the Department of Labor issued a fringe benefits which are determined to Any person, organization, or Certification of Eligibility to Apply for be prevailing for the described classes of governmental agency having an interest NAFTA Transitional Adjustment laborers and mechanics employed on in the rates determined as prevailing is Assistance on February 18, 2000, construction projects of a similar encouraged to submit wage rate and applicable to workers of Thaw character and in the localities specified fringe benefit information for Corporation, Snow Creek Division, therein. consideration by the Department. Wenatchee, Washington. The notice was The determinations in these decisions Further information and self- published in the Federal Register on of prevailing rates and fringe benefits explanatory forms for the purpose of March 17, 2000 (65 FR 14628). have been made in accordance with 29 submitting this data may be obtained by At the request of the company, the CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Department reviewed the certification of Labor pursuant to the provisions of Employment Standards Administration, for workers of the subject firm. The the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, Wage and Hour Division, Division of workers are engaged in the production as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution of fleece outerwear and thermal 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal Avenue, N.W., Room S–3014, underwear. New information shows that statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1, Washington, D.C. 20210. worker separations occurred at the Appendix, as well as such additional subject firms’ Cutting Department, Kent, statutes as may from time to time be Withdrawn General Wage Washington in March, 2000. Workers enacted containing provisions for the Determination Decision perform cutting operations for all Thaw payment of wages determined to be This is to advise all interest parties Corporation’s production facilities, prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in that the Department of Labor is including Snow Creek Division, accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. withdrawing, from the date of this Wenatchee, Washington. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits notice, the following General Wage Based on these new findings, the determined in these decisions shall, in Determinations: Department is amending the accordance with the provisions of the MS000028—See MS000003 certification to cover workers at the foregoing statutes, constitute the MS000030—See MS000003 Cutting Department, Kent, Washington minimum wages payable on Federal and MS000032—See MS000003 location. federally assisted construction projects MS000034—See MS000003 The intent of the Department’s to laborers and mechanics of the MS000035—See MS000003 certification is to include all workers of specified classes engaged on contract MS000050—See MS000003 Thaw Corporation who were adversely work of the character and in the IA000054—See IA000009 affected by a shift of production to localities described therein. Contracts for which bids have been Mexico. Good cause is hereby found for not opened shall not be affected by this The amended notice applicable to utilizing notice and public comment notice. Also, consistent with 29 CFR NAFTA–03705 is hereby issued as procedure thereon prior to the issuance 1.6(c)(2)(i)(A), when the opening of bids follows: of these determinations as prescribed in is less than ten (10) days from the date All workers of Thaw Corporation, Snow 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay of this notice, this action shall be Creek Division, Wenatchee, Washington in the effective date as prescribed in that effected unless the agency finds that (NAFTA–03705) and the Cutting Department, section, because the necessity to issue there is insufficient time to notify Kent, Washington (NAFTA–0305A) who current construction industry wage bidders of the change and the finding is became totally or partially separated from determinations frequently and in large documented in the contract file.
VerDate 18
New General Wage Determination by subscription to the FedWorld ADDRESSES section of this notice on or Decision Bulletin Board System of the National before June 20, 2000. The number of the decisions added to Technical Information Service (NTIS) of ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sytrina the Government Printing Office the U.S. Department of Commerce at 1– D. Toon, BLS Clearance Officer, document entitled ‘‘General Wage 800–363–2068 Division of Management Systems, determinations Issued Under the Davis- Hard-copy subscriptions may be Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 3255, Bacon and related Acts’’ are listed by purchased from: Superintendent of 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Volume and States‘‘ Documents, U.S. Government Printing Washington, DC 20212, telephone Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) number 202–691–7628 (this is not a toll Volume V 512–1800. free number). Iowa When ordering hard-copy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: IA000045 (Apr. 21, 2000) subscription(s), be sure to specify the Sytrina D. Toon, BLS Clearance Officer, State(s) of interest, since subscriptions Modifications to General Wage telephone number 202–691–7628. (See may be ordered for any or all of the Determination Decisions ADDRESSES section.) seven separate volumes, arranged by The number of decisions listed in the State. Subscriptions include an annual SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Government Printing Office document edition (issued in January or February) I. Background entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations which includes all current general wage The U.S. Import Price Indexes, Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and determinations for the States covered by produced continuously by the Bureau of Related Acts’’ being modified are listed each volume. Throughout the remainder Labor Statistic’s International Price by Volume and State. Dates of of the year, regular weekly updates are Program (IPP) since 1971, measure price publication in the Federal Register are distributed to subscribers. in parentheses following the decisions change over time for all categories of being modified. Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of imported products, as well as many April 2000. services. The Office of Management and Volume I Carl J. Poleskey, Budget has listed the Import Price None Chief, Branch of Construction Wage Indexes as a Principal Federal Domestic Determinations. Volume II Indicator since 1982. The indexes are [FR Doc. 00–9753 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Pennsylvania widely used in both the public and PA000007 (Feb. 11, 2000) BILLING CODE 4510±27±M private sectors. The primary public PA000009 (Feb. 11, 2000) sector use is the deflation of the U.S. Trade Statistics and the Gross Domestic Volume III DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Product; the indexes also are used in Mississippi formulating U.S. trade policy and in Bureau of Labor Statistics MS000003 (Feb. 11, 2000) trade negotiations with other countries. North Carolina NC000033 (Feb. 11, 2000) Proposed Collection; Comment In the private sector, uses of the Import Request Price Indexes include market analysis, Volume IV inflation forecasting, contract escalation, Illinois ACTION: Notice. and replacement cost accounting. IL000011 (Feb. 11, 2000) The IPP indexes are closely followed SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as Volume V statistics, and are viewed as a sensitive part of its continuing effort to reduce Iowa indicator of the economic environment. paperwork and respondent burden, The U.S. Department of Commerce uses IA000009 (Feb. 11, 2000) conducts a pre-clearance consultation IA000080 (Feb. 11, 2000) the monthly statistics to produce Texas program to provide the general public monthly and quarterly estimate of TX000053 (Feb. 11, 2000) and Federal agencies an opportunity to inflation-adjusted trade flows. Without comment on proposed and/or Volume VI continuation of data collection, it would continuing collections of information in be extremely difficult to construct None accordance with the Paperwork accurate estimates of the U.S. Gross Volume VII Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 Domestic Product. In addition, Federal None U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program policymakers in the Department of helps to ensure that requested data can Treasury, the Council of Economic General Wage Determination be provided in the desired format, Advisers, and the Federal Reserve Board Publication reporting burden (time and financial utilize these statistics on a regular basis General wage determinations issued resources) is minimized, collection to improve these agencies’ formulation under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, instruments are clearly understood, and and evaluation of monetary and fiscal including those noted above, may be the impact of collection requirements on policy and evaluation of the general found in the Government Printing Office respondents can be properly assessed. business environment. (GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is Determinations Issued Under The Davis- soliciting comments concerning the II. Desired Focus of Comments Bacon and Related Acts.’’ This proposed revision of the ‘‘International The Bureau of Labor Statistics is publication is available at each of the 50 Price Program—U.S. Import Price particularly interested in comments Regional Government Depository Indexes.’’ A copy of the proposed which: Libraries and many of the 1,400 information collection request (ICR) can • Evaluate whether the proposed Government Depository Libraries across be obtained by contacting the individual collection of information is necessary the country. listed in the ADDRESSES section of this for the proper performance of the The general wage determinations notice. functions of the agency, including issued under the Davis-Bacon and DATES: Written comments must be whether the information will have related Acts are available electronically submitted to the office listed in the practical utility;
VerDate 18
• Evaluate the accuracy of the III. Current Action entry into the BLS reporters’ repricing agency’s estimate of the burden of the The IPP continues to modernize data database. The IPP also is considering proposed collection of information, collection and processing to permit use of the Internet for monthly including the validity of the more timely release of its indexes, and repricing. methodology and assumptions used; to reduce reporter burden. The IPP is Type of Review: Revision. • Enhance the quality, utility, and testing initiation techniques to reduce Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics. clarity of the information to be burden such as less frequent sampling Title: International Price Program/U.S. Import Price Indexes. collected; and of more stable item areas, use of broader OMB Number: 1220–0026. • item areas in certain cases, and Minimize the burden of the retention of items initiated in previous Affected Public: Business or other for collection of information on those who samples that reporters still trade. In profit. are to respond, including through the order to reduce the time required for Total Respondents: (FY 2000) 4,935. use of appropriate automated, processing new items, direct entry of Frequency: Quarterly/Monthly. electronic, mechanical, or other initiation data from the field was Total Responses: (FY 2001) 40,240. technological collection techniques or recently implemented. The IPP is testing Average Time Per Response: 36.18 other forms of information technology, the application of new technology to minutes. e.g., permitting electronic submissions repricing and the use of fax telephone Estimated Total Burden Hours: (FY of responses. lines to permit direct collection and 2001) 24,246 hours.
Average Estimated Form Total re- Frequent Total re- time per re- total burden spondents sponses sponse (hours) (hours)
Initiation Visit (includes form 3008) ...... 1,700 annually ...... 1,700 1.00 1,700 Form 3007D ...... 3,235 Monthly/quarterly ... 38,540 .585 22,546
Totals ...... 4,935 ...... 40,240 ...... 24,246
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): be provided in the desired format, exported products, as well as many $0. reporting burden (time and financial services. The Office of Management and Total Burden Cost (operating/ resources) is minimized, collection Budget has listed the Export Price maintenance): $0. instruments are clearly understood, and Indexes as a Principal Federal Economic Comments submitted in response to the impact of collection requirements on Indicator since 1982. The indexes are this notice will be summarized and/or respondents can be properly assessed. widely used in both the public and included in the request for Office of The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is private sectors. The primary public Management and Budge approval of the soliciting comments concerning the sector use is the deflation of the U.S. information collection request; they also proposed revision of the ‘‘International Trade Statistics and the Gross Domestic will become a matter of public record. Price Program—U.S. Export Price Product; the indexes also are used in Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of Indexes.’’ A copy of the proposed formulating U.S. trade policy and in April 2000. information collection request (ICR) can trade negotiations with other countries. W. Stuart Rust, Jr., be obtained by contacting the individual In the private sector, uses of the Export Chief, Division of Management Systems, listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Price Indexes include market analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics. notice. inflation forecasting, contract escalation, [FR Doc. 00–9977 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] DATES: Written comments must be and replacement cost accounting. BILLING CODE 4510±24±M submitted to the office listed in the The IPP indexes are closely followed ADDRESSES section of this notice on or statistics and are viewed as a sensitive before June 20, 2000. indicator of the economic environment. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sytrina The U.S. Department of Commerce uses D. Toon, BLS Clearance Officer, the monthly statistics to produce Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Management Systems, monthly and quarterly estimates of Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 3255, inflation-adjusted trade flows. Without Proposed Collection; Comment 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., continuation of data collection, it would Request Washington, DC 20212, telephone be extremely difficult to construct ACTION: Notice. number 202–691–7628 (this is not a toll accurate estimates of the U.S. Gross free number). Domestic Product. In addition, Federal SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: policymakers in the Department of part of its continuing effort to reduce Sytrina D. Toon, BLS Clearance Officer, Treasury, the Council of Economic paperwork and respondent burden, telephone number 202–691–7628. (See Advisers, and the Federal Reserve Board conducts a pre-clearance consultation ADDRESSES section.) utilize these statistics on a regular basis program to provide the general public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to improve these agencies’ formulation and Federal agencies an opportunity to and evaluation of monetary and fiscal comment on proposed and/or I. Background policy and evaluation of the general continuing collections of information in The U.S. Export Price Indexes, business environment. accordance with the Paperwork produced continuously by the Bureau of II. Desired Focus of Comments Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 Labor Statistics’ International Price U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program Program (IPP) since 1971, measure price The Bureau of Labor Statistics is helps to ensure that requested data can change over time for all categories of particularly interested comments which:
VerDate 18
• Evaluate whether the proposed other forms of information technology, repricing and the use of fax telephone collection of information is necessary e.g., permitting electronic submissions lines to permit direct collection and for the proper performance of the of responses. entry into the BLS reporters’ repricing functions of the agency, including database. The IPP also is considering III. Current Action whether the information will have use of the Internet for monthly practical utility; The IPP continues to modernize data repricing. • Evaluate the accuracy of the collection and processing to permit Type of Review: Revision. agency’s estimate of the burden of the more timely release of its indexes, and Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics. proposed collection of information, to reduce reporter burden. The IPP is Title: International Price Program/U.S. including the validity of the testing initiation techniques to reduce Export Price Indexes. methodology and assumptions used; burden such as less frequent sampling OMB Number: 1220–0025. • Enhance the quality, utility, and of more stable item areas, use of broader Affected Public: Business or other for clarity of the information to be item areas in certain cases, and profit. collected; and retention of items initiated in previous Total Respondents: (FY 2000) 4,935. • Minimize the burden of the samples that reporters still trade. In Frequency: Quarterly/Monthly. collection of information on those who order to reduce the time required for Total Responses: (FY 2001) 40,240. are to respond, including through the processing new items, direct entry of Average Time Per Response: 34.86. use of appropriate automated, initiation data from the field was minutes. electronic, mechanical, or other recently implemented. The IPP is testing Estimated Total Burden Hours: (FY technological collection techniques or the application of new technology to 2001) 23,379 hours.
Average Estimated Total re- Total re- time per re- total burden Form spondents Frequency sponses sponse (hours) (hours)
Initiation visit (includes form 4008) ...... 2,700 Annually ...... 1,700 1.00 1,700 Form 3007D ...... 3,235 Montly, Quarterly ... 38,540 .5625 21,679
Totals ...... 4,935 ...... 40,240 ...... 23,379
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program the Secretary of Labor to develop and $0. helps to ensure that requested data can maintain an effective program of Total Burden Cost (operating/ be provided in the desired format, collection, compilation, and analysis of maintenance): $0. reporting burden (time and financial statistics on occupational injuries and Comments submitted in response to resources) is minimized, collection illnesses. The Commissioner of Labor this notice will be summarized and/or instruments are clearly understood, and Statistics has been delegated the included in the request for Office of the impact of collection requirements on responsibility for ‘‘Furthering the Management and Budget approval of the respondents can be properly assessed. purpose of the Occupational Safety and information collection request; they also The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is Health Act by developing and will become a matter of public record. soliciting comments concerning the maintaining an effective program of Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of proposed revision of the Survey of collection, compilation, analysis and April 2000. Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. A publication of occupational safety and W. Stuart Rust, Jr., copy of the proposed information health statistics.’’ The Bureau of Labor Chief, Division of Management Systems, collection request (ICR) can be obtained Statistics (BLS) fulfills this by contacting the individual listed in Bureau of Labor Statistics. responsibility, in part, by conducting the Addresses section of this notice. [FR Doc. 00–9978 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] the Survey of Occupational Injuries and DATES: BILLING CODE 4510±24±M Written comments must be Illnesses in conjunction with submitted to the office listed in the participating State agencies. The BLS Addresses section of this notice on or Survey of Occupational Injuries and before June 20, 2000. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Illnesses provides the nations’s primary ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sytrina Bureau of Labor Statistics indicator of the progress towards D. Toon, BLS Clearance Officer, achieving the goal of safer and healthier Division of Management Systems, workplaces. The survey produces the Proposed Collection; Comment Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 3255, overall rate of occurrence of work Request 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., injuries and illnesses by industry, Washington, DC 20212, telephone ACTION: Notice. which can be compared to prior years to number 202–691–7628 (this is not a toll produce measures of the rate of change. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as free number). These data are used to improve safety part of its continuing effort to reduce FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and health programs and measure the paperwork and respondent burden, Sytrina D. Toon, BLS Clearance Officer, change in work-related injuries and conducts a pre-clearance consultation telephone number 202–691–7628. (See programs to provide the general public Addresses section.) illnesses. and Federal agencies an opportunity to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. Desired Focus of Comments comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in I. Background The Bureau of Labor Statistics is accordance with the Paperwork Section 24(a) of the Occupational particularly interested in comments Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires which:
VerDate 18
• Evaluate whether the proposed • Minimize the burden of the annually. The clearance will include collection of information is necessary collection of information on those who survey prenotification materials for for the proper performance of the are to respond, including through the employers who normally are exempt functions of the agency, including use of appropriate automated, from the requirement to record injuries whether the information will have electronic, mechanical, or other and illnesses. practical utility; technological collection techniques or Type of Review: Revision. • Evaluate the accuracy of the other forms of information technology, Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics. agency’s estimate of the burden of the e.g., permitting electronic submissions Title: Survey of Occupational Injuries proposed collection of information, of responses. and Illnesses. including the validity of the III. Current Action OMB Number: 1220–0045. methodology and assumptions used; OMB clearance is being sought for the Affected Public: Business or other for- • Enhance the quality, utility, and upcoming Survey of Occupational profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; clarity of the information to be Injuries and Illnesses. Approximately State, Local or Tribal Government. collected; and 230,000 establishments will be surveyed Frequency: Annually.
Estimated time per re- Estimated Form Total respondents Total responses sponse total burden (hours) (hours)
BLS 9300 ...... 230,000 230,000 .71 163,125 Prenotification Package ...... 150,000 out of 230,000 150,000 out of 230,000 .11 16,666
Totals ...... 230,000 230,000 .78 179,791
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): congressionally appropriated funds and Applicants competing for service $0. the date, terms and conditions of their areas in California, Colorado, Indiana, Total Burden Cost (operating/ availability for calendar year 2001 have Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, maintenance): $0. not been determined. Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Comments submitted in response to DATES: See Supplementary Information West Virginia must submit the notice of this notice will be summarized and/or section for grants competition dates. intent to compete by June 30, 2000, 5:00 included in the request for Office of ADDRESSES: Legal Services p.m. EDT. Grant proposals for service Management and Budget approval of the Corporation—Competitive Grants, 750 areas in these states must be submitted information collection request; they also First Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, by July 17, 2000, 5:00 p.m. EDT. will become a matter of public record. DC 20002–4250. LSC is seeking proposals from: (1) Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: April 2000. Non-profit organizations that have as a Office of Program Performance, purpose the furnishing of legal W. Stuart Rust, Jr., Competitive Grants—Service Desk at assistance to eligible clients; (2) private Chief, Division of Management Systems, (202) 336–8900, by FAX at (202) 336– Bureau of Labor Statistics. 7272, by e-mail at [email protected], attorneys; (3) groups of private attorneys [FR Doc. 00–9979 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] or visit the LSC web site at or law firms; (4) State or local governments; and (5) substate regional BILLING CODE 4510±24±M www.ain.lsc.gov. planning and coordination agencies SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request which are composed of substate areas for Proposals (RFP) will be available and whose governing boards are LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION April 24, 2000. The due dates for the controlled by locally elected officials. Notice of Intent to Compete and Grant Notice of Availability of Calendar Year Proposals follow. The RFP, containing the grant 2001 Competitive Grant Funds Applicants competing for service application, guidelines, proposal AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. areas in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, content requirements and specific ACTION: Solicitation for Proposals for the Connecticut, Delaware, District of selection criteria, is available from the Provision of Civil Legal Services. Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Guam, LSC web site at www.ain.lsc.gov. LSC Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, will not FAX the solicitation package to SUMMARY: The Legal Services Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, interested parties. Corporation (LSC or Corporation) is the Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, national organization charged with Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Below are the service areas for which administering federal funds provided New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, LSC is requesting grant proposals. for civil legal services to the poor. North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Service area descriptions are available The Corporation hereby announces Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode from Appendix A of the RFP. The RFP the availability of competitive grant Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, will be available April 24, 2000, at funds and is soliciting grant proposals Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, www.ain.lsc.gov. from interested parties who are Virgin Islands, Washington, Wisconsin, qualified to provide effective, efficient or Wyoming must submit the notice of State Service area and high quality civil legal services to intent to compete by June 2, 2000, 5:00 eligible clients in the states and p.m. EDT. Grant proposals for service Alabama ...... MAL territories, by service area(s) identified areas in these states must be submitted Arizona ...... MAZ below. The exact amount of by June 19, 2000, 5:00 p.m. EDT. Arkansas ...... MAR
VerDate 18
State Service area State Service area the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. California ...... CA±2, CA±12 CA± Wyoming ...... WY±4, MWY, NWY± Any interested persons may attend as 14, CA±19, CA± 1 observers, on a space available basis, but 26, CA±29, CA± seating is limited. Therefore, for this 30, CA±31, MCA Dated: April 14, 2000. meeting, individuals wishing to attend Colorado ...... CO±6, MCO, NCO± must contact Georgianna Paul of the 1 Michael A. Genz, Connecticut ...... MMX±1 Director, Office of Program Performance. President’s Committee in advance at Delaware ...... MDE [FR Doc. 00–9874 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] (202) 682–5409 or write to the Committee at 1100 Pennsylvania District of Columbia ..... DC±1 BILLING CODE 7050±01±P Florida ...... FL±4, FL±7, FL±9, Avenue, NW, Suite 526, Washington, MFL, NFL±1 DC 20506. Further information with Georgia ...... MGA reference to this meeting can also be NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE Guam ...... GU±1 obtained from Ms. Paul. ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Hawaii ...... MHI If you need special accommodations Idaho ...... MID Illinois ...... IL±6, MIL National Endowment for the Arts due to a disability, please contact Ms. Indiana ...... IN±5, MIN Paul through the Office of Iowa ...... IA±1, IA±2, MIA President's Committee on the Arts and AccessAbility, National Endowment for Kansas ...... MKS the Humanities: Meeting XLVIII the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Kentucky ...... KY±2, KY±3, KY±5, NW, Washington, DC 20506, 202/682– KY±9, KY±8, MKY Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the 5532, TDY–TDD 202/682–5496. Louisiana ...... MLA Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Maine ...... MMX±1 Law 92–463), as amended, notice is Dated: April 18, 2000. Maryland ...... MMD hereby given that a meeting of the Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Massachusetts ...... MMX±1 President’s Committee on the Arts and Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, Michigan ...... MI±1, MI±2, MI±3, the Humanities will be held on April 28, National Endowment for the Arts. MI±4, MI±5, MI±6, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to approximately [FR Doc. 00–10129 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] MI±7, MI±8, MI±9, 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at BILLING CODE 7537±01±M MI±10, MI±11, MMI, NMI±1 the State House Convention center, Minnesota ...... MMN Little Rock, Arkansas. Mississippi ...... MMS The Committee meeting will begin at NUCLEAR REGULATORY Missouri ...... MO±3, MO±4, MO± 9 a.m. with opening remarks by COMMISSION 5, MO±7, MMO Chairman Dr. John Brademas and Montana ...... MMT Executive Director’s remarks from [Docket No. 50±325] Nebraska ...... NE±4, MNE, NNE±1 Harriet Mayor Fulbright. This will be Nevada ...... MNV Carolina Power & Light Company, et followed by a special presentation on al.; Notice of Consideration of New Hampshire ...... MMX±1 the ‘‘State of the Arts & Humanities in New Jersey ...... MNJ Issuance of Amendment to Facility Arkansas.’’ The Committee will hear New Mexico ...... MNM Operating License, Proposed No New York ...... MNY, NNY±1 presentations from John W. Roberts, Significant Hazards Consideration North Carolina ...... NC±1, NC±2, NC±3, Deputy Chairman of the National Determination, and Opportunity for a NC±4, MNC, Endowments for the Humanities, and Hearing NNC±1 Lee Kessler, Director, Federal North Dakota ...... ND±1, ND±2, MND, Partnerships for the National The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory NND±1, NND±2 Endowment for the Arts, and Mamie Commission (the Commission) is Ohio ...... OH±21, MOH Bittner, Director of Public and considering issuance of an amendment Oklahoma ...... MOK Oregon ...... OR±2, OR±4, OR± Legislative Affairs for the Institute of to Facility Operating License No. DPR– 5, MOR, NOR±1 Museum & Library Services. There will 71 issued to Carolina Power & Light Pennsylvania ...... PA±1, PA±5, PA±8, also be Task Force Reports on Ethnic Company, et al., (the licensee) for PA±11, PA±23, Diversity (presented by Peggy Cooper operation of the Brunswick Steam PA±24, PA±25, Cafritz), ‘‘Tutu & Franklin: A Journey Electric Plant, Unit 1, located in PA±26, MPA Towards Peace’’ (presented by Renee Brunswick County, North Carolina. Puerto Rico ...... PR±1, PR±2, MPR Poussaint) and Education (presented by The proposed amendment would Rhode Island ...... MMX±1 Rich Gurin). modify Surveillance Requirement (SR) South Carolina ...... MSC The President’s Committee on the 3.1.3.3 to allow partial insertion of South Dakota ...... SD±1, SD±2, SD±3, Arts and the Humanities was created by MSD, NSD±1 control rod 26–47 instead of insertion of Tennessee ...... MTN Executive Order in 1982 to advise the one complete notch. This revised Texas ...... TX±4, TX±6, TX±8, President, the two Endowments, and the acceptance criterion will be limited to TX±9, MTX Institute of Museum and Library the current Unit No. 1 operating cycle, Utah ...... MUT Services on measures to encourage after which the current one-notch Vermont ...... MMX±1 private sector support for the nation’s requirement will be re-established. Virgin Islands ...... VI±1 cultural institutions and to promote Before issuance of the proposed Virginia ...... VA±1, VA±3, VA± public understanding of the arts and the license amendment, the Commission 15, VA±16, VA± humanities. will have made findings required by the 17, VA±18, VA± If, in the course of discussion, it 19, MVA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Washington ...... MWA becomes necessary for the Committee to (the Act) and the Commission’s West Virginia ...... WV±3, WV±4, MWV discuss non-public commercial or regulations. Wisconsin ...... WI±1, WI±2, WI±3, financial information of intrinsic value, The Commission has made a WI±4, MWI, NWI± the Committee will go into closed proposed determination that the 1 session pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of amendment request involves no
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Washington, DC, and accessible the applicant on a material issue of law amendment dated April 14, 2000, which electronically through the ADAMS or fact. Contentions shall be limited to is available for public inspection at the Public Electronic Reading Room link at matters within the scope of the Commission’s Public Document Room, the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). amendment under consideration. The the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, If a request for a hearing or petition for contention must be one which, if NW., Washington, DC, and accessible leave to intervene is filed by the above proven, would entitle the petitioner to electronically through the ADAMS date, the Commission or an Atomic relief. A petitioner who fails to file such Public Electronic Reading Room link at Safety and Licensing Board, designated a supplement which satisfies these the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). by the Commission or by the Chairman requirements with respect to at least one Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of the Atomic Safety and Licensing contention will not be permitted to of April, 2000. Board Panel, will rule on the request participate as a party. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Those permitted to intervene become Allen G. Hansen, designated Atomic Safety and Licensing parties to the proceeding, subject to any Board will issue a notice of hearing or limitations in the order granting leave to Project Manager, Section 2, Project an appropriate order. intervene, and have the opportunity to Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a participate fully in the conduct of the Regulation. petition for leave to intervene shall set hearing, including the opportunity to forth with particularity the interest of present evidence and cross-examine [FR Doc. 00–9965 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] the petitioner in the proceeding, and witnesses. BILLING CODE 7590±01±P how that interest may be affected by the If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final results of the proceeding. The petition NUCLEAR REGULATORY should specifically explain the reasons determination on the issue of no COMMISSION why intervention should be permitted significant hazards consideration. The with particular reference to the final determination will serve to decide [Docket No. 50±22] following factors: (1) The nature of the when the hearing is held. petitioner’s right under the Act to be If the final determination is that the In the Matter of CBS Corporation (Test made party to the proceeding; (2) the amendment request involves no Reactor at Waltz Mill, PA); Order nature and extent of the petitioner’s significant hazards consideration, the Approving Transfer of License and property, financial, or other interest in Commission may issue the amendment Conforming Amendment and make it immediately effective, the proceeding; and (3) the possible I effect of any order which may be notwithstanding the request for a entered in the proceeding on the hearing. Any hearing held would take The CBS Corporation (CBS) is the petitioner’s interest. The petition should place after issuance of the amendment. owner of the Test Reactor located near also identify the specific aspect(s) of the If the final determination is that the Waltz Mill in Westmoreland County, subject matter of the proceeding as to amendment request involves a Pennsylvania, and is authorized to which petitioner wishes to intervene. significant hazards consideration, any possess the facility as reflected in Any person who has filed a petition for hearing held would take place before License No. TR–2. The facility is leave to intervene or who has been the issuance of any amendment. presently being decommissioned in admitted as a party may amend the A request for a hearing or a petition accordance with a decommissioning petition without requesting leave of the for leave to intervene must be filed with plan approved by the Nuclear Board up to 15 days prior to the first the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Regulatory Commission (NRC or the prehearing conference scheduled in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Commission). The NRC issued proceeding, but such an amended Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Operating License No. TR–2 on June 19, petition must satisfy the specificity Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or 1959, to the Westinghouse Electric requirements described above. may be delivered to the Commission’s Corporation pursuant to Part 50 of Title Not later than 15 days prior to the first Public Document Room, the Gelman 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations prehearing conference scheduled in the Building, 2120 L Street, NW., (10 CFR Part 50). The license was proceeding, a petitioner shall file a Washington, DC, by the above date. A amended on March 25, 1963, to supplement to the petition to intervene copy of the petition should also be sent authorize the licensee to possess but not which must include a list of the to the Office of the General Counsel, operate the reactor. The license was contentions which are sought to be U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, amended on July 31, 1998, and March litigated in the matter. Each contention Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to 25, 1999, to reflect the change in the must consist of a specific statement of William D. Johnson, Vice President and legal name of the licensee for the Test the issue of law or fact to be raised or Corporate Secretary, Carolina Power & Reactor from the Westinghouse Electric controverted. In addition, the petitioner Light Company, Post Office Box 1551, Corporation to the CBS Corporation. shall provide a brief explanation of the Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. The license was further amended on bases of the contention and a concise Nontimely filings of petitions for September 30, 1998, to approve the statement of the alleged facts or expert leave to intervene, amended petitions, decommissioning of the reactor. opinion which support the contention supplemental petitions and/or requests and on which the petitioner intends to for hearing will not be entertained II rely in proving the contention at the absent a determination by the Under cover of a letter dated February hearing. The petitioner must also Commission, the presiding officer or the 14, 2000, CBS submitted an application provide references to those specific presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing to transfer the TR–2 license from CBS sources and documents of which the Board that the petition and/or request Corporation to Viacom Inc. (Viacom). petitioner is aware and on which the should be granted based upon a This application was supplemented on petitioner intends to rely to establish balancing of the factors specified in 10 March 8 and 25, 2000 (collectively those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d). referred to herein as ‘‘the application’’). must provide sufficient information to For further details with respect to this According to the application, CBS has show that a genuine dispute exists with action, see the application for entered into an Agreement and Plan of
VerDate 18
Merger with Viacom under which CBS compliance with the Commission’s NUCLEAR REGULATORY will merge with and into Viacom (the regulations; the issuance of the COMMISSION ‘‘Merger’’). The existing TR–2 license proposed license amendment will not [Docket No. 50±320] held by CBS will be transferred to and be inimical to the common defense and retained by Viacom, and Viacom will security or to the health and safety of GPU Nuclear, Inc., Three Mile Island have responsibility to decommission the the public; and the issuance of the Nuclear Station, Unit 2; Notice of facility and terminate the license. The proposed amendment will be in Consideration of Issuance of application asserts that the proposed accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Amendment to Facility Operating transfer will not involve any change in Commission’s regulations and all License, Proposed No Significant the operating organization, location, applicable requirements have been Hazards Consideration Determination, facilities, equipment, or procedures satisfied. The foregoing findings are and Opportunity for a Hearing related to or personnel responsible for supported by a Safety Evaluation dated the licensed activities. In addition, there April 13, 2000. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory will be no effective change in the Commission (NRC or the Commission) personnel who are responsible for III is considering issuance of an completion of the decommissioning Accordingly, It Is Hereby Ordered that amendment to Facility Operating effort as described in the TR–2 License No. DPR–73 issued to GPU Decommissioning Plan. the transfer of the license as described herein to Viacom is approved, subject to Nuclear, Inc. (the licensee) for operation The application also sought the of the permanently shutdown Three the following condition: approval of a conforming amendment. Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 The conforming amendment would After receipt of all required regulatory (TMI–2), located in Middletown, remove references to CBS from the approvals of the merger between CBS and Pennsylvannia. facility license and replace them with Viacom, CBS shall inform the Director, Office The proposed amendment would references to Viacom, and make other of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in writing of reflect an administrative name change miscellaneous administrative changes, such receipt, and of the date of the closing from GPU Nuclear Corporation to GPU as appropriate, to reflect the transfer of of the merger no later than five business days Nuclear, Inc. Further, the proposed the license. prior to the date of closing. Should the license amendment makes an editorial Approval of the transfer and transfer of the license not be completed by change to better describe TMI–2’s use of conforming license amendment was March 30, 2001, this Order shall become null site physical security, guard training requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and and void, provided, however, on written and qualification, and safeguard 10 CFR 50.90. Notice of the application application and for good cause shown, such contingency plans that are maintained for approval and an opportunity for a date may in writing be extended. by the Three Mile Island Nuclear hearing was published in the Federal Station, Unit 1, licensee, AmerGen Register on February 29, 2000 (65 FR It Is Further Ordered that, consistent Energy Company, LLC. In addition, the 10841). A supplemental notice was with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), a license licensee requests that minor changes published on March 7, 2000 (65 FR amendment that makes changes, as (mainly in titles) be made in Section 6.0 12040). No hearing requests or written indicated in Enclosure 2 to the cover of the Technical Specifications to reflect comments were filed. letter forwarding this Order, to conform Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license for a the license to reflect the transfer is the TMI–2 organizational and production or utilization facility, or any approved. The amendment shall be administrative controls that will exist right thereunder, shall be transferred, issued and made effective at the time following the sale of the Oyster Creek directly or indirectly, through transfer of the proposed license transfer is Nuclear Generating Station. control of the license, unless the completed. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission Commission shall give its consent in This Order is effective upon issuance. writing. Upon review of the information will have made findings required by the in the application and other information For further details with respect to this Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended before the Commission, the NRC staff Order, see the initial application dated (the Act), and the Commission’s has determined that Viacom is qualified February 14, 2000, and supplements regulations. to hold the license, and that the transfer thereto dated March 8 and 25, 2000, and The Commission has made a of the license to Viacom is otherwise the safety evaluation dated April 13, proposed determination that the consistent with applicable provisions of 2000, which are available for public amendment request involves no law, regulations, and orders issued by inspection at the NRC’s Public significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission. The NRC staff has Document Room, the Gelman Building, the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR further found that the application for 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC. 50.92, this means that operation of the the proposed license amendment Publicly available records will be facility in accordance with the proposed complies with the standards and accessible electronically from the amendment would not (1) Involve a requirements of the Atomic Energy Act ADAMS Public Library component on significant increase in the probability or of 1954, as amended, and the the NRC Web Site, http://www.nrc.gov consequences of an accident previously Commission’s rules and regulations set (the Electronic Reading Room). evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; the facility new or different kind of accident from Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day any accident previously evaluated, or will be possessed in conformity with the of April 2000. application, the provisions of the Act, (3) involve a significant reduction in a and the rules and regulations of the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR Commission; there is reasonable David B. Matthews, 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its assurance that the activities authorized Director, Division of Regulatory Improvement analysis of the issue of no significant by the proposed license amendment can Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor hazards consideration, which is be conducted without endangering the Regulation. presented below: health and safety of the public and that [FR Doc. 00–9966 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] 1. The proposed changes to the TMI–2 such activities will be conducted in BILLING CODE 7590±01±P License and Technical Specifications do not
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Public Document Room, the Gelman documents specified in Technical The NRC staff has reviewed the Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Specification 6.9.8b. This list of licensee’s analysis and, based on this Washington, DC, by the above date. A documents describes the analytical review, it appears that the three copy of the petition should also be sent methods used to determine the core standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are to the Office of the General Counsel, operating limits. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Before issuance of the proposed proposes to determine that the Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to license amendment, the Commission amendment request involves no Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq., Shaw, Pittman, will have made findings required by the significant hazards consideration. Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended The Commission is seeking public N.W., Washington, DC 20037, attorney (the Act) and the Commission’s comments on this proposed for the licensee. regulations. determination. Any comments received Nontimely filings of petitions for within 30 days after the date of The Commission has made a publication of this notice will be leave to intervene, amended petitions, proposed determination that the supplemental petitions, and/or requests considered in making any final amendment request involves no determination. for hearing will not be entertained significant hazards consideration. Under absent a determination by the Normally, the Commission will not the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR issue the amendment until the Commission, the presiding officer, or 50.92, this means that operation of the the presiding Board that the petition expiration of the 30-day notice period. facility in accordance with the proposed However, should circumstances change and/or request should be granted based amendment would not (1) involve a upon a balancing of the factors specified during the notice period such that significant increase in the probability or failure to act in a timely way would in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(i)-(v) and 10 CFR consequences of an accident previously 2.714(d). result, for example, in derating or evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of shutdown of the facility, the For further details with respect to this a new or different kind of accident from action, see the application for Commission may issue the license any accident previously evaluated; or amendment before the expiration of the amendment dated April 6, 2000, which (3) involve a significant reduction in a is available for public inspection at the 30-day notice period, provided that its margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR final determination is that the Commission’s Public Document Room, 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, amendment involves no significant analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final NW., Washington, DC, and accessible hazards consideration, which is electronically through the ADAMS determination will consider all public presented below: and State comments received. Should Public Electronic Reading Room link at 1. Involve a significant increase in the the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). the Commission take this action, it will probability or consequences of an accident publish in the Federal Register a notice Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day previously evaluated. of issuance and provide for opportunity The proposed change will revise the date of April 2000. for a hearing after issuance. The For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. in reference 6.9.1.8b.1 from ‘‘February 1995’’ to ‘‘January 1997.’’ The report title and Commission expects that the need to John L. Minns, document number are correct and remain the take this action will occur very Project Manager, Decommissioning Section, same as identified in Amendment No. 242. infrequently. Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, This change is administrative in nature since Written comments may be submitted Division of Licensing Project Management, it does not have any impact on the actual by mail to the Chief, Rules and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. analytical methods used to determine the Directives Branch, Division of [FR Doc. 00–9964 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] core operating limits, the calculations Administrative Services, Office of BILLING CODE 7590±01±P performed for Cycle 14, and the calculations Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory for future reloads. Therefore, this change will Commission, Washington, DC 20555– not significantly increase the probability or 0001, and should cite the publication NUCLEAR REGULATORY consequences of an accident previously evaluated. date and page number of this Federal COMMISSION 2. Create the possibility of a new or Register notice. Written comments may [Docket No. 50±336] different kind of accident from any accident also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two previously evaluated. White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et The proposed change will revise the date Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 al.; Notice of Consideration of in reference 6.9.1.8b.1 from ‘‘February 1995’’ a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Issuance of Amendment to Facility to ‘‘January 1997.’’ This change is Copies of written comments received administrative in nature. This change will Operating License, Proposed No may be examined at the NRC Public not alter the plant configuration (no new or Document Room, the Gelman Building, Significant Hazards Consideration different type of equipment will be installed) Determination, and Opportunity for a or require any new or unusual operator 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Hearing actions. It does not alter the way any The filing of requests for hearing and structure, system, or component functions petitions for leave to intervene is The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and does not alter the manner in which the discussed below. Commission (the Commission) is plant is operated. Therefore, the proposed By May 22, 2000, the licensee may file considering issuance of an amendment change will not create the possibility of a a request for a hearing with respect to to Facility Operating License No. DPR– new or different kind of accident from any issuance of the amendment to the 65 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy accident previously evaluated. subject facility operating license and Company, et al. (the licensee) for 3. Involve a significant reduction in a any person whose interest may be operation of the Millstone Nuclear margin of safety. affected by this proceeding and who The proposed change will revise the date Power Station, Unit No. 2 located in in reference 6.9.1.8b.1 from ‘‘February 1995’’ wishes to participate as a party in the Waterford, Connecticut. to ‘‘January 1997.’’ This change is proceeding must file a written request The proposed amendment would administrative in nature. Therefore, the for a hearing and a petition for leave to correct an administrative error in proposed change will not result in a intervene. Requests for a hearing and a reference 6.9.1.8b.1 of the list of significant reduction in a margin of safety. petition for leave to intervene shall be
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Commission grant enforcement spectacle flange interface. The leakage Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory discretion to permit continued plant through the subject lines is not adversely Commission, Washington, DC 20555– operation until a TS change request affected by the existence of the third o-ring; 0001, and should cite the publication could be processed. The licensee stated therefore the probability of any accident date and page number of this Federal that a third o-ring erroneously installed previously evaluated is not significantly Register notice. Written comments may increased. The o-rings are passive in a channel of the flange intended to components and have no active safety also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two facilitate leakage rate testing may function. Similarly, the potential White Flint North, 11545 Rockville restrict the ability to adequately test the consequences of an accident previously Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 pressure retaining ability of the evaluated are not significantly increased by a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. spectacle flange to pipe flange interface. the existence of the third o-ring, since the Copies of written comments received The licensee stated that the presence of pressure retaining capability of the pipe may be examined at the NRC Public the third o-ring does not affect the flange to spectacle flange interface is not Document Room, the Gelman Building, pressure retaining ability of the degraded. 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. spectacle flange to pipe flange interface. This proposal does not create the The filing of requests for hearing and During the phone call, and in a possibility of a new or different type of petitions for leave to intervene is accident from any previously evaluated. subsequent letter dated April 10, 2000, Since the pressure retaining capability of discussed below. the Commission noted its intention to the pipe flange to spectacle flange interface By May 5, 2000, the licensee may file exercise enforcement discretion for the is not affected by the existence of the third a request for a hearing with respect to period of time necessary to process a o-ring as discussed above, the proposed issuance of the amendment to the license amendment to change the TSs . change does not create a new or different subject facility operating license and Guidance provided in NRC type of accident from any previously any person whose interest may be Administrative Letter 95–05, Revision 1, evaluated. affected by this proceeding and who ‘‘Revisions to Staff Guidance for This change does not involve a significant wishes to participate as a party in the Implementing NRC Policy on Notices of reduction in a margin of safety. proceeding must file a written request Since the pressure retaining capability of Enforcement Discretion,’’ dated for a hearing and a petition for leave to the pipe flange to spectacle flange interface intervene. Requests for a hearing and a February 19, 1999, states that a written is not affected by the existence of the third request for a notice of enforcement o-ring, the proposed change does not involve petition for leave to intervene shall be discretion should be followed within 48 a significant reduction in a margin of safety. filed in accordance with the hours by a request for an exigent license Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for The NRC staff has reviewed the amendment. Thus, the licensee’s Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 licensee’s analysis and, based on this application for amendment, dated April CFR Part 2. Interested persons should review, it appears that the three 10, 2000, is in response to the invalid consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are leakage rate test of the spectacle flange which is available at the Commission’s satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff o-rings and to the Commission’s actions Public Document Room, the Gelman proposes to determine that the in granting enforcement discretion. Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Before issuance of the proposed amendment request involves no Washington, DC, and accessible license amendment, the Commission significant hazards consideration. electronically through the ADAMS The Commission is seeking public will have made findings required by the Public Electronic Reading Room link at comments on this proposed Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). determination. Any comments received (the Act) and the Commission’s If a request for a hearing or petition for within 14 days after the date of regulations. leave to intervene is filed by the above Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for publication of this notice will be date, the Commission or an Atomic amendments to be granted under considered in making any final Safety and Licensing Board, designated exigent circumstances, the NRC staff determination. by the Commission or by the Chairman must determine that the amendment Normally, the Commission will not of the Atomic Safety and Licensing request involves no significant hazards issue the amendment until the Board Panel, will rule on the request consideration. Under the Commission’s expiration of the 14-day notice period. and/or petition; and the Secretary or the regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means However, should circumstances change designated Atomic Safety and Licensing that operation of the facility in during the notice period, such that Board will issue a notice of hearing or accordance with the proposed failure to act in a timely way would an appropriate order. amendment would not (1) Involve a result, for example, in derating or As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a significant increase in the probability or shutdown of the facility, the petition for leave to intervene shall set consequences of an accident previously Commission may issue the license forth with particularity the interest of evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of amendment before the expiration of the the petitioner in the proceeding, and a new or different kind of accident from 14-day notice period, provided that its how that interest may be affected by the any accident previously evaluated; or final determination is that the results of the proceeding. The petition (3) involve a significant reduction in a amendment involves no significant should specifically explain the reasons margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR hazards consideration. The final why intervention should be permitted 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its determination will consider all public with particular reference to the analysis of the issue of no significant and State comments received. Should following factors: (1) The nature of the hazards consideration, which is the Commission take this action, it will petitioner’s right under the Act to be presented below: publish in the Federal Register a notice made a party to the proceeding; (2) the of issuance. The Commission expects nature and extent of the petitioner’s This proposal does not involve a that the need to take this action will property, financial, or other interest in significant increase in the probability or occur very infrequently. the proceeding; and (3) the possible consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Written comments may be submitted effect of any order which may be The presence of the third o-ring does not by mail to the Chief, Rules and entered in the proceeding on the degrade and may improve the pressure Directives Branch, Division of petitioner’s interest. The petition should retaining capability of the pipe flange to Administrative Services, Office of also identify the specific aspect(s) of the
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
IV (b) whether, on the basis of such surveillance and control over unsecured licensed material because the gauge was In view of the foregoing and pursuant violation, this Order should be sustained. stolen. This is a clear indication that it was to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act not adequately surveilled or controlled. of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. Dated this 12th day of April 2000. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, It Is Hereby For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Summary of Licensee’s Request for Mitigation Ordered That: R.W. Borchardt, The Licensee pay a civil penalty in Director, Office of Enforcement. The licensee took issue with the the amount of $2,750 within 30 days of characterization of the violation as similar to the date of this Order, in accordance Appendix—Evaluations and a violation identified in March 1994 when with NUREG/BR–0254. In addition, at Conclusions the license was under the control of the previous owner, Caribbean Soil Testing the time of making payment, the On November 24, 1999, a Notice of Company, Inc. The licensee stated that in Licensee shall submit a statement Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil June 1997, Western Soil, Inc. assumed indicating when and by what method Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations identified during an NRC inspection. The responsibility for the license and committed payment was made, to the Director, to the programs required by the NRC. The Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear licensee’s response denies Violation I in part and provides additional information in licensee noted inadequacies in Carribean Regulatory Commission, One White support of mitigation of the violation, and Soil’s procedures for handling gauges and Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, admits Violation II.A and B. The NRC’s implemented improvements, including use of Rockville, MD 20852–2738. evaluation and conclusion regarding the a chain and padlock to secure gauges to licensee’s arguments are as follows: vehicles. The licensee stated that it was V unaware of the previous violation until The Licensee may request a hearing Restatement of the Violation in Part I of the NRC’s letter of November 24, 1999, Notice within 30 days of the date of this Order. transmitting the Notice. Furthermore, the Where good cause is shown, 10 CFR 20.1801 requires the licensee to licensee asserts that the prior violation, as consideration will be given to extending secure from unauthorized removal or access recalled by the former owner of the company, licensed materials that are stored in the time to request a hearing. A request related to a case padlock, not to stolen controlled or unrestricted areas. 10 CFR equipment. Based on this, the licensee for extension of time must be made in 20.1802 requires the licensee to control and writing to the Director, Office of requested that the violation be considered a maintain constant surveillance of licensed first time offense and not a recurring one. Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory material that is in a controlled or unrestricted The licensee also disagreed with the area and that is not in storage. As defined in Commission, Washington, DC 20555, finding that the transportation case for the 10 CFR 20.1003, controlled area means an and include a statement of good cause stolen gauge contained the gauge key, as area, outside of a restricted area but inside for the extension. A request for a stated in NRC’s November 24, 1999, cover hearing should be clearly marked as a the site boundary, access to which can be limited by the licensee for any reason; letter forwarding the Notice. The licensee ‘‘Request for an Enforcement Hearing’’ unrestricted area means an area, access to stated that, during the inspection, the NRC and shall be submitted to the Secretary, which is neither limited nor controlled by inspector found keys inside an envelope in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the licensee. the transportation case which belonged to a ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Contrary to the above, on June 4, 1999, the gauge in storage. The licensee further Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies licensee failed to secure from unauthorized explained that keys are normally stored in also shall be sent to the Director, Office removal or limit access to a moisture/density the transportation cases of ‘‘out of service’’ of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory portable nuclear gauge containing gauges to ensure that the keys travel with the Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to approximately 10 millicuries of cesium-137 gauges when they are shipped for service, as and 50 millicuries of americium-241 in a opposed to gauges being used in the field, the Assistant General Counsel for vehicle while at a temporary job site, which which did not have keys with them. The Materials Litigation and Enforcement at is an unrestricted area, nor did the licensee licensee stated that on the day of the NRC the same address, and to the Regional control and maintain constant surveillance of inspection, the transportation case of the Administrator, NRC Region II, U.S. this licensed material. As a result, the gauge gauge returning from the field did not Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 61 was stolen. contain its key. Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, Summary of Licensee’s Response to the NRC Evaluation of Licensee’s Request for GA 30303. Violation in Part I of the Notice Mitigation If a hearing is requested, the In response to the violation, the licensee In accordance with Section VI.B.2. of the Commission will issue an Order stated that on June 4, 1999, the technician designating the time and place of the Enforcement Policy, when activities under did not abandon or leave the gauge. The the license have been the subject of any hearing. If the Licensee fails to request licensee further stated that after completing escalated enforcement action within the last a hearing within 30 days of the date of density tests, the technician secured the two inspections, the NRC considers whether this Order (or if written approval of an gauge to the bed of the pick up truck with credit is warranted for identification or only a stabilization belt. The licensee stated extension of time in which to request a corrective action in assessing the amount of that the case was not secured to the vehicle hearing has not been granted), the the civil penalty. In this case, because the with a chain and padlock because the provisions of this Order shall be activities under the license had been the technician was discussing work with the effective without further proceedings. If project manager at a distance of 300–400 feet subject of escalated enforcement action payment has not been made by that from the gauge. The licensee admitted the within the last two inspections, the NRC time, the matter may be referred to the technician’s mistake, but indicated that it applied these factors in assessing the amount Attorney General for collection. was not a typical situation during operations of the civil penalty. In the event the Licensee requests a and that the gauge was not abandoned. Although the licensee stated that it was hearing as provided above, the issues to unaware of the previous violation until NRC Evaluation of Licensee’s Response to NRC’s letter of November 24, 1999, be considered at such hearing shall be: the Violation in Part I of the Notice transmitting the Notice, as part of the (a) whether the Licensee was in Regarding the regulatory basis for the application, the licensee submitted a letter violation of the Commission’s violation of 10 CFR 20.1801 and 20.1802, the dated August 19, 1997, which stated that the requirements as set forth in Part I of the technician’s presence at a distance of 300– new owner agreed with all constraints, Notice referenced in Section II above, 400 feet from the gauge was, in this case, conditions requirements, representations and and unacceptable for maintaining adequate commitments identified in the existing
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Non-Radiological Environmental generating electricity at LaSalle, Units 1 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Assessment and 2, nor the methods of handling Anthony J. Mendiola, The licensee reviewed the non- effluents from the environment or Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, radiological environmental impacts of effluents to the environment. No Division of Licensing Project Management, power uprate based on information changes to land use would result and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. submitted in the Environmental the proposed action does not involve [FR Doc. 00–9961 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Report—Operating License Stage to any historic sites. Therefore, no new or BILLING CODE 7590±01±P support original licensing of LaSalle, different types of non-radiological Units 1 and 2, the Final Environmental environmental impacts are expected. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Protection Statement (NUREG–0486), Accordingly, the Commission concludes COMMISSION the requirements of the Environmental that there are no significant non- Protection Plan and the National radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Advisory Committee on Reactor Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Safeguards; Meeting Notice (NPDES) Permit. The proposed power Alternatives to the Proposed Action uprate will not affect compliance with In accordance with the purposes of NPDES requirements. As an alternative to the proposed Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic As a result of power uprate to 105 action, the staff considered denial of the Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the percent of current licensed core power, proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ Advisory Committee on Reactor normal heat loads to the cooling lake alternative). Denial of the application Safeguards will hold a meeting on May will increase primarily from an increase would result in no significant change in 11–13, 2000, in Conference Room T– in heat load from the condenser and current environmental impacts and 2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, from other increased heat loads rejected would reduce the operational flexibility. Maryland. The date of this meeting was by the plant service water system. An The environmental impacts of the previously published in the Federal increase in steam and condensate flow proposed action and the alternative Register on Thursday, October 14, 1999 will result in a corresponding increase action are similar. (64 FR 55787). in the net heat rejection to the cooling Alternative Use of Resources Thursday, May 11, 2000 lake. Based on a condenser backpressure of 3.5 inches Hga, a 1 degree Fahrenheit This action does not involve the use 8:30 A.M.–8:35 A.M.: Opening rise in circulating water temperature is of any resources not previously Remarks by the ACRS Chairman expected relative to the current considered in the Final Environmental (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make temperature rise value of approximately Statement for LaSalle County Station, opening remarks regarding the conduct 24 degrees Fahrenheit. This, in turn, Units 1 and 2. of the meeting. will raise cooling lake temperature, 8:35 A.M.–10 A.M.: Initiatives Related Agencies and Persons Consulted thus, increasing circulating water inlet to Risk-Informed Technical temperature to the condenser. The lake In accordance with its stated policy, Specifications (Open)—The Committee is expected to experience a 0.4 degree on March 23, 2000, the staff consulted will hear presentations by and hold increase in temperature on a long-term with the Illinois State official, Mr. Frank discussions with representatives of the basis. Based on this minimal Nizeolik of the Illinois Department of NRC staff and industry groups regarding temperature rise, thermal shock to the Nuclear Safety, regarding the initiatives related to risk-informed fish population of the lake is not environmental impact of the proposed technical specifications, initial industry expected. The effect on lake action. The State official had no submittals on risk-informed technical evaporation, makeup, and blowdown comments. specifications, and related matters. was evaluated and found to be 10:15 A.M.–11:45 A.M.: Potential acceptable. The effect on cooling lake Finding of No Significant Impact Revisions to the Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Acceptance Criterion total dissolved solids was determined to Based upon the environmental (Open)—The Committee will hear remain within the licensee’s assessment, the Commission concludes presentations by and hold discussions administrative limit of 750 ppm. that the proposed action will not have with representatives of the NRC staff The LaSalle cooling lake discharges a significant effect on the quality of the regarding a draft Commission Paper that into the Illinois River. ComEd evaluated human environment. Accordingly, the describes potential revisions to the PTS the effects of power uprate on the Commission has determined not to acceptance criterion. temperature of the water in the river in prepare an environmental impact 12:45 P.M.–2:15 P.M.: Proposed the vicinity of the cooling lake statement for the proposed action. blowdown and concluded that Revision to Regulatory Guide 1.174, ‘‘An significant margin exists between the For further details with respect to the Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk maximum expected edge of mixing zone proposed action, see the licensee’s letter Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions temperature and imposed regulatory dated July 14, 1999, as supplemented on on Plant-Specific Changes to the limits. January 21, February 15, February 23, Licensing Basis’’ (Open)—The ComEd also evaluated the noise March 10, March 24, March 31, and Committee will hear presentations by effects due to operation at uprated April 7, 2000, which are available for and hold discussions with power and determined that, because the public inspection at the Commission’s representatives of the NRC staff turbine and reactor building supply and Public Document Room, The Gelman regarding proposed revisions to exhaust fans will continue to operate at Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Regulatory Guide 1.174 and associated current speeds and noise levels at Washington, DC, and accessible guidance on the use of risk information uprated conditions, the overall noise electronically through the ADAMS in license amendment reviews. level will not increase. Public Electronic Reading Room link at 2:30 P.M.–4:00 P.M.: Proposed With regard to potential non- the NRC Web site ((http://www.nrc.gov) Regulatory Guide and Standard Review radiological impacts, the proposed Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day Plan (SRP) Section Associated with NRC action does not change the method of of April 2000. Code Reviews (Open)—The Committee
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION this disaster may be filed until the close Delegation of Authority of October 19, of business on June 6, 2000, and for 1999, I hereby determine that the objects [Declaration of Disaster #3251] loans for economic injury until the close to be included in the exhibition ‘‘Spirits of the Water: Art from Alaska and State of California of business on January 8, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally British Columbia,’’ imported from San Mateo County and the contiguous announced locations: U.S. Small abroad for the temporary exhibition counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara, Business Administration, Disaster Area without profit within the United States, and Santa Cruz in the State of California 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite are of cultural significance. These constitute a disaster area as a result of 102, Fort Worth, TX 76155. objects are in addition to the subject severe winter storms that occurred In addition, applications for economic objects of a notice concerning this during the month of February, 2000, and injury loans from small businesses exhibit published under Public Notice caused debris flows and landslides. located in the following contiguous 3268, 65 FR 16684 (March 29, 2000) and Applications for loans for physical counties in Texas may be filed until the are imported pursuant to a loan damage as a result of this disaster may specified date at the above location: agreement with Russian lenders. I also be filed until the close of business on Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Parker, determine that the exhibition or display June 12, 2000 and for economic injury and Wise. of the exhibit objects at the Menil until the close of business on January The interest rates are: Collection, Houston, Texas, from on or 16, 2001 at the address listed below or about May 5, 2000 to on or about August other locally announced locations: U.S. Percent 13, 2000 is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is Small Business Administration, Disaster For Physical Damage: Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 13795, ordered to be published in the Federal Homeowners with credit Register. Sacramento, CA 95853–4795. available elsewhere ...... 7.625 The interest rates are: Homeowners without credit FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For available elsewhere ...... 3.812 further information, including a list of Percent Businesses with credit avail- exhibit objects, contact Carol Epstein, able elsewhere ...... 8.000 Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal For Physical Damage: Businesses and non-profit or- Adviser, U.S. Department of State Homeowners with credit ganizations without credit (telephone: 202/619–6981). The address available elsewhere ...... 7.625 available elsewhere ...... 4.000 is U.S. Department of State, SA–44; Homeowners without credit Others (including non-profit available elsewhere ...... 3.812 301–4th Street, SW., Room 700, organizations) with credit Washington, DC 20547–0001. Businesses with credit avail- available elsewhere ...... 6.750 able elsewhere ...... 8.000 For Economic Injury: Dated: April 12, 2000. Businesses and non-profit or- Businesses and small agricul- William B. Bader, ganizations without credit tural cooperatives without Assistant Secretary for Educational and available elsewhere ...... 4.000 credit available elsewhere 4.000 Cultural Affairs, Department of State. Others (including non-profit [FR Doc. 00–10022 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] organizations) with credit The number assigned to this disaster available elsewhere ...... 6.750 for physical damage is 325012 and for BILLING CODE 4710±08±U For Economic Injury: Businesses and small agricul- economic injury the number is 9H0900. tural cooperatives without (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION credit available elsewhere 4.000 Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Dated: April 13, 2000. Federal Aviation Administration The numbers assigned to this disaster James E. Rivera, are 325111 for physical damage and Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Proposed Finding of No Significant 9H1000 for economic injury. Assistance. Impact (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance [FR Doc. 00–10020 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Federal Aviation Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) BILLING CODE 8025±01±U Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). Dated: April 13, 2000. ACTION: Proposed Finding of No Aida Alvarez, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Significant Impact. Administrator. [FR Doc. 00–10019 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] [Public Notice 3275] SUMMARY: The FAA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) BILLING CODE 8025±01±U Amendment to Culturally Significant evaluating Kistler Aerospace Objects Imported for Exhibition Corporation’s proposal to construct and Determinations: ``Spirits of the Water: SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION operate commercial launch and reentry/ Art From Alaska and British Columbia'' recovery facilities at the Nevada Test [Declaration of Disaster #3250] AGENCY: Department of State. Site (NTS) on land withdrawn from the State of Texas ACTION: Notice. public domain for use by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). After As a result of the President’s major SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the reviewing and analyzing currently disaster declaration on April 7, 2000, I following determinations: Pursuant to available data and information on find that Tarrant County, Texas the authority vested in me by the Act of existing conditions, project impacts, and constitutes a disaster area due to October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. measures to mitigate those impacts, the damages caused by severe storms, 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), tornadoes, and flooding that occurred Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. office of the Associate Administrator for March 28–29, 2000. Applications for 2681, et seq.), Delegation of Authority Commercial Space Transportation (AST) loans for physical damage as a result of No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and proposes to determine that licensing of
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Although the K–1 emits more CO2 than fireworks and have no significant Wildlife the Titan IIIE/Centaur, emissions are impact on surrounding communities. Potential impacts to wildlife from still less than those expected to produce Socioeconomic and Environmental construction activities would result in a detectable changes in the upper Justice permanent loss of available habitat and atmosphere. The PEA ELV states that possible degradation of adjacent habitats The proposed action is expected to launch emissions of H2O and CO2 for due to an increase in noise and human create an average of 85 direct full-time the Titan IIIE/Centaur vehicle appear to activity. The habitat loss is not expected jobs and 28 direct part-time jobs during be considerably lower than those to adversely affect the local or regional construction and 90 direct full-time and expected to cause significant impacts in diversity of animal species or 28 direct part-time jobs during normal the upper atmosphere. Based on the populations. comparison of emissions with the Titan operation. Of the total projected Day-to-day operations would not IIIE/Centaur, Kistler launches are not increase in workers, the majority is extend beyond the developed areas and expected to significantly impact the expected to live in the Las Vegas, Clark would not be expected to cause a upper atmosphere. Landing and County area. Positive impacts to the disturbance to animals inhabiting the recovery operations and general local economy are expected as a result adjacent areas. Although the Kistler maintenance of the vehicle processing of the proposed action. In addition, no facilities would be located outside the facility and launch/reentry site are disproportionate effects on known habitat of the desert tortoise, the expected to generate negligible economically disadvantaged or minority desert tortoise does exist on the NTS. emissions in comparison to groups are anticipated as a result of the The desert tortoise is listed as construction, pre-flight, launch, and proposed action. threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife recovery activities. Impacts to air Visual Resources Service. Kistler employees would quality from the proposed activities are Visual resources are analyzed with receive desert tortoise protective expected to be insignificant. respect to intensity and context. Kistler training as mandated for all NTS actions are classified as either ‘‘not employees. Noise Noise generated by vehicle launches noticeable’’ or ‘‘visually subordinate.’’ inside the NTS, including sonic booms, Noise impacts would occur during The nearest vantage point is the main could cause a startle response and construction, launch of the vehicle, and highway, U.S. 95, more than 45 km from temporary hearing impairment to birds vehicle reentry. Construction activities Kistler facilities. Several ridges of hills and mammals. These impacts are not and traffic noise would temporarily obscure the view from this route. Kistler expected to affect the viability or increase the ambient noise levels. activities would not be visible to the diversity of the wildlife population at Workers would wear protective hearing general public. Thus, there are no the site. Wildlife is not expected to be equipment in accordance with expected impacts to visual resources. Occupational Safety and Health adversely affected by Kistler launch/ Administration (OSHA) regulations. The Biological Resources reentry activities. general public would not be in the Vegetation Water Resources immediate vicinity of the construction site. The closest public access is more Construction of the proposed Kistler Residues from processing and launch than 32 km from the vehicle processing facilities would result in surface operations would be eliminated using facility and launch site and more than clearing of vegetation from an area existing drainage systems. Evaporation 24 km from the landing and recovery totaling 671 acres. The loss of exceeds precipitation in the area, so area. Maximum predicted construction vegetation, as a result of clearing, would there would be little downward noise levels at 24 km would be less than represent approximately 0.008 percent migration of residue contaminants into 40 dBA, which would be undetectable of the total Artemesia Type vegetation groundwater. Spills of fuel or other on the NTS. Therefore, loss is not with normal daytime ambient noise materials used on-site during daily expected to adversely affect local or levels. Therefore, adverse impacts to the operations would be contained and regional diversity of plants and plant general public and construction workers cleaned up and any residue properly communities. disposed. Therefore, no adverse impacts as a result of construction noise are not Areas for ground based operations at expected. to surface and groundwater are expected the payload processing facility (8 acres) from the proposed launch/reentry Noise impacts during launch of and launch site (14 acres) would be operations. operational flights consist of the cleared as part of construction activities. reusable launch vehicle’s engine noise. Buildings or pavement would cover Geology and Soils Predicted noise levels are well within both operational areas. The reentry, Kistler facilities would be constructed occupational operating parameters for landing, and recovery area would be on the ground surface or near the facility work (i.e., only during the first impacted but would be permitted to re- surface. Channels and berms would be 18 seconds after the launch would vegetate naturally with herbaceous constructed to minimize soil erosion. workers in the vehicle processing vegetation. Operation of the launch facilities is not facility need hearing protection with Launch emissions may damage or expected to affect subsurface geological predictions of 106 dBA). Noise levels at destroy vegetation due to high media. Surface soils may show a slight the closest public access (about 32 km) temperature exhaust and small amounts increase in pH, augmenting nutrient are estimated to be below 77 dBA. Off- of corrosive HCl exhaust gas. Deposition uptake by vegetation. Thus, geology and site locations would experience no of greater than 1.0 gram per square soils are not expected to be adversely significant launch noise impacts. meter of HCl is necessary to cause impacted. Sonic booms would be generated vegetative damage; the K–1 launch during the vehicle ascent and the vehicle would deposit about 0.009 Cultural and Native American reentry stages descent to the landing grams per square meter over an area of Resources and recovery area. Sonic boom levels 0.26 square kilometers. Therefore, A cultural resources reconnaissance generated outside NTS boundaries adverse impacts to vegetation from HCl of the proposed vehicle processing would resemble distant thunder or deposition are expected to be negligible. facility did not identify historic
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Administration, Room 5401, 400 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC National Highway Traffic Safety 20590, Fax Number 202–366–4329, e- Surface Transportation Board Administration mail [email protected]. The meeting will be held at the NHTSA’s Research [Docket NHTSA±99±5087] [STB Docket No. AB±33 (Sub±No. 152X)] and Development, Vehicle Research and Safety Performance Standards Test Center, P.O. Box 37, East Liberty, Union Pacific Railroad CompanyÐ Program Meeting. Ohio 43319. Directions to the VRTC, as Abandonment ExemptionÐin Orange well as this Federal Register notice will County, TX AGENCY: National Highway Traffic be also available on NHTSA’s web site Safety Administration, DOT. (www.nhtsa.dot.gov). Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) ACTION: Notice of NHTSA rulemaking FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: has filed a notice of exemption under 49 status meeting. Delia Lopez, (202) 366–1810. CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA Abandonments and Discontinuances of SUMMARY: This notice announces a holds a regular, quarterly meeting to Service and Trackage Rights to abandon public meeting at which NHTSA will answer questions from the public and a 0.75-mile portion of the Orange answer questions from the public and the regulated industries regarding the Industrial Lead from milepost 486.75 to the automobile industry regarding the agency’s vehicle regulatory program. milepost 487.5 near Kilowatt, in Orange agency’s vehicle regulatory program. Questions on aspects of the agency’s County, TX. The line traverses United DATES: The Agency’s regular, quarterly research and development activities that States Postal Service Zip Code 77630. public meeting relating to its vehicle relate directly to ongoing regulatory UP has certified that: (1) No local regulatory program will be held on actions should be submitted, as in the traffic has moved over the line for at Thursday, June 15, 2000, beginning at past, to the agency’s Safety Performance least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead 9:45 a.m. and ending at approximately Standards Office. The purpose of this traffic moving over the line; (3) no 12:00 p.m. at the Vehicle Research and meeting is to focus on those phases of formal complaint filed by a user of rail Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, NHTSA activities which are technical, service on the line (or by a state or local Ohio. Questions relating to the vehicle interpretative or procedural in nature. government entity acting on behalf of regulatory program must be submitted Transcripts of these meetings will be such user) regarding cessation of service in writing with a diskette (Wordperfect) available for public inspection in the over the line either is pending with the by Wednesday, May 24, 2000, to the DOT Docket in Washington, DC, within Surface Transportation Board (Board) or address shown below or by e-mail. If four weeks after the meeting. Copies of with any U.S. District Court or has been sufficient time is available, questions the transcript will then be available at decided in favor of complainant within received after May 24, may be answered ten cents a page, (length has varied from at the meeting. The individual, group or the 2-year period; and (4) the 80 to 150 pages) upon request to DOT requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 company submitting a questions(s) does Docket, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh not have to be present for the (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 questions(s) to be answered. A DOT Docket is open to the public from consolidated list of the questions (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The transcript (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR submitted by May 24, 2000, and the may also be accessed electronically at issues to be discussed, will be posted on 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental http://dms.dot.gov.at docket NHTSA– agencies) have been met. NHTSA’s web site (www.nhtsa.dot.gov) 99–5087. Questions to be answered at by Monday, June 12, 2000, and also will the quarterly meeting should be As a condition to this exemption, any be available at the meeting. The agency organized by categories to help us employee adversely affected by the will hold a second public meeting on process the questions into an agenda abandonment and discontinuance shall June 15, devoted exclusively to a form more efficiently. Sample format: be protected under Oregon Short Line R. presentation of research and Co.— Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I. RULEMAKING development programs. This meeting I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this A. Crash avoidance will begin at 1:30 p.m. and end at condition adequately protects affected B. Crashworthiness approximately 5:00 p.m. employees, a petition for partial C. Other Rulemakings revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) This meeting is described more fully II. CONSUMER INFORMATION must be filed. Provided no formal in a separate announcement. VRTC is III. MISCELLANEOUS gathering a list of names who will be expression of intent to file an offer of attending the June 15, NHTSA Public NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids to financial assistance (OFA) has been Meeting, to expedite clearance into the participants as necessary. Any person received, this exemption will be test facility. Those of you who are desiring assistance of ‘‘auxiliary aids’’ effective on May 23, 2000, unless stayed attending the NHTSA Public Meeting (e.g., sign-language interpreter, pending reconsideration. Petitions to should contact Susie Weiser at 937– telecommunications devices for deaf stay that do not involve environmental 666–4511 by C.O.B. June 13, 2000. The persons (TDDs), readers, taped texts, issues,1 formal expressions of intent to next NHTSA Public Meeting will take brailled materials, or large print file an OFA under 49 CFR place on Thursday, September 14, 2000, materials and/or a magnifying device), please contact Delia Lopez on (202) at the Tysons Westpark Hotel, 8401 1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed Westpark Drive, in McLean, VA. 366–1810, by COB June 12, 2000. decision on environmental issues (whether raised Issued: April 18, 2000. by a party or by the Board’s Section of ADDRESSES: Questions for the June 15, Environmental Analysis in its independent NHTSA Rulemaking Status Meeting, Stephen R. Kratzke, investigation) cannot be made before the relating to the agency’s vehicle Acting Associate Administrator for Safety exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Out- Performance Standards. of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any regulatory program, should be request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible submitted to Delia Lopez, NPS–01, [FR Doc. 00–9983 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] so that the Board may take appropriate action before National Highway Traffic Safety BILLING CODE 4910±59±P the exemption’s effective date.
VerDate 18
1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by May 1, 2000. Petitions to reopen filed by May 1, 2000. Petitions to reopen Surface Transportation Board or requests for public use conditions or requests for public use conditions [STB Docket No. AB±55 (Sub±No. 578X)] under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by May 11, 2000, with the Surface May 11, 2000, with: Surface CSX Transportation, Inc.Ð Transportation Board, Office of the Transportation Board, Office of the Abandonment ExemptionÐin Clark Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K County, IN Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423– Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423. CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) has 0001. A copy of any petition filed with the filed a verified notice of exemption A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicant’s under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt Board should be sent to applicant’s representative: James P. Gatlin, General Abandonments to abandon its line of representative: Natalie S. Rosenberg, Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad railroad between milepost B–40.34 and Esq., CSX Transportation, Inc., 500 Company, 1416 Dodge Street, Room milepost B–40.60, a distance of Water Street, J150, Jacksonville, FL 830, Omaha, NE 68179. approximately .26 miles, at 32202. If the verified notice contains Charlestown, in Clark County, IN (line). If the verified notice contains false or false or misleading information, the The line traverses United States Postal misleading information, the exemption exemption is void ab initio. Service Zip Code 47111. is void ab initio. CSXT has certified that: (1) No local CSXT has filed an environmental UP has filed an environmental report traffic has moved over the line for at report which addresses the which addresses the abandonment’s least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead abandonment’s effects, if any, on the effects, if any, on the environment and traffic on the line; (3) no formal environment and historic resources. The historic resources. The Section of complaint filed by a user of rail service Section of Environmental Analysis Environmental Analysis (SEA) will on the line (or state or local government (SEA) will issue an environmental issue an environmental assessment (EA) agency acting on behalf of such user) assessment (EA) by April 26, 2000. by April 26, 2000. Interested persons regarding cessation of service over the Interested persons may obtain a copy of may obtain a copy of the EA by writing line is either pending with the Surface the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board (Board) or any Surface Transportation Board, Transportation Board, Washington, DC U.S. District Court or has been decided Washington, DC 20423–0001) or by 20423) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565– in favor of complainant within the 2- calling SEA, at (202) 565–1545. 1545. Comments on environmental and year period; and (4) the requirements at Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), historic preservation matters must be 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR filed within 15 days after the EA filed within 15 days after the EA 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR becomes available to the public. becomes available to the public. 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and Environmental, historic preservation, 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking governmental agencies) have been met. public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where As a condition to this exemption, any conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. employee adversely affected by the appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR abandonment shall be protected under Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of Oregon Short Line R. Co.— 1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 consummation with the Board to signify (1979). To address whether this that it has exercised the authority that it has exercised the authority condition adequately protects affected granted and fully abandoned its line. If granted and fully abandoned the line. If employees, a petition for partial consummation has not been effected by consummation has not been effected by revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) UP’s filing of a notice of consummation CSXT’s filing of a notice of must be filed. Provided no formal consummation by April 21, 2001, and by April 21, 2001, and there are no legal expression of intent to file an offer of or regulatory barriers to consummation, there are no legal or regulatory barriers financial assistance (OFA) has been to consummation, the authority to the authority to abandon will received, this exemption will be abandon will automatically expire. automatically expire. effective on May 23, 2000, unless stayed Board decisions and notices are pending reconsideration. Petitions to Board decisions and notices are available on our website at stay that do not involve environmental available on our website at ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ issues,1 formal expressions of intent to ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ file an OFA under 49 CFR Decided: April 14, 2000. Decided: April 13, 2000. 1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking By the Board, David M. Konschnik, By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Director, Office of Proceedings. 1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed Vernon A. Williams, decision on environmental issues (whether raised Vernon A. Williams, by a party or by the Board’s Section of Secretary. Secretary. Environmental Analysis in its independent [FR Doc. 00–9986 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] investigation) cannot be made before the [FR Doc. 00–9985 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Out- BILLING CODE 4915±00±P BILLING CODE 4915±00±P of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption’s effective date. 2 Each offer of financial assistance must be 2 Each offer of financial assistance must be accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is set at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). set at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).
VerDate 18
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION discontinuance procedures may contact 91 (1979). To address whether this the Board’s Office of Public Services at condition adequately protects affected Surface Transportation Board (202) 565–1592 or refer to the full employees, a petition for partial [STB Docket No. AB±566X] abandonment or discontinuance revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. must be filed. Provided no formal Gateway Western Railway CompanyÐ Questions concerning environmental expression of intent to file an offer of Discontinuance of Service issues may be directed to the Board’s financial assistance (OFA) has been ExemptionÐin Jackson County, MO Section of Environmental Analysis received, this exemption will be (SEA) at (202) 565–1545. [TDD for the effective on May 23, 2000, unless stayed On April 3, 2000, Gateway Western hearing impaired is available at 1–800– pending reconsideration. Petitions to Railway Company (Gateway) filed with 877–8339.] stay that do not involve environmental the Surface Transportation Board Board decisions and notices are issues,1 formal expressions of intent to (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 available on our website at file an OFA under 49 CFR for exemption from the provisions of 49 ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ 1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking U.S.C. 10903 to discontinue service over Decided: April 12, 2000. requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be a 5.45-mile line of railroad, known as filed by May 1, 2000. Petitions to reopen the Coburg Line, extending from By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. or requests for public use conditions milepost 0.0 at Sheffield Interlocking to under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by Vernon A. Williams, milepost 5.45 near BV Junction, in May 11, 2000, with: Surface 1 Jackson County, MO. The line traverses Secretary. Transportation Board, Office of the U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 64125, [FR Doc. 00–9811 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K 64126, and 64129. There are no stations BILLING CODE 4915±00±P Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423. on the line. A copy of any petition filed with the Because Gateway is not the owner of Board should be sent to applicant’s the line, it states that it does not know DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION representative: James P. Gatlin, General whether the line contains federally Surface Transportation Board Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad granted rights-of-way. Any Company, 1416 Dodge Street, Room documentation in Gateway’s possession [STB Docket No. AB±33 (Sub±No. 151X)] 830, Omaha, NE 68179. will be made available promptly to If the verified notice contains false or those requesting it. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyÐ misleading information, the exemption The interest of railroad employees Abandonment ExemptionÐin Franklin is void ab initio. will be protected by the conditions set County, IA UP has filed an environmental report forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.— which addresses the effects, if any, of Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 the abandonment and discontinuance has filed a notice of exemption under 49 (1979). on the environment and historic CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt By issuance of this notice, the Board resources. The Section of Environmental Abandonments and Discontinuances of is instituting an exemption proceeding Analysis (SEA) will issue an Service and Trackage Rights to abandon pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final environmental assessment (EA) by April a 0.44-mile line of railroad over the decision will be issued by July 21, 2000. 26, 2000. Interested persons may obtain Sheffield Industrial Lead from milepost Any offer of financial assistance to a copy of the EA by writing to SEA 184.31 to milepost 184.75 near subsidize continued rail service under (Room 500, Surface Transportation Hampton, in Franklin County, IA. The 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no Board, Washington, DC 20423) or by line traverses United States Postal later than 10 days after service of a calling SEA, at (202) 565–1545. Service Zip Code 50441. decision granting the petition for Comments on environmental and UP has certified that: (1) No local exemption. Each offer must be historic preservation matters must be traffic has moved over the line for at accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee. See filed within 15 days after the EA least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). becomes available to the public. This proceeding is exempt from traffic moving over the line; (3) no Environmental, historic preservation, environmental reporting requirements formal complaint filed by a user of rail public use, or trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from service on the line (or by a state or local conditions will be imposed, where historic reporting requirements under government entity acting on behalf of appropriate, in a subsequent decision. 1105.8(b). such user) regarding cessation of service Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR All filings in response to this notice over the line either is pending with the 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of must refer to STB Docket No. AB–566X Surface Transportation Board (Board) or consummation with the Board to signify and must be sent to: (1) Surface with any U.S. District Court or has been that it has exercised the authority Transportation Board, Office of the decided in favor of complainant within granted and fully abandoned its line. If Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K the 2-year period; and (4) the consummation has not been effected by Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423– requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 0001; and (2) William A. Mullins, (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed Troutman Sanders LLP, 1300 I Street, (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 decision on environmental issues (whether raised N.W., Washington, DC 20005. Replies (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 by a party or by the Board’s Section of are due May 11, 2000. (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR Environmental Analysis in its independent Persons seeking further information investigation) cannot be made before the 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Out- concerning abandonment and agencies) have been met. of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any As a condition to this exemption, any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible 1 The line is owned by The Burlington Northern employee adversely affected by the so that the Board may take appropriate action before and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and was the exemption’s effective date. operated under lease by Gateway. The lease expired abandonment and discontinuance shall 2 Each offer of financial assistance must be on July 31, 1999, and BNSF resumed service on the be protected under Oregon Short Line R. accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is line. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. set at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).
VerDate 18
UP’s filing of a notice of consummation In addition, bonds that are continuous A Certificate of Authority as an by April 21, 2001, and there are no legal in nature should not be renewed. acceptable surety on Federal bonds, or regulatory barriers to consummation, The Circular may be viewed and dated today, is hereby issued under the authority to abandon will downloaded through the Internet at Sections 9304 to 9308 of Title 31 of the automatically expire. http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/ United States Code, to Minnesota Surety Board decisions and notices are index.html. A hard copy may be and Trust Company, Austin, Minnesota. available on our website at purchased from the Government This new Certificate replaces the ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Certificate of Authority issued to the Decided: April 7, 2000. Service, Washington, DC, telephone Company under its former name. The (202) 512–1800. When ordering the By the Board, David M. Konschnik, underwriting limitation of $166,000 Director, Office of Proceedings. Circular from GPO, use the following established for the Company as of July stock number: 048000–00527–6. Vernon A. Williams, 1, 1999, remains unchanged until June Questions concerning this notice may 30, 2000. Secretary. be directed to the U.S. Department of [FR Doc. 00–9244 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Certificates of Authority expire on the Treasury, Financial Management June 30, each year, unless revoked prior BILLING CODE 4915±00±P Service, Financial Accounting and to that date. The Certificates are subject Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, to subsequent annual renewal as long as 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, the Company remains qualified (31 CFR, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Hyattsville, MD 20782. Part 223). A list of qualified companies Fiscal Service Dated: March 31, 2000. is published annually as of July 1, in the Wanda J. Rogers, Department Circular 570, which Surety Companies Acceptable on Director, Financial Accounting and Services outlines details as to underwriting Federal Bonds: TerminationÐChatham Division, Financial Management Service. limitations, areas in which licensed to Reinsurance Corporation [FR Doc. 00–10000 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] transact surety business and other BILLING CODE 4810±35±M information. Federal bond-approving AGENCY: Financial Management Service, officers should annotate their reference Fiscal Service, Department of the copies of the Treasury Circular 570, Treasury. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1999 Revision, at page 35882 to reflect ACTION: Notice. this change. Fiscal Service The Circular may be viewed and SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 19 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; Surety Companies Acceptable on downloaded through the Internet at 1999 Revision, published July 1, 1999, Federal Bonds: Name ChangeÐ http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/ at 64 FR 35864. Minnesota Trust Company of Austin index.html. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6779. Fiscal Service, Department of the Service, Washington, DC, telephone SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Treasury. (202) 512–1800. When ordering the hereby given that the Certificate of ACTION: Notice. Circular from GPO, use the following Authority issued by the Treasury to the stock number: 048000–00527–6. above named Company, under the SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 20 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; Questions concerning this notice may United States Code, Title 31, Sections be directed to the U.S. Department of 9304–9308, to qualify as an acceptable 1999 Revision, published July 1, 1999, at 64 FR 35864. the Treasury, Financial Management surety on Federal bonds is terminated Service, Financial Accounting and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: effective today. Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6779. The Company was listed as an 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 64 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minnesota Hyattsville, MD 20782. FR on page 35870, July 1, 1999. Trust Company of Austin, a Minnesota With respect to any bonds currently Corporation, has formally changed its Dated: April 13, 2000. in force with above listed Company, name to Minnesota Surety and Trust Wanda J. Rogers, bond-approving officers should secure Company, effective January 1, 2000. The Director, Financial Accounting and Services new bonds with acceptable sureties in Company was last listed as an Division, Financial Management Service. those instances where a significant acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 64 [FR Doc. 00–10001 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] amount of liability remains outstanding. FR 35882, July 1, 1999. BILLING CODE 4810±35±M
VerDate 18
Corrections Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 78
Friday April 21, 2000
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains editorial corrections of previously published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule, and Notice documents. These corrections are prepared by the Office of the Federal Register. Agency prepared corrections are issued as signed documents and appear in the appropriate document categories elsewhere in the issue.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-506][A-201-504][A-583-508]
Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from China, Mexico, and Taiwan Correction In notice document 00–9374 beginning on page 20136 in the issue of Friday April 14, 2000, make the following correction: On page 20136, in the second column, in the EFFECTIVE DATE: section, ‘‘May 14, 2000’’ should read ‘‘April 14, 2000’’. [FR Doc. C0–9374 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505±01±D
VerDate 18
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 51 Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans (Guideline on Air Quality Models); Proposed Rule
VerDate 18
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. You transport modeling. Another AGENCY may send electronic versions of presentation, by the American comments pertinent to this proposal to: Meteorological Society (AMS)/EPA 40 CFR Part 51 A–AND–R–[email protected]. Regulatory Model Improvement [AH±FRL±6536±3] Alternatively, comments are acceptable Committee (AERMIC), covered in WordPerfect 6.1 (or higher), developing an enhanced Gaussian RIN 2060±AF01 preferably zipped (e.g., PKware) as an dispersion model with boundary layer attachment to the e-mail message. You parameterization: AERMOD 2. Also at Requirements for Preparation, must include the docket identification the 6th conference, the Electric Power Adoption, and Submittal of State (A–99–05) with all electronic Research Institute (EPRI) presented Implementation Plans (Guideline on Air submittals. You may file electronic recent research efforts to better define Quality Models) comments on this proposal online at and characterize dispersion around AGENCY: Environmental Protection many Federal Depository Libraries. buildings (downwash effects). These Agency (EPA). The hearing will be the main agenda efforts were part of a program called the for the 7th Conference on Air Quality ACTION: Proposed rule. Plume RIse Model Enhancements Modeling, and the location will be (PRIME), and PRIME is proposed for SUMMARY: EPA’s (Guideline on Air announced in a separate document integration within ISC3 (ISC–PRIME). Quality Models (Guideline) addresses published in the Federal Register. The presentations were followed by a the regulatory application of air quality FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: critical review/discussion of the models for assessing criteria pollutants Joseph A. Tikvart, Leader, Air Quality CALPUFF and AERMOD modeling under the Clean Air Act. In today’s Modeling Group (MD–14), Office of Air systems, facilitated jointly by the Air & action we propose to make several Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Waste Management Association’s AB–3 additions and changes to the Guideline. Environmental Protection Agency, Committee and the American We recommend two new dispersion Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; Meteorological Society’s Committee of models, AERMOD and CALPUFF, for telephone (919) 541–5561 or C. Thomas Meteorological Aspects of Air Pollution. adoption in appendix A of the Coulter, telephone (919) 541–0832. For the new and revised models Guideline. AERMOD would replace the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: described, we asked the public to Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) model address the following questions: Background in many assessments that now use it; • What is the scientific merit of the AERMOD also would apply to complex The Guideline is used by EPA, States, models presented? terrain. CALPUFF would become a and industry to prepare and review new • What is their accuracy? recommended technique for assessing source permits and State • What should be the regulatory use long-range transport of pollutants and Implementation Plan revisions. The of individual models for specific their impacts on Federal Class I areas. Guideline is intended to ensure applications? • We revise two existing models: ISC3, by consistent air quality analyses for What implementation issues are incorporating a new downwash activities regulated at 40 CFR 51.112, apparent and what additional guidance algorithm (PRIME) and renaming the 51.117, 51.150, 51.160, 51.166, and is needed? • model ISC–PRIME, and the Emissions 52.21. We originally published the What are the resource requirements Guideline in April 1978 and it was of modeling systems presented? Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), • by incorporating improved emissions incorporated by reference in the What additional information or and dispersion modules. We make regulations for the Prevention of analyses are needed? various editorial changes to update and Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air We placed a transcript of the 6th reorganize information, and remove Quality in June 1978. We revised the conference proceedings and a copy of obsolete models (CDM, RAM and UAM). Guideline in 1986, and updated it with all written comments in Docket AQM– 95–01. Answers to the above questions DATES: The period for comment on these supplement A in 1987, supplement B in July 1993, and supplement C in August are reflected in the comments, which we proposed changes to the Guideline reviewed and summarized (II–G–01). To closes on July 20, 2000. We plan to hold 1995. We published the Guideline as appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 when we the extent possible, we believe we have a public hearing on the proposed addressed the main concerns in the changes in Summer 2000. The specific issued supplement B. We republished the Guideline in August 1996 (61 FR refinements proposed today, which date and time will be announced in a focus on the two new modeling systems, separate document published in the 41838) to adopt the CFR system for labeling paragraphs. as well as the enhancement of ISC3 with Federal Register. EPRI’s PRIME downwash model (ISC– ADDRESSES: We have established an Air Quality Modeling Conference PRIME). official record for this rulemaking under We held the Sixth Conference on Air AERMOD docket number A–99–05. You may Quality Modeling (6th conference) in submit comments pertinent to this Washington, DC on August 9–10, 1995. AERMOD is a state-of-the-practice proposal to docket no. A–99–05 at the As required by Section 320 of the Clean Gaussian plume dispersion model following address: Air Docket (6102), Air Act, these conferences take place whose formulation is based on planetary Room M–1500, Waterside Mall, U.S. approximately every three years to boundary layer principles. At the 6th Environmental Protection Agency, 401 standardize modeling procedures. The conference, AERMIC members M Street, S.W., Washington, DC. 20460. sixth conference featured presentations presented interim developmental and This docket is available for public in several key modeling areas. One inspection and copying between 8 a.m. presentation, by the Interagency models for regulatory assessments of long range and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, transport of pollutant source impacts on federal Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling Class I areas. IWAQM is an interagency at the address above. Please furnish 1 (IWAQM ), covered long range collaboration that includes efforts by EPA, U.S. duplicate comments to Tom Coulter, Air Forest Service, National Park Service, and Fish and Quality Modeling Group (MD–14), U.S. 1 IWAQM was formed in 1991 to provide a focus Wildlife Service. Environmental Protection Agency, for development of technically sound air quality 2 AMS/EPA Regulatory MODel
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Clearinghouse and enhanced criteria for to reflect the Agency’s current thinking Section 7 the use of alternative models. on approaches for fine particulates (PM– For regional scale modeling, we Section 4 2.5). You will note that we removed the removed reference to the Regional references to the Climatological As mentioned earlier, we revised Oxidant Model (ROM) and the Regional Dispersion Model (CDM 2.0) as well as Acid Deposition Model (RADM) from section 4 to present AERMOD, ISC- to RAM from this section, and also PRIME, and CALPUFF as regulatory section 7 because they are outdated and deleted CDM and RAM from appendix replaced by a reference to Models-3 16 in modeling techniques for particular A (see below). applications. We revised section 4.2.2 to section 5. We enhanced the subsection • reflect the widespread use of short-term We enhanced the subsection on on visibility to reflect the provisions of models for all averaging periods. Hence, ozone to better reflect modeling the Clean Air Act, including those for we no longer reference long-term approaches we currently envision, and reasonable attribution of visibility models (e.g., ISCLT) in the Guideline.14 added a reference for current guidance impairment and regional haze, as well on ozone attainment demonstrations.15 as the new NAAQS for PM–2.5. For Section 5 You will note that we removed the assessment of reasonably attributable As mentioned above, we merged reference to the Urban Airshed Model haze impairment due to one or a small pertinent guidance in section 5 (UAM–IV) from this section, and group of sources, CALPUFF is available (Modeling in Complex Terrain) with deleted UAM from appendix A. UAM– for use on a case-by-case basis. We that in section 4. With the anticipated IV is no longer the recommended identify REMSAD and new approaches widespread use of AERMOD for all photochemical model for attainment under the Models-3 umbrella for terrain types, there is no longer any demonstrations for ozone. We believe possible use to develop and evaluate utility in the previous differentiation that it will frequently be necessary to national policy and assist State and between simple and complex terrain for consider the regional scale for such local control agencies. For long range model selection. To further simplify, the demonstrations and that, since the last transport analyses, we present and list of acceptable, yet equivalent, revision to appendix W, newer models recommend the CALPUFF modeling screening techniques for complex have become available. We invite system. To facilitate use of a complex terrain was removed. CTSCREEN and comment on the need to integrate ozone air quality and meteorological modeling system like CALPUFF, we stipulate that guidance for its use are retained; and fine particle impacts (i.e., the ‘‘one a written protocol may be considered for CTSCREEN remains acceptable for all atmosphere’’ approach). Are modeling developing consensus in the methods terrain above stack top. The screening tools and air program policies and procedures to be followed. Finally, techniques whose descriptions we sufficiently developed to provide in the subsection on air pathway removed, i.e., Valley (as implemented in guidance on an integrated approach at SCREEN3), COMPLEX I (as analyses, we identify the availability of this time? We also invite comments on AERMOD and removed specific implemented in ISC3), and RTDM whether specific validated tools have remain available for use in applicable reference to DEGADIS (other heavy gas been sufficiently developed to calculate models are also available on a case-by- cases where established/accepted impacts of individual point sources of procedures are used. Consultation with case basis). ozone and PM–2.5 precursor pollutants. the appropriate Regional Office is still Are there any models that can be Section 8 advised for application of these recommended for source-specific ozone screening models. We revised section 8 (renumbered to and PM–2.5 assessments? section 7) to better reflect our current Section 6 • We updated the subsection on regulatory practice for the general We revised section 6 (renumbered to carbon monoxide by removing reference modeling considerations addressed. section 5) to reflect the new PM–2.5 and to RAM. While UAM–IV is deleted from • In subsection 7.2.4, we introduce ozone ambient air quality standards that appendix A, reference to areawide the atmospheric stability were issued on July 18, 1997 (62 FR analyses is retained. For refined characterization for AERMOD. • 38652 & 62 FR 38856). Footnotes have intersection modeling, CAL3QHCR is In subsection 7.2.5, we describe the been inserted to provide caveats specifically mentioned for use on a case- plume rise approaches used by pertaining to the recent Court decision by-case basis. AERMOD and ISC–PRIME. to remand or vacate parts of these new • We revised subsection 7.2.6 to refer • In the subsection on NO models, standards. You will note that we 2 back to subsection 5.2.3 for details on we added a third tier for the screening inserted respective subsections for chemical transformation of NOX. particulate matter and lead from section approach that allows the use of the • We merged subsection 7.2.8 (Urban/ 7, so that section 5 now primarily ozone limiting method on a case-by-case Rural Classification) with subsection contains modeling guidance for the basis. You may recall that this approach 7.2.3 (Dispersion Coefficients). • criteria pollutants regulated in Part 51 was removed with the Guideline update We merged discussions in promulgated on August 9, 1995 (60 FR (SO2 analyses are covered in section 4). subsections 7.2.9 (Fumigation) and • We enhanced the subsection on 40465). 7.2.10 (Stagnation) into one new particulate matter as much as possible • In the subsection on lead, we subsection (Complex Winds), and deleted references to 40 CFR 51.83, identify the availability of CALPUFF for 14 Note that because Appendix W is designed to 51.84, and 51.85, conforming to certain situations on a case-by-case guide assessments for criteria pollutants, the previous EPA action (51 FR 40661). basis. proposed discontinuation of ISCLT for purposes • We removed the distinction herein does not preclude its use for other pollutant assessments, as applicable. For example, the 15 Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Use of between short-term and long-term ASPEN model (Assessment System for Population Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Exposure Nationwide) uses the capabilities of Demonstrations for the 8-hr Ozone NAAQS (Draft). 16 Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. EPA ISCLT to estimate ambient concentrations of toxic Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Third-Generation Air Quality Modeling System. pollutants nationwide by census tract. Such Research Triangle Park, NC. (Docket No. A–99–05, Models-3, Volume 9b: User Manual. EPA applications require the abbreviated computing II–A–14) (Also available on SCRAM website, Publication No. EPA–600/R–98/069(b). Office of possible with ISCLT. www.epa.gov/scram001, as draft8hr.pdf) Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Appendix A to Appendix W of Part Meteorological phenomena associated with g. All changes to the Guideline must follow 51—Summaries of Preferred Air threats to air quality standards are rarely rulemaking requirements since the Guideline Quality Models amenable to a single mathematical treatment; is codified in Appendix W of Part 51. EPA thus, case-by-case analysis and judgement are will promulgate proposed and final rules in List of Tables frequently required. As modeling efforts the Federal Register to amend this Table No. and Title become more complex, it is increasingly Appendix. Ample opportunity for public 4–1a Neutral/Stable Meteorological Matrix important that they be directed by highly comment will be provided for each proposed for CTSCREEN competent individuals with a broad range of change and public hearings scheduled if 4–1b Unstable/Convective Meteorological experience and knowledge in air quality requested. Matrix for CTSCREEN meteorology. Further, they should be h. A wide range of topics on modeling and 8–1 Model Emission Input Data for Point coordinated closely with specialists in data bases are discussed in the Guideline. Sources emissions characteristics, air monitoring and Chapter 2 gives an overview of models and 8–2 Point Source Model Input Data data processing. The judgement of their appropriate use. Chapter 3 provides (Emissions) for PSD NAAQS Compliance experienced meteorologists and analysts is specific guidance on the use of ‘‘preferred’’ Demonstrations essential. air quality models and on the selection of 8–3 Averaging Times for Site-Specific Wind d. The model that most accurately alternative techniques. Chapters 4 through 6 and Turbulence Measurements estimates concentrations in the area of provide recommendations on modeling interest is always sought. However, it is clear techniques for application to simple-terrain 1.0 Introduction from the needs expressed by the States and stationary source problems, complex terrain a. The Guideline recommends air quality EPA Regional Offices, by many industries problems, and mobile source problems. modeling techniques that should be applied and trade associations, and also by the Specific modeling requirements for selected to State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions deliberations of Congress, that consistency in regulatory issues are also addressed. Chapter for existing sources and to new source the selection and application of models and 7 discusses issues common to many reviews, including prevention of significant data bases should also be sought, even in modeling analyses, including acceptable deterioration (PSD).1, 2, 3 Applicable only to case-by-case analyses. Consistency ensures model components. Chapter 8 makes criteria air pollutants, it is intended for use that air quality control agencies and the recommendations for data inputs to models by EPA Regional Offices in judging the general public have a common basis for including source, meteorological and estimating pollutant concentrations, adequacy of modeling analyses performed by background air quality data. Chapter 9 covers assessing control strategies and specifying EPA, State and local agencies and by the uncertainty in model estimates and how emission limits. Such consistency is not, industry. The guidance is appropriate for use that information can be useful to the however, promoted at the expense of model by other Federal agencies and by State regulatory decision-maker. The last chapter and data base accuracy. The Guideline agencies with air quality and land summarizes how estimates and provides a consistent basis for selection of management responsibilities. The Guideline measurements of air quality are used in the most accurate models and data bases for serves to identify, for all interested parties, assessing source impact and in evaluating use in air quality assessments. those techniques and data bases EPA control strategies. e. Recommendations are made in the considers acceptable. The Guideline is not i. Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 itself Guideline concerning air quality models, intended to be a compendium of modeling contains an appendix: Appendix A. Thus, data bases, requirements for concentration when reference is made to ‘‘Appendix A’’ in techniques. Rather, it should serve as a estimates, the use of measured data in lieu common measure of acceptable technical this document, it refers to Appendix A to of model estimates, and model evaluation Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51. Appendix A analysis when supported by sound scientific procedures. Models are identified for some judgement. contains summaries of refined air quality specific applications. The guidance provided models that are ‘‘preferred’’ for specific b. Due to limitations in the spatial and here should be followed in air quality temporal coverage of air quality applications; both EPA models and models analyses relative to State Implementation developed by others are included. measurements, monitoring data normally are Plans and in supporting analyses required by not sufficient as the sole basis for EPA, State and local agency air programs. 2.0 Overview of Model Use demonstrating the adequacy of emission EPA may approve the use of another limits for existing sources. Also, the impacts a. Before attempting to implement the technique that can be demonstrated to be guidance contained in this document, the of new sources that do not yet exist can only more appropriate than those recommended be determined through modeling. Thus, reader should be aware of certain general in this guide. This is discussed at greater information concerning air quality models models, while uniquely filling one program length in Section 3.0. In all cases, the model need, have become a primary analytical tool and their use. Such information is provided applied to a given situation should be the one in this section. in most air quality assessments. Air quality that provides the most accurate measurements can be used in a representation of atmospheric transport, 2.1 Suitability of Models complementary manner to dispersion dispersion, and chemical transformations in a. The extent to which a specific air quality models, with due regard for the strengths and the area of interest. However, to ensure model is suitable for the evaluation of source weaknesses of both analysis techniques. consistency, deviations from this guide impact depends upon several factors. These Measurements are particularly useful in should be carefully documented and fully include: (1) The meteorological and assessing the accuracy of model estimates. supported. topographic complexities of the area; (2) the The use of air quality measurements alone f. From time to time situations arise level of detail and accuracy needed for the however could be preferable, as detailed in requiring clarification of the intent of the analysis; (3) the technical competence of a later section of this document, when guidance on a specific topic. Periodic those undertaking such simulation modeling; models are found to be unacceptable and workshops are held with the headquarters, (4) the resources available; and (5) the detail monitoring data with sufficient spatial and Regional Office, State, and local agency and accuracy of the data base, i.e., emissions temporal coverage are available. modeling representatives to ensure inventory, meteorological data, and air c. It would be advantageous to categorize consistency in modeling guidance and to quality data. Appropriate data should be the various regulatory programs and to apply promote the use of more accurate air quality available before any attempt is made to apply a designated model to each proposed source models and data bases. The workshops serve a model. A model that requires detailed, needing analysis under a given program. to provide further explanations of Guideline precise, input data should not be used when However, the diversity of the nation’s requirements to the Regional Offices and such data are unavailable. However, topography and climate, and variations in workshop reports are issued with this assuming the data are adequate, the greater source configurations and operating clarifying information. In addition, findings the detail with which a model considers the characteristics dictate against a strict from on-going research programs, new model spatial and temporal variations in emissions modeling ‘‘cookbook.’’ There is no one model submittals, or results from model evaluations and meteorological conditions, the greater capable of properly addressing all and applications are continuously evaluated. the ability to evaluate the source impact and conceivable situations even within a broad Based on this information changes in the to distinguish the effects of various control category such as point sources. guidance may be indicated. strategies.
VerDate 18
b. Air quality models have been applied c. The use of screening techniques for a wide range of regulatory applications. with the most accuracy, or the least degree followed, as appropriate, by a more refined Refined models that more realistically of uncertainty, to simulations of long term analysis is always desirable, however there simulate the physical and chemical process averages in areas with relatively simple are situations where the screening techniques in the atmosphere and that more reliably topography. Areas subject to major are practically and technically the only estimate pollutant concentrations are needed. topographic influences experience viable option for estimating source impact. In Thus, the solicitation of models is considered meteorological complexities that are such cases, an attempt should be made to to be continuous. extremely difficult to simulate. Although acquire or improve the necessary data bases models are available for such circumstances, and to develop appropriate analytical 3.1 Preferred Modeling Techniques they are frequently site specific and resource techniques. 3.1.1 Discussion intensive. In the absence of a model capable 2.3 Availability of Models a. EPA has developed models suitable for of simulating such complexities, only a a. For most of the screening and refined regulatory application. Other models have preliminary approximation may be feasible been submitted by private developers for until such time as better models and data models discussed in the Guideline, codes, associated documentation and other useful possible inclusion in the Guideline. These bases become available. refined models have undergone evaluation c. Models are highly specialized tools. information are available for download from 78910111213141516 EPA’s Support Center for Regulatory Air exercises that include Competent and experienced personnel are an statistical measures of model performance in essential prerequisite to the successful Modeling (SCRAM) Internet website at www.epa.gov/scram001. A list of alternate comparison with measured air quality data as application of simulation models. The need suggested by the American Meteorological for specialists is critical when the more models that can be used with case-by-case 17 justification (Section 3.2), a glossary of terms, Society and, where possible, peer scientific sophisticated models are used or the area reviews.18 19 20 21 22 23 24 being investigated has complicated and an example air quality analysis checklist are also posted on this website. This is a site b. When a single model is found to perform meteorological or topographic features. A better than others, it is recommended for model applied improperly, or with with which modelers should become familiar. application as a preferred model and listed inappropriate data, can lead to serious in Appendix A. If no one model is found to misjudgements regarding the source impact 3.0 Recommended Air Quality Models clearly perform better through the evaluation or the effectiveness of a control strategy. a. This section recommends refined exercise, then the preferred model listed in d. The resource demands generated by use Appendix A is selected on the basis of other of air quality models vary widely depending modeling techniques that are preferred for use in regulatory air quality programs. The factors such as past use, public familiarity, on the specific application. The resources cost or resource requirements, and required depend on the nature of the model status of models developed by EPA, as well as those submitted to EPA for review and availability. No further evaluation of a and its complexity, the detail of the data preferred model is required for a particular base, the difficulty of the application, and the possible inclusion in this guidance, is discussed. The section also addresses the application if the EPA recommendations for amount and level of expertise required. The regulatory use specified for the model in the costs of manpower and computational selection of models for individual cases and provides recommendations for situations Guideline are followed. Alternative models facilities may also be important factors in the to those listed in Appendix A should selection and use of a model for a specific where the preferred models are not applicable. Two additional sources of generally be compared with measured air analysis. However, it should be recognized quality data when they are used for that under some sets of physical modeling guidance are the Model Clearinghouse 5 and periodic Regional/State/ regulatory applications consistent with circumstances and accuracy requirements, no recommendations in Section 3.2. present model may be appropriate. Thus, Local Modelers workshops. b. In all regulatory analyses, especially if c. The solicitation of new refined models consideration of these factors should lead to which are based on sounder scientific selection of an appropriate model. other than preferred models are selected for use, early discussions among Regional Office principles and which more reliably estimate 2.2 Levels of Sophistication of Models staff, State and local control agencies, pollutant concentrations is considered by a. There are two levels of sophistication of industry representatives, and where EPA to be continuous. Models that are models. The first level consists of relatively appropriate, the Federal Land Manager, are submitted in accordance with the established simple estimation techniques that generally invaluable and are encouraged. Agreement provisions will be evaluated as submitted. use preset, worst-case meteorological on the data base(s) to be used, modeling These requirements are: conditions to provide conservative estimates techniques to be applied and the overall i. The model must be computerized and of the air quality impact of a specific source, technical approach, prior to the actual functioning in a common computer code or source category. These are called screening analyses, helps avoid misunderstandings suitable for use on a variety of computer techniques or screening models. The purpose concerning the final results and may reduce systems. of such techniques is to eliminate the need the later need for additional analyses. The ii. The model must be documented in a of more detailed modeling for those sources use of an air quality analysis checklist, such user’s guide which identifies the that clearly will not cause or contribute to as is posted on EPA’s Internet SCRAM mathematics of the model, data requirements ambient concentrations in excess of either website (Section 2.3), and the preparation of and program operating characteristics at a the National Ambient Air Quality Standards a written protocol help to keep level of detail comparable to that available (NAAQS) 4 or the allowable prevention of misunderstandings at a minimum. for currently recommended models. significant deterioration (PSD) concentration c. It should not be construed that the iii. The model must be accompanied by a increments.23 If a screening technique preferred models identified here are to be complete test data set including input indicates that the concentration contributed permanently used to the exclusion of all parameters and output results. The test data by the source exceeds the PSD increment or others or that they are the only models must be included in the user’s guide as well the increment remaining to just meet the available for relating emissions to air quality. as provided in computer-readable form. NAAQS, then the second level of more The model that most accurately estimates iv. The model must be useful to typical sophisticated models should be applied. concentrations in the area of interest is users, e.g., State air pollution control b. The second level consists of those always sought. However, designation of agencies, for specific air quality control analytical techniques that provide more specific models is needed to promote problems. Such users should be able to detailed treatment of physical and chemical consistency in model selection and operate the computer program(s) from atmospheric processes, require more detailed application. available documentation. and precise input data, and provide more d. The 1980 solicitation of new or different v. The model documentation must include specialized concentration estimates. As a models from the technical community 6 and a comparison with air quality data (and/or result they provide a more refined and, at the program whereby these models were tracer measurements) or with other well- least theoretically, a more accurate estimate evaluated, established a means by which new established analytical techniques. of source impact and the effectiveness of models are identified, reviewed and made vi. The developer must be willing to make control strategies. These are referred to as available in the Guideline. There is a the model available to users at reasonable refined models. pressing need for the development of models cost or make it available for public access
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TABLE 4±1A.ÐNEUTRAL/STABLE METEOROLOGICAL MATRIX FOR CTSCREEN
Variable: Specific values U∧(m/s) ...... 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 σv(m/s) ...... 0.3 0.75 ...... σw(m/s) ...... 0.08 0.15 0.30 0.75 ...... ∆θ/∆z (K/m) ...... 0.01 0.02 0.035 ...... WD ...... (Wind direction is optimized internally for each meteorological combination.) Exceptions: (1) If U ≤ 2 m/s and σv ≤ 0.3 m/s, then include σw = 0.04 m/s. (2) If σw = 0.75 m/s and U ≥ 3.0 m/s, then ∆θ/∆z is limited to ≤ 0.01 K/m. (3) If U ≥ 4 m/s, then σw ≥ 0.15 m/s. (4) σw ≤σV
TABLE 4±1B.ÐUNSTABLE/CONVECTIVE METEOROLOGICAL MATRIX FOR CTSCREEN
Variable: Specific values U (m/s) ...... 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 U* (m/s) ...... 0.1 0.3 0.5 ...... L (m) ...... ¥10 ¥50 ¥90 ...... ∆θ/∆z (K/m) ...... 0.030 (potential temperature gradient above Zi) Zi (m) ...... 0.5h 1.0h 1.5h h= terrain height)
5.0 Models for Ozone, Particulate Matter, each other in that they share common averaging period (62 FR 38856). Models for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and sources of emissions and/or are subject to ozone are needed primarily to guide choice Lead chemical transformations of similar of strategies to correct an observed ozone 40 41 5.1 Discussion precursors. For example, strategies problem in an area not attaining the NAAQS designed to reduce ozone could have an for ozone. Use of photochemical grid models a. This section identifies modeling effect on the secondary component of PM–2.5 is the recommended means for identifying approaches or models appropriate for and vice versa. Thus, it makes sense to use strategies needed to correct high ozone addressing ozone (O ),a carbon monoxide 3 models which take into account the chemical concentrations in such areas. Such models (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulates (PM–2.5 and PM–10),b, c and lead. These coupling between O3 and PM–2.5, when need to consider emissions of volatile organic pollutants are often associated with feasible. This should promote consistency compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from numerous sources. Generally, among methods used to evaluate strategies and carbon monoxide (CO), as well as means mobile sources contribute significantly to for reducing different pollutants as well as for generating meteorological data governing emissions of these pollutants or their consistency among the strategies themselves. transport and dispersion of ozone and its precursors. For cases where it is of interest Regulatory requirements for the different precursors. Other approaches, such as to estimate concentrations of CO or NO2 near pollutants are likely to be due at different Lagrangian or observational models may be a single or small group of stationary sources, times. Thus, the following paragraphs used to guide choice of appropriate strategies refer to Section 4. (Modeling approaches for identify appropriate modeling approaches for to consider with a photochemical grid model. SO2 are discussed in Section 4.) pollutants individually. These other approaches may be sufficient to b. Several of the pollutants mentioned in c. The NAAQS for ozone was revised on address ozone in an area where observed the preceding paragraph are closely related to July 18, 1997 and is now based on an 8-hour concentrations are near the NAAQS or only
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
contributions. Guidance is available for PM– 1 and described in paragraphs 5.2.4 b annual NO 2 / NO x ratio. A value of 0.75 is 10 sampling and analysis applicable to through d: recommended for this ratio. However, a receptor modeling.55 b. For Tier 1 (the initial screen), use an spatially averaged alternative default annual d. Under certain conditions, recommended appropriate model from Appendix A to NO 2 / NO x ratio may be determined from an dispersion models may not be reliable. In estimate the maximum annual average existing air quality monitoring network and such circumstances, the modeling approach concentration and assume a total conversion used in lieu of the 0.75 value if it is should be approved by the appropriate of NO to NO 2. If the concentration exceeds determined to be representative of prevailing Regional Office on a case-by-case basis. the NAAQS and/or PSD increments for NO 2, ratios in the urban area by the reviewing Analyses involving model calculations for proceed to the 2nd level screen. agency. To ensure use of appropriate locally stagnation conditions should also be justified c. For Tier 2 (2nd level) screening analysis, derived annual average NO 2 / NO x ratios, on a case-by-case basis (Section 7.2.8). multiply the Tier 1 estimate(s) by an monitoring data under consideration should e. Fugitive dust usually refers to dust put empirically derived NO 2 / NO x value of 0.75 be limited to those collected at monitors 63 into the atmosphere by the wind blowing (annual national default). The reviewing meeting siting criteria defined in 40 CFR Part over plowed fields, dirt roads or desert or agency may establish an alternative default 58, Appendix D as representative of sandy areas with little or no vegetation. NO 2 / NO x ratio based on ambient annual ‘‘neighborhood’’, ‘‘urban’’, or ‘‘regional’’ Reentrained dust is that which is put into the average NO 2 and annual average NO x data scales. Furthermore, the highest annual air by reason of vehicles driving over dirt representative of area wide quasi-equilibrium spatially averaged NO / NO ratio from the roads (or dirty roads) and dusty areas. Such conditions Alternative default NO /NO 2 x 2 x most recent 3 years of complete data should sources can be characterized as line, area or ratios should be based on data satisfying be used to foster conservatism in estimated volume sources. Emission rates may be based quality assurance procedures that ensure data impacts. on site-specific data or values from the accuracy for both NO and NO within the 2 x f. To demonstrate compliance with NO general literature. Fugitive emissions include typical range of measured values. In areas 2 PSD increments in urban areas, emissions the emissions resulting from the industrial with relatively low NO concentrations, the x from major and minor sources should be process that are not captured and vented quality assurance procedures used to included in the modeling analysis. Point and through a stack but may be released from determine compliance with the NO 2 national various locations within the complex. Where ambient air quality standard may not be area source emissions should be modeled as discussed above. If mobile source emissions such fugitive emissions can be properly adequate. In addition, default NO 2/NO x specified, use the recommended steady-state ratios, including the 0.75 national default do not contribute to localized areas of high dispersion model (Section 4.2.2) that handles value, can underestimate long range NO2 ambient NO 2 concentrations, they should be gravitational settling and dry deposition. In impacts and should be used with caution in modeled as area sources. When modeled as some unique cases a model developed long range transport scenarios. area sources, mobile source emissions should specifically for the situation may be needed. d. For Tier 3 (3rd level) analysis, a detailed be assumed uniform over the entire highway Due to the difficult nature of characterizing screening method may be selected on a case- link and allocated to each area source grid and modeling fugitive dust and fugitive by-case basis. For point source modeling, square based on the portion of highway link emissions, it is recommended that the other refined screening methods, such as the within each grid square. If localized areas of proposed procedure be cleared by the ozone limiting method 64, may also be high concentrations are likely, then mobile sources should be modeled as line sources appropriate Regional Office for each specific considered. Also, a site-specific NO 2/NO x situation before the modeling exercise is ratio may be used as a detailed screening using an appropriate steady-state plume begun. method if it meets the same restrictions as dispersion model (e.g., CAL3QHCR; Section 5.2.3). 5.2.3 Models for Carbon Monoxide described for alternative default NO 2/NO x ratios. Ambient NO 2x monitors used to g. More refined techniques to handle a. Guidance is available for analyzing CO special circumstances may be considered on impacts at roadway intersections.56 The develop a site-specific ratio should be sited to obtain the NO 2 and NO x concentrations a case-by-case basis and agreement with the recommended screening model for such reviewing authority should be obtained. Such analyses is CAL3QHC.57 58 This model under quasi-equilibrium conditions. Data obtained from monitors sited at the techniques should consider individual combines CALINE3 (listed in Appendix A) quantities of NO and NO emissions, with a traffic model to calculate delays and maximum NO x impact site, as may be 2 required in a PSD pre-construction atmospheric transport and dispersion, and queues that occur at signalized intersections. atmospheric transformation of NO to NO . The screening approach is described in monitoring program, likely reflect 2 Where they are available, site-specific data reference 56; a refined approach may be transitional NO x conditions. Therefore, NO x on the conversion of NO to NO may be considered on a case-by-case basis with data from maximum impact sites may not be 2 used. Photochemical dispersion models, if CAL3QHCR.59 The latest version of the suitable for determining a site-specific NO 2/ used for other pollutants in the area, may MOBILE (mobile source emission factor) NO x ratio that is applicable for the entire also be applied to the NO problem. model should be used for emissions input to modeling analysis. A site-specific ratio x intersection models. derived from maximum impact data can only 5.2.5 Models for Lead b. For analyses of highways characterized be used to estimate NO 2 impacts at receptors a. For major lead point sources, such as by uninterrupted traffic flows, CALINE3 is located within the same distance of the smelters, which contribute fugitive emissions recommended, with emissions input from the source as the source-to-monitor distance. and for which deposition is important, use latest version of the MOBILE model. e. In urban areas (Section 7.2.3), a the appropriate recommended steady-state c. For urban area wide analyses of CO, an proportional model may be used as a plume dispersion model (Section 4.2.2). To Eulerian grid model should be used. preliminary assessment to evaluate control model an entire major urban area or to model Information on SIP development and strategies to meet the NAAQS for multiple areas without significant sources of lead requirements for using such models can be minor sources, i.e., minor point, area and emissions, as a minimum a proportional found in several references.56 60 61 62 mobile sources of NO x; concentrations (rollback) model may be used for air quality d. Where point sources of CO are of resulting from major point sources should be analysis. The rollback philosophy assumes concern, they should be treated using the estimated separately as discussed above, then screening and refined techniques described added to the impact of the minor sources. An that measured pollutant concentrations are in Section 4 of the Guideline. acceptable screening technique for urban proportional to emissions. However, urban or complexes is to assume that all NO x is other dispersion models are encouraged in 5.2.4 Models for Nitrogen Dioxide (Annual emitted in the form of NO 2 and to use a these circumstances where the use of such Average) model from Appendix A for nonreactive models is feasible. a. A tiered screening approach is pollutants to estimate NO 2 concentrations. A b. In modeling the effect of traditional line recommended to obtain annual average more accurate estimate can be obtained by: sources (such as a specific roadway or estimates of NO2 from point sources for New (1) calculating the annual average highway) on lead air quality, dispersion Source Review analysis, including PSD, and concentrations of NO x with an urban model, models applied for other pollutants can be for SIP planning purposes. This multi-tiered and (2) converting these estimates to NO 2 used. Dispersion models such as CALINE3 approach is conceptually shown in Figure 5– concentrations using an empirically derived and CAL3QHCR have been used for modeling
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TABLE 8±1.ÐMODEL EMISSION INPUT DATA FOR POINT SOURCES 1
Averaging time Emission limit × Operating level × Operating factor (#/MMBtu) 2 (MMBtu/hr) 2 (e.g., hr/yr,hr/day)
Stationary Point Source(s) Subject to SIP Emission Limit(s) Evaluation for Compliance with Ambient Standards (Including Areawide Demonstrations)
Annual & quarterly ...... Maximum allowable emission Actual or design capacity Actual operating factor aver- limit or federally enforceable (whichever is greater), or fed- aged over most recent 2 permit limit . erally enforceable permit con- years.3 dition. Short term...... Maximum allowable emission Actual or design capacity Continuous operation, i.e., all limit or federally enforceable (whichever is greater), or fed- hours of each time period permit limit. erally enforceable permit con- under consideration (for all dition 4. hours of the meteorological data base).5 Nearby Source(s) 6, 7ÐSame input requirements as for stationary point source(s) above
Other Source(s) 7ÐIf modeled (Section 8.2.3), input data requirements are defined below
Annual & quarterly ...... Maximum allowable emission Annual level when actually op- Actual operating factor aver- limit or federally enforceable erating, averaged over the aged over the most recent 2 permit limit 6. most recent 2 years 3. years.3 Short term...... Maximum allowable emission Annual level when actually op- Continuous operation, i.e., all limit or federally enforceable erating, averaged over the hours of each time period permit limit 6. most recent 2 years 3. under consideration (for all hours of the meteorological data base).5 1 The model input data requirements shown on this table apply to stationary source control strategies for STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS. For purposes of emissions trading, new source review, or prevention of significant deterioration, other model input criteria may apply. Refer to the policy and guidance for these programs to establish the input data. 2 Terminology applicable to fuel burning sources; analogous terminology (e.g., #/throughput) may be used for other types of sources. 3 Unless it is determined that this period is not representative. 4 Operating levels such as 50 percent and 75 percent of capacity should also be modeled to determine the load causing the highest concentra- tion. 5 If operation does not occur for all hours of the time period of consideration (e.g., 3 or 24 hours) and the source operation is constrained by a federally enforceable permit condition, an appropriate adjustment to the modeled emission rate may be made (e.g., if operation is only 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day, only these hours will be modeled with emissions from the source. Modeled emissions should not be averaged across non-oper- ating time periods.) 6 See paragraph 8.2.3(c). 7 See paragraph 8.2.3(d).
TABLE 8±2.ÐPOINT SOURCE MODEL INPUT DATA (EMISSIONS) FOR PSD NAAQS COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS
Emission limit Operating factor (e.g., hr/yr,hr/ Averaging time × Operating level (MMBtu/hr) 1 × (#/MMBtu) 1 day)
Proposed Major New or Modified Source
Annual & quarterly ...... Maximum allowable emission Design capacity or federally en- Continuous operation (i.e., 8760 limit or federally enforceable forceable permit condition. hours).2 permit limit.
VerDate 18
TABLE 8±2.ÐPOINT SOURCE MODEL INPUT DATA (EMISSIONS) FOR PSD NAAQS COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONSÐ Continued
Emission limit Operating factor (e.g., hr/yr,hr/ Averaging time × Operating level (MMBtu/hr) 1 × (#/MMBtu) 1 day)
Short term: (≤24 hours) ...... Maximum allowable emis sion Design capacity or federally en- Continuous operation (i.e., all limit or federally enforceable forceable permit condition 3. hours of each time period un permit limit. der consideration) (for all hours of the meteorological data base).2 Nearby Source(s) 4, 6
Annual & quarterly ...... Maximum allowable emission Actual or design capacity Actual operating factor aver- limit or federally enforceable (whichever is greater), or fed- aged over the most recent 2 permit limit 5. erally enforceable permit con- years.7, 8 dition. Short term: (≤24 hours)...... Maximum allowable emission Actual or design capacity Continuous operation (i.e., all limit or federally enforceable (whichever is greater), or fed- hours of each time period un permit limit 5. erally enforceable permit con- der consideration) (for all dition 3. hours of the meteorological data base).2
Other Source(s) 6, 9
Annual & quarterly ...... Maximum allowable emission Annual level when actually op- Actual operating factor aver- limit or federally enforceable erating, averaged over the aged over the most recent 2 permit limit 5. most recent 2 years 7. years.7, 8 Short term (≤24 hours)...... Maximum allowable emission Annual level when actually op- Continuous operation (i.e., all limit or federally enforceable erating, averaged over the hours of each time period permit limit 5. most recent 2 years 7. under consideration) (for all hours of the meteorological data base).2 1 Terminology applicable to fuel burning sources; analogous terminology (e.g., #/throughput) may be used for other types of sources. 2 If operation does not occur for all hours of the time period of consideration (e.g., 3 or 24 hours) and the source operation is constrained by a federally enforceable permit condition, an appropriate adjustment to the modeled emission rate may be made (e.g., if operation is only 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day, only these hours will be modeled with emissions from the source. Modeled emissions should not be averaged across non-operating time periods. 3 Operating levels such as 50 percent and 75 percent of capacity should also be modeled to determine the load causing the highest concentra- tion. 4 Includes existing facility to which modification is proposed if the emissions from the existing facility will not be affected by the modification. Otherwise use the same parameters as for major modification. 5 See paragraph 8.2.3(c). 6 See paragraph 8.2.3(d). 7 Unless it is determined that this period is not representative. 8 For those permitted sources not in operation or that have not established an appropriate factor, continuous operation (i.e., 8760) should be used. 9 Generally, the ambient inpacts from non-nearby (background) sources can be represented by air quality data unless adequate data do not exist.
8.2 Background Concentrations maximum allowable capacity (which may concentrations of concern should be 8.2.1 Discussion include the use of ‘‘dirtier’’ fuels), modeling identified. Concentrations for meteorological is necessary to express the potential conditions of concern, at monitors not a. Background concentrations are an contribution of background sources, and this impacted by the source in question, should essential part of the total air quality impact would not be captured via be averaged for each separate averaging time concentration to be considered in monitoring. Background concentrations to determine the average background value. determining source impacts. Background air should be determined for each critical Monitoring sites inside a 90° sector quality includes pollutant concentrations due (concentration) averaging time. downwind of the source may be used to to: (1) natural sources; (2) nearby sources determine the area of impact. One hour other than the one(s) currently under 8.2.2 Recommendations (Isolated Single Source) concentrations may be added and averaged to consideration; and (3) unidentified sources. determine longer averaging periods. b. Typically, air quality data should be a. Two options (paragraph 8.2.2b or c) are c. If there are no monitors located in the used to establish background concentrations available to determine the background vicinity of the source, a ‘‘regional site’’ may in the vicinity of the source(s) under concentration near isolated sources. be used to determine background. A consideration. The monitoring network used b. Use air quality data collected in the ‘‘regional site’’ is one that is located away for background determinations should vicinity of the source to determine the from the area of interest but is impacted by conform to the same quality assurance and background concentration for the averaging similar natural and distant man-made other requirements as those networks times of concern. Determine the mean sources. established for PSD purposes.89 An background concentration at each monitor by appropriate data validation procedure should excluding values when the source in 8.2.3 Recommendations (Multi-Source be applied to the data prior to use. question is impacting the monitor. The mean Areas) c. If the source is not isolated, it may be annual background is the average of the a. In multi-source areas, two components necessary to use a multi-source model to annual concentrations so determined at each of background should be determined: establish the impact of nearby sources. Since monitor. For shorter averaging periods, the contributions from nearby sources and sources don’t typically operate at their meteorological conditions accompanying the contributions from other sources.
VerDate 18
b. Nearby Sources: All sources expected to and (3) the area where all sources combine d. For long range transport modeling cause a significant concentration gradient in to cause maximum impact. These locations assessments (as discussed in Section 6.2.3) or the vicinity of the source or sources under may be identified through trial and error in assessments where the transport winds are consideration for emission limit(s) should be analyses. complex and the application involves a non- explicitly modeled. The number of such f. Other Sources: That portion of the steady-state dispersion model (as discussed sources is expected to be small except in background attributable to all other sources in Section 7.2.8), use of output from unusual situations. Owing to both the (e.g., natural sources, minor sources and prognostic mesoscale meteorological models uniqueness of each modeling situation and distant major sources) should be determined is encouraged. 90 91 92 Some diagnostic the large number of variables involved in by the procedures found in Section 8.2.2 or meteorological processors are designed to identifying nearby sources, no attempt is by application of a model using Table 8–1 or appropriately blend available NWS made here to comprehensively define this 8–2. comparable meteorological observations, term. Rather, identification of nearby sources local site-specific meteorological 8.3 Meteorological Input Data calls for the exercise of professional observations, and prognostic mesoscale judgement by the reviewing authority. This a. The meteorological data used as input to meteorological data, using empirical guidance is not intended to alter the exercise a dispersion model should be selected on the relationships, to diagnostically adjust the of that judgement or to comprehensively basis of spatial and climatological (temporal) wind field for mesoscale and local-scale define which sources are nearby sources. representativeness as well as the ability of effects. These diagnostic adjustments can c. For compliance with the short-term and the individual parameters selected to sometimes be improved through the use of annual ambient standards, the nearby sources characterize the transport and dispersion strategically placed site-specific as well as the primary source(s) should be conditions in the area of concern. The meteorological observations. The placement evaluated using an appropriate Appendix A representativeness of the data is dependent of these special meteorological observations model with the emission input data shown on: (1) The proximity of the meteorological (often more than one location is needed) in Table 8–1 or 8–2. When modeling a nearby monitoring site to the area under involves expert judgement, and is specific to source that does not have a permit and the consideration; (2) the complexity of the the terrain and land use of the modeling emission limit contained in the SIP for a terrain; (3) the exposure of the meteorological domain. particular source category is greater than the monitoring site; and (4) the period of time 8.3.1 Length of Record of Meteorological emissions possible given the source’s during which data are collected. The spatial Data maximum physical capacity to emit, the representativeness of the data can be ‘‘maximum allowable emission limit’’ for adversely affected by large distances between 8.3.1.1 Discussion such a nearby source may be calculated as the source and receptors of interest and the a. The model user should acquire enough the emission rate representative of the nearby complex topographic characteristics of the meteorological data to ensure that worst-case source’s maximum physical capacity to emit, area. Temporal representativeness is a meteorological conditions are adequately considering its design specifications and function of the year-to-year variations in represented in the model results. The trend allowable fuels and process materials. weather conditions. Where appropriate, data toward statistically based standards suggests However, the burden is on the permit representativeness should be viewed in terms a need for all meteorological conditions to be applicant to sufficiently document what the of the appropriateness of the data for adequately represented in the data set maximum physical capacity to emit is for constructing realistic boundary layer profiles selected for model input. The number of such a nearby source. and three dimensional meteorological fields, years of record needed to obtain a stable d. It is appropriate to model nearby sources as described in paragraphs 8.3c and d. distribution of conditions depends on the only during those times when they, by their b. Model input data are normally obtained variable being measured and has been nature, operate at the same time as the either from the National Weather Service or estimated by Landsberg and Jacobs 93 for primary source(s) being modeled. Where a as part of an site-specific measurement various parameters. Although that study primary source believes that a nearby source program. Local universities, Federal Aviation indicates in excess of 10 years may be does not, by its nature, operate at the same Administration (FAA), military stations, required to achieve stability in the frequency time as the primary source being modeled, industry and pollution control agencies may distributions of some meteorological the burden is on the primary source to also be sources of such data. Some variables, such long periods are not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the recommendations for the use of each type of reasonable for model input data. This is due reviewing authority that this is, in fact, the data are included in this subsection. in part to the fact that hourly data in model case. Whether or not the primary source has c. Regulatory application of AERMOD input format are frequently not available for adequately demonstrated that fact is a matter requires careful consideration of minimum such periods and that hourly calculations of of professional judgement left to the data for input to AERMET. Data concentration for long periods may be discretion of the reviewing authority. The representativeness, in the case of AERMOD, prohibitively expensive. Another study 94 following examples illustrate two cases in means utilizing data of an appropriate type compared various periods from a 17-year which a nearby source may be shown not to for constructing realistic boundary layer data set to determine the minimum number operate at the same time as the primary profiles. Of paramount importance is the of years of data needed to approximate the source(s) being modeled. Some sources are requirement that all meteorological data used concentrations modeled with a 17-year only used during certain seasons of the year. as input to AERMOD must be both laterally period of meteorological data from one Those sources would not be modeled as and vertically representative of the transport station. This study indicated that the nearby sources during times in which they and dispersion within the analysis domain. variability of model estimates due to the do not operate. Similarly, emergency backup The representativeness of data that were meteorological data input was adequately generators that never operate simultaneously collected off-site should be judged, in part, reduced if a 5-year period of record of with the sources that they back up would not by comparing the surface characteristics in meteorological input was used. be modeled as nearby sources. To reiterate, the vicinity of the meteorological monitoring in these examples and other appropriate site with the surface characteristics that 8.3.1.2 Recommendations cases, the burden is on the primary source generally describe the analysis domain. a. Five years of representative being modeled to make the appropriate Furthermore, since the spatial scope of each meteorological data should be used when demonstration to the satisfaction of the variable could be different, estimating concentrations with an air quality reviewing authority. representativeness should be judged for each model. Consecutive years from the most e. The impact of the nearby sources should variable separately. For example, for a recent, readily available 5-year period are be examined at locations where interactions variable such as wind direction, the data may preferred. The meteorological data should be between the plume of the point source under need to be collected very near plume height adequately representative, and may be site consideration and those of nearby sources to be adequately representative, whereas, for specific or from a nearby NWS station. (plus natural background) can occur. a variable such as temperature, data from a b. The use of 5 years of NWS Significant locations include: (1) The area of station several kilometers away from the meteorological data or at least 1 year of site- maximum impact of the point source; (2) the source may in some cases be considered to specific data is required. If one year or more area of maximum impact of nearby sources; be adequately representative. (including partial years), up to five years, of
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TABLE 8±3.ÐAVERAGING TIMES FOR SITE-SPECIFIC WIND AND TURBULENCE MEASUREMENTS
Averaging Parameter time (hours)
Surface wind speed (for use in stability determinations) ...... 1 Transport direction ...... 1 Dilution wind speed ...... 1 1 Turbulence measurements (σE and σA) for use in stability determinations ...... ( ) Turbulence Measurements for direct input to dispersion models ...... 1
1 To minimize meander effects in σA when wind conditions are light and/or variable, determine the hourly average σ value from four sequential 15-minute σ's according to the following formula:
σσσσ2 +++2 2 2 σ = 15 15 15 15 1-hr 4
8.3.4 Treatment of Calms calm, it sets the wind speed value of zero to no concentration is calculated. None of the 1.00 m/s and repeats the wind direction from observed wind speeds in a measured wind 8.3.4.1 Discussion the previous non-calm hour. Models such as profile that are less than the threshold speed a. Treatment of calm or light and variable ISC–PRIME identify the original calm cases are used in construction of the modeled wind wind poses a special problem in model by checking for the occurrence of a 1.00 m/ speed profile in AERMOD. applications since steady-state Gaussian s wind speed coincident with a wind 8.3.4.2 Recommendations plume models assume that concentration is direction equal to that for the previous hour. inversely proportional to wind speed. ISC–PRIME then treats these calm hours as a. Hourly concentrations calculated with Furthermore, concentrations may become missing, and no concentration is calculated. steady-state Gaussian plume models using unrealistically large when wind speeds less c. AERMOD, while fundamentally a calms should not be considered valid; the than l m/s are input to the model. Procedures steady-state Gaussian plume model, contains wind and concentration estimates for these have been developed to prevent the improved algorithms for dealing with low hours should be disregarded and considered occurrence of overly conservative wind speed (near calm) conditions. As a to be missing. Critical concentrations for 3- concentration estimates during periods of result, AERMOD can produce model , 8-, and 24-hour averages should be calms. These procedures acknowledge that a estimates for conditions when the wind calculated by dividing the sum of the hourly steady-state Gaussian plume model does not speed may be less than 1 m/s, but still greater concentrations for the period by the number apply during calm conditions, and that our than the instrument threshold. Required of valid or non-missing hours. If the total knowledge of wind patterns and plume input to AERMET, the meteorological number of valid hours is less than 18 for 24- behavior during these conditions does not, at processor for AERMOD, includes a threshold hour averages, less than 6 for 8-hour averages present, permit the development of a better wind speed and a reference wind speed. The or less than 3 for 3-hour averages, the total technique. Therefore, the procedures threshold wind speed is typically the concentration should be divided by 18 for the disregard hours which are identified as calm. threshold of the instrument used to collect 24-hour average, 6 for the 8-hour average and The hour is treated as missing and a the wind speed data. The reference wind 3 for the 3-hour average. For annual averages, convention for handling missing hours is speed is selected by the model as the lowest the sum of all valid hourly concentrations is recommended. level of non-missing wind speed and divided by the number of non-calm hours b. NWS meteorological data preprocessed direction data where the speed is greater than during the year. ISC–PRIME and AERMOD by PCRAMMET for input to ISC–PRIME may the wind speed threshold, and the height of have been coded to implement these take one of two formats: ASCII or binary the measurement is between seven times the instructions. For other models listed in (unformatted). If the format is ASCII, local surface roughness and 100 meters. If the Appendix A, a post-processor computer PCRAMMET does not modify wind speeds only valid observation of the reference wind program, CALMPRO 111 has been prepared, is having a value of zero. If the format is binary speed between these heights is less than the available on the SCRAM Internet website and PCRAMMET detects the occurrence of a threshold, the hour is considered calm, and (Section 2.3), and should be used.
VerDate 18
b. Stagnant conditions that include evidence suggests that this source of uncertainties. For example, Pasquill 120 extended periods of calms often produce uncertainty alone may be responsible for a estimates that, apart from data input errors, high concentrations over wide areas for typical range of variation in concentrations of maximum ground-level concentrations at a ± 114 relatively long averaging periods. The as much as 50 percent. given hour for a point source in flat terrain standard steady-state Gaussian plume models b. Moreover, there is ‘‘reducible’’ could be in error by 50 percent due to these uncertainty 115 associated with the model and are often not applicable to such situations. uncertainties. Uncertainty of five to 10 When stagnation conditions are of concern, its input conditions; neither models nor data degrees in the measured wind direction, other modeling techniques should be bases are perfect. Reducible uncertainties are considered on a case-by-case basis (see also caused by: (1) Uncertainties in the input which transports the plume, can result in Section 7.2.8). values of the known conditions (i.e., concentration errors of 20 to 70 percent for c. When used in steady-state Gaussian emission characteristics and meteorological a particular time and location, depending on plume models except AERMOD, measured data); (2) errors in the measured stability and station location. Such site-specific wind speeds of less than l m/s concentrations which are used to compute uncertainties do not indicate that an but higher than the response threshold of the the concentration residuals; and (3) estimated concentration does not occur, only instrument should be input as l m/s; the inadequate model physics and formulation. that the precise time and locations are in corresponding wind direction should also be The ‘‘reducible’’ uncertainties can be doubt. input. Wind observations below the response minimized through better (more accurate and 9.1.3 Use of Uncertainty in Decision- threshold of the instrument should be set to more representative) measurements and Making zero, with the input file in ASCII format. For better model physics. input to AERMOD, no adjustment should be c. To use the terminology correctly, a. The accuracy of model estimates varies made to the site-specific wind data. In all reference to model accuracy should be with the model used, the type of application, cases involving steady-state Gaussian plume limited to that portion of reducible and site-specific characteristics. Thus, it is models, calm hours should be treated as uncertainty which deals with the physics and desirable to quantify the accuracy or missing, and concentrations should be the formulation of the model. The accuracy uncertainty associated with concentration calculated as in paragraph 8.3.4.2a. of the model is normally determined by an estimates used in decision-making. evaluation procedure which involves the Communications between modelers and 9.0 Accuracy and Uncertainty of Models comparison of model concentration estimates decision-makers must be fostered and further 9.1 Discussion with measured air quality data.116 The statement of accuracy is based on statistical developed. Communications concerning a. Increasing reliance has been placed on tests or performance measures such as bias, concentration estimates currently exist in concentration estimates from models as the noise, correlation, etc.17 However, most cases, but the communications dealing primary basis for regulatory decisions information that allows a distinction between with the accuracy of models and its meaning concerning source permits and emission contributions of the various elements of to the decision-maker are limited by the lack control requirements. In many situations, inherent and reducible uncertainty is only of a technical basis for quantifying and such as review of a proposed source, no now beginning to emerge. As a result most directly including uncertainty in decisions. practical alternative exists. Therefore, there is discussions of the accuracy of models make an obvious need to know how accurate Procedures for quantifying and interpreting no quantitative distinction between (1) models really are and how any uncertainty in uncertainty in the practical application of limitations of the model versus (2) the estimates affects regulatory decisions. such concepts are only beginning to evolve; limitations of the data base and of knowledge 112 113 115 EPA recognizes the need for incorporating much study is still required. concerning atmospheric variability. The such information and has sponsored b. In all applications of models an effort is reader should be aware that statements on workshops 112 on model accuracy, the encouraged to identify the reliability of the model accuracy and uncertainty may imply possible ways to quantify accuracy, and on model estimates for that particular area and the need for improvements in model considerations in the incorporation of model performance that even the ‘‘perfect’’ model to determine the magnitude and sources of accuracy and uncertainty in the regulatory could not satisfy. error associated with the use of the model. process. The Second (EPA) Conference on The analyst is responsible for recognizing 113 9.1.2 Studies of Model Accuracy Air Quality Modeling, August 1982, was and quantifying limitations in the accuracy, devoted to that subject. a. A number of studies 117 118 have been precision and sensitivity of the procedure. 9.1.1 Overview of Model Uncertainty conducted to examine model accuracy, Information that might be useful to the particularly with respect to the reliability of a. Dispersion models generally attempt to decision-maker in recognizing the short-term concentrations required for seriousness of potential air quality violations estimate concentrations at specific sites that ambient standard and increment evaluations. includes such model accuracy estimates as really represent an ensemble average of The results of these studies are not accuracy of peak predictions, bias, noise, numerous repetitions of the same event. The surprising. Basically, they confirm what event is characterized by measured or leading atmospheric scientists have said for correlation, frequency distribution, spatial ‘‘known’’ conditions that are input to the some time: (1) models are more reliable for extent of high concentration, etc. Both space/ models, e.g., wind speed, mixed layer height, estimating longer time-averaged time pairing of estimates and measurements surface heat flux, emission characteristics, concentrations than for estimating short-term and unpaired comparisons are etc. However, in addition to the known concentrations at specific locations; and (2) recommended. Emphasis should be on the conditions, there are unmeasured or the models are reasonably reliable in highest concentrations and the averaging unknown variations in the conditions of this estimating the magnitude of highest times of the standards or increments of event, e.g., unresolved details of the concentrations occurring sometime, concern. Where possible, confidence atmospheric flow such as the turbulent somewhere within an area. For example, intervals about the statistical values should velocity field. These unknown conditions, errors in highest estimated concentrations of be provided. However, while such ± 119 may vary among repetitions of the event. As 10 to 40 percent are found to be typical, information can be provided by the modeler a result, deviations in observed i.e., certainly well within the often quoted to the decision-maker, it is unclear how this concentrations from their ensemble average, factor-of-two accuracy that has long been information should be used to make an air and from the concentrations estimated by the recognized for these models. However, pollution control decision. Given a range of model, are likely to occur even though the estimates of concentrations that occur at a possible outcomes, it is easiest and tends to known conditions are fixed. Even with a specific time and site, are poorly correlated perfect model that predicts the correct with actually observed concentrations and ensure consistency if the decision-maker ensemble average, there are likely to be are much less reliable. confines his judgement to use of the ‘‘best deviations from the observed concentrations b. As noted in paragraph 9.1.2 a, poor estimate’’ provided by the modeler (i.e., the in individual repetitions of the event, due to correlations between paired concentrations at design concentration estimated by a model variations in the unknown conditions. The fixed stations may be due to ‘‘reducible’’ recommended in the Guideline or an statistics of these concentration residuals are uncertainties in knowledge of the precise alternate model of known accuracy). This is termed ‘‘inherent’’ uncertainty. Available plume location and to unquantified inherent an indication of the practical limitations
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
29. Hanna, S.R. and R.J. Paine, 1989. 42. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS Hybrid Plume Dispersion Model (HPDM) 1998. Use of Models and Other Analyses in No. PB YY–nnnnnn) Development and Evaluation. J. Appl. Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hr 54. Environmental Protection Agency, Meteorol., 28: 206–224. Ozone NAAQS (Draft). Office of Air Quality 1988. Chemical Mass Balance Model 30. Hanna, S.R. and J.C. Chang, 1992. Planning & Standards, Research Triangle Diagnostic. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/4– Boundary layer parameterizations for applied Park, NC. (Docket No. A–99–05, II–A–14) 88–005. U.S. Environmental Protection dispersion modeling over urban areas. (Available on SCRAM website as Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS Bound. Lay. Meteorol., 58, 229–259. draft8hr.pdf; see Section 2.3) No. PB 88–208319) 31. Hanna, S.R. and J.C. Chang, 1993. 43. Environmental Protection Agency, 55. Environmental Protection Agency, Hybrid Plume Dispersion Model (HPDM) 1999. Guidance for Demonstrating 1994. Guideline for PM10 Sampling and Improvements and Testing at Three Field Attainment of PM–2.5 NAAQS and for Analysis Applicable to Receptor Modeling. Sites. Atmos. Environ., 27A: 1491–1508. Demonstrating Reasonable Progress in EPA Publication No. EPA–452/R–94–009. 32. American Meteorological Society, 1984. Reducing Regional Haze (Draft). U.S. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Workshop on Updating Applied Diffusion Environmental Protection Agency, Research Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB Models. 24–27 January 1984. Clearwater, Triangle Park, NC. (in progress) 94–177441) Florida. J. Climate and Appl. Met., 24(11): 44. Environmental Protection Agency, 56. Environmental Protection Agency, 1111–1207. 1987. PM–10 SIP Development Guideline. 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon 33. Cimorelli, A.J., S.G. Perry, A. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/2–86–001. Monoxide from Roadway Intersections. EPA Venkatram, J.C. Weil, R.J. Paine, R.B. Wilson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publications No. EPA–454/R–92–005. U.S. R.F. Lee and W.D. Peters, 1998. AERMOD: Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB Environmental Protection Agency, Research Description of Model Formulation. (12/15/98 87–206488) Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 93–210391) Draft Document) Prepared for Environmental 45. U.S. Forest Service, 1996. User 57. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Assessment of Smoke-Dispersion Models for 1992. User’s Guide for CAL3QHC Version 2: North Carolina. 113pp. (Docket No. A–99–05; Wildland Biomass Burning. USDA, Pacific A Modeling Methodology for Predicting II–A–1) Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Pollutant Concentrations near Roadway 34. Environmental Protection Agency, General Technical Report PNW–GTR–379. Intersections. EPA Publication No. EPA–454/ 1992. Screening Procedures for Estimating 30pp. (NTIS No. PB 97–163380) R–92–006. U.S. Environmental Protection the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, 46. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS Revised. EPA Publication No. EPA–454/R– 1997. Guidance for Siting Ambient Air No. PB 93–210250) 92–019. U.S. Environmental Protection Monitors around Stationary Lead Sources. 58. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS EPA Publication No. EPA–454/R–92–009R. 1992. Evaluation of CO Intersection Modeling No. PB 93–219095) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, techniques Using a New York City Database. 35. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB EPA Publication No. EPA–454/R–92–004. 1995. SCREEN3 User’s Guide. EPA 97–208094) Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Publication No. EPA–454/B–95–004. U.S. 47. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC 27711. (NTIS No. PB 93–105559) Environmental Protection Agency, Research 1993. Lead Guideline Document. EPA 59. Environmental Protection Agency, Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 95–222766) Publication No. EPA–452/R–93–009. U.S. 1995. Addendum to the User’s Guide to 36. Perry, S.G., D.J. Burns and A.J. Environmental Protection Agency, Research CAL3QHC Version 2.0. Staff Report. Office of Cimorelli, 1990. User’s Guide to CTDMPLUS: Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 94–111846) Air Quality Planning & Standards, Research Volume 2. The Screening Mode (CTSCREEN). 48. Environmental Protection Agency, Triangle Park, NC. (Available from EPA’s EPA Publication No. EPA–600/8–90–087. 1998. EPA Third-Generation Air Quality Internet SCRAM website at www.epa.gov/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Modeling System. Models-3, Volume 9b: scram001) Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB User Manual. EPA Publication No. EPA–600/ 60. Environmental Protection Agency, 91–136564) R–98/069(b). Office of Research and 1991. Emission Inventory Requirements for 37. Mills. M.T., R.J. Paine, E.A. Insley and Development, Washington, D.C. Carbon Monoxide State Implementation B.A. Egan, 1987. The Complex Terrain 49. Environmental Protection Agency, Plans. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/4–91– Dispersion Model Terrain Preprocessor 1989. Procedures for Applying City-Specific 011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, System—User’s Guide and Program EKMA (Empirical Kinetic Modeling Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB Description. EPA Publication No. EPA–600/ Approach). EPA Publication No. EPA–450/4– 92–112150) 8–88–003. U.S. Environmental Protection 89–012. U.S. Environmental Protection 61. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS 1992. Guidelines for Regulatory Application No. PB 88–162094) No. PB 90–256777) of the Urban Airshed Model for Areawide 38. Burns, D.J., S.G. Perry and A.J. 50. Meyer, Jr., E.L. and K.A. Baugues, 1987. Carbon Monoxide. EPA Publication No. Cimorelli, 1991. An Advanced Screening Consideration of Transported Ozone and EPA–450/4–92–011a and b. U.S. Model for Complex Terrain Applications. Precursors and Their Use in EKMA. EPA Environmental Protection Agency, Research Paper presented at the 7th Joint Conference Publication No. EPA–450/4–89–010. U.S. Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS Nos. PB 213222 and on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology Environmental Protection Agency, Research PB 92–213230) (cosponsored by the American Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 90–255415) 62. Environmental Protection Agency, Meteorological Society and the Air & Waste 51. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. Technical Support Document to Aid Management Association), January 13–18, 1998. User’s Guide to the Regulatory States with the Development of Carbon 1991, New Orleans, LA. Modeling System for Aerosols and Monoxide State Implementation Plans. EPA 39. Environmental Research and Deposition (REMSAD). Prepared for Publication No. EPA–452/R–92–003. U.S. Technology, 1987. User’s Guide to the Rough Environmental Protection Agency under Environmental Protection Agency, Research Terrain Diffusion Model (RTDM), Rev. 3.20. Contract No. 68D30032 (June 1998 final draft Triangle Park, NC (NTIS NO. PB 92–233055) ERT Document No. P–D535–585. available @ www.epa.gov/scram001) 63. Chu, S.H. and E.L. Meyer, 1991. Use of Environmental Research and Technology, 52. Environmental Protection Agency, Ambient Ratios to Estimate Impact of NOX Inc., Concord, MA. (NTIS No. PB 88–171467) 1998. CMB8 User’s Manual. EPA Publication Sources on Annual NOX Concentrations. 40. Meng, Z.D. Dabdub and J.H. Seinfeld, No. EPA–454/R–XX–ZZZ. U.S. Proceedings, 84th Annual Meeting & 1997. Chemical Coupling between Environmental Protection Agency, Research Exhibition of the Air & Waste Management Atmospheric Ozone and Particulate Matter. Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 98– Association, Vancouver, B.C.; 16–21 June Science, 277: 116–119. YYYYYY) 1991. (16pp.) (Docket No. A–92–65, II–A–9) 41. Hidy, G.M, Roth, P.M., Hales, J.M. and 53. Environmental Protection Agency, 64. Cole, H.S. and J.E. Summerhays, 1979. R.D. Scheffe, 2000. Fine Particles and 1998. Protocol for Applying and Validating A Review of Techniques Available for Oxidant Pollution: Developing an Agenda for the CMB. U.S. Environmental Protection Estimation of Short-Term NOX Cooperative Research. (submitted to JAWMA: Agency. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/R– Concentrations. Journal of the Air Pollution 50: 174–185) YY-nnn. U.S. Environmental Protection Control Association, 29(8): 81–817.
VerDate 18
65. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 77. Briggs, G.A. and F.S. Binkowski, 1985. Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB Development, 1980. Air Quality Research on Diffusion in Atmospheric 90–168030) Considerations in Residential Planning. U.S. Boundary Layers: A Position Paper on Status 90. Stauffer, D.R. and Seaman, N.L., 1990. Superintendent of Documents, Washington, and Needs. EPA Publication No. EPA–600/3– Use of four-dimensional data assimilation in DC. (GPO Order Nos. 023–000–00577–8, 25–072. U.S. Environmental Protection a limited-area mesoscale model. Part I: 023–000–00576–0, 023–000–00575–1) Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS Experiments with synoptic-scale data. 66. Environmental Protection Agency, No. PB 86–122587) Monthly Weather Review, 118: 1250–1277. 1998. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality 78. Irwin, J.S., 1978. Proposed Criteria for 91. Stauffer, D.R., Seaman, N.L., and Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report Selection of Urban Versus Rural Dispersion Binkowski, F.S., 1991. Use of four- and Recommendations for Modeling Long- Coefficients. (Draft Staff Report). Meteorology dimensional data assimilation in a limited- Range Transport Impacts. EPA Publication and Assessment Division, U.S. area mesoscale model. Part II: Effect of data No. EPA–454/R–98–019. (NTIS No. PB 99– Environmental Protection Agency, Research assimilation within the planetary boundary 121089) Triangle Park, NC. (Docket No. A–80–46, II– layer. Monthly Weather Review, 119: 734– 67. National Acid Precipitation Assessment B–8) 754. Program (NAPAP), 1991. Acid Deposition: 79. Auer, Jr., A.H., 1978. Correlation of 92. Hourly Modeled Sounding Data. MM4– State of Science and Technology. Volume III Land Use and Cover with Meteorological 1990 Meteorological Data, 12-volume CD– Terrestrial, Materials, Health and Visibility Anomalies. Journal of Appl. Meteor., 17(5): ROM. Jointly produced by NOAA’s National Effects. Report 24, Visibility: Existing and 636–643. Climatic Data Center and Atmospheric Historical Conditions—Causes and Effects 80. Pasquill, F., 1976. Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division. August 1995. Edited by Patricia M. Irving. Washington, DC. Dispersion Parameters in Gaussian Plume Can be ordered from NOAA National Data 129pp. Modeling, Part II. Possible Requirements for Center’s Internet website @ 68. National Research Council, 1993. Change in the Turner Workbook Values. EPA WWW.NNDC.NOAA.GOV/. Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Publication No. EPA–600/4–76–030b. U.S. 93. Landsberg, H.E. and W.C. Jacobs, 1951. Wilderness Areas. National Academy Press, Environment Protection Agency, Research Compendium of Meteorology. American Washington, DC. 446pp. Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB–258036/ Meteorological Society, Boston, MA; pp. 69. Environmental Protection Agency, 3BA) 976–992. 1992. Workbook for Plume Visual Impact 81. Turner, D.B., 1964. A Diffusion Model 94. Burton, C.S., T.E. Stoeckenius and J.P. Screening and Analysis (Revised). EPA for an Urban Area. Journal of Appl. Meteor., Nordin, 1983. The Temporal Publication No. EPA–454/R–92–023. U.S. 31): 83–91. Representativeness of Short-Term Environmental Protection Agency, Research 82. Briggs, G.A., 1975. Plume Rise Meteorological Data Sets: Implications for Air Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 93–223592) Predictions. Chapter 3 in Lectures on Air Quality Impact Assessments. Systems 70. Environmental Protection Agency, Pollution and Environmental Impact Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA. (Docket 1981. Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to Analyses. American Meteorological Society, No. A–80–46, II–G–11) Determine Good Engineering Practice (GEP) Boston, MA; pp. 59–111. 95. Solar and Meteorolocical Surface Stack Height. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/ 83. Hanna, S.R., G.A. Briggs and R.P. Observation Network, 1961–1990; 3-volume 4–81–003. U.S. Environmental Protection Hosker, Jr., 1982. Plume Rise. Chapter 2 in CD–ROM. Version 1.0, September 1993. Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 82–145327) Handbook on Atmospheric Diffusion. Produced jointly by National Climatic Data 71. Lawson, Jr., R.E. and W.H. Snyder, Technical Information Center, U.S. Center and National Renewable Energy 1983. Determination of Good Engineering- Department of Energy, Washington, DC; pp. Laboratory. Can be ordered from NOAA Practice Stack Height: A Demonstration 11–24. DOE/TIC–11223 (DE 82002045) National Data Center’s Internet website @ Study for a Power Plant. EPA Publication No. 84. Weil J.C., L.A. Corio, and R.P. Brower, WWW.NNDC.NOAA.GOV/. EPA–600/3–83–024. U.S. Environmental 1997. A PDF dispersion model for buoyant 96. Hourly United States Weather Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, plumes in the convective boundary layer. J. Observations, 1990–1995; (CD–ROM). NC. (NTIS No. PB 83–207407) Appl. Meteor., 36: 982–1003. October 1997. Produced jointly by National 72. Environmental Protection Agency, 85. Stull, R.B., 1988. An Introduction to Climatic Data Center and Environmental 1985. Guideline for Determination of Good Boundary Layer Meteorology. Kluwer Protection Agency. Can be ordered from Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. 666 pp. NOAA National Data Center’s Internet Support Document for the Stack Height 86. Environmental Protection Agency, website @ WWW.NNDC.NOAA.GOV/. Regulations), Revised. EPA Publication No. 1988. User’s Guide to SDM—A Shoreline 97. Radiosonde Data of North American, EPA–450/4–80–023R. U.S. Environmental Dispersion Model. EPA Publication No. EPA– 1946–1996; 4-volume CD–ROM. August Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 450/4–88–017. U.S. Environmental 1996. Produced jointly by Forecast Systems NC. (NTIS No. PB 85–225241) Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Laboratory and National Climatic Data 73. Snyder, W.H. and R.E. Lawson, Jr., NC. (NTIS No. PB 89–164305) Center. Can be ordered from NOAA National 1985. Fluid Modeling Demonstration of Good 87. Environmental Protection Agency, Data Center’s Internet website @ Engineering-Practice Stack Height in 1987. Analysis and Evaluation of Statistical WWW.NNDC.NOAA.GOV/. Complex Terrain. EPA Publication No. EPA– Coastal Fumigation Models. EPA Publication 98. Environmental Protection Agency, 600/3–85–022. U.S. Environmental No. EPA–450/4–87–002. U.S. Environmental 1999. Site Specific Meteorological Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory NC. (NTIS No. PB 85–203107) NC. (NTIS No. PB 87–175519) Modeling Applications. EPA Publication No. 74. Turner, D.B., 1969. Workbook of 88. Environmental Protection Agency 1995. EPA–454/R–99–005. U.S. Environmental Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. PHS Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Publication No. 999–AP–26. U.S. Department Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area NC. (NTIS No. PB YY–xxxxxx) of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Sources (Fifth Edition, AP–42: GPO Stock 99. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Service, Cincinnati, OH (NTIS No. No. 055–000–00500–1), and Supplements A– 1995. Quality Assurance for Air Pollution PB–191482) D; Volume II: Mobile Sources (Fifth Edition). Measurement Systems, Volume IV— 75. McElroy, J.L. and F. Pooler, Jr., 1968. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Meteorological Measurements. EPA St. Louis Dispersion Study, Volume II— Research Triangle Park, NC. Volume I can be Publication No. EPA600/R–94/038d. U.S. Analysis. National Air Pollution Control downloaded from EPA’s Internet website at Environmental Protection Agency, Research Administration Publication No. AP–53, U.S. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42.html; Volume II Triangle Park, NC. Note: for copies of this Department of Health, Education and can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/ handbook, you may make inquiry to ORD Welfare, Public Health Service, Arlington, omswww/ap42.htm. Publications, 26 West Martin Luther King VA. (NTIS No. PB–190255) 89. Environmental Protection Agency, Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268. (513) 569–7562 or 76. Irwin, J.S., 1983. Estimating Plume 1987. Ambient Air Monitoring Guideline for (800) 490–9198 (automated request line). Dispersion—A Comparison of Several Sigma Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). 100. Bowen, B.M., J.M. Dewart and A.I. Schemes. Journal of Climate and Applied EPA Publication No. EPA–450/4–87–007. Chen, 1983. Stability Class Determination: A Meterology, 22: 92–114. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comparison for One Site. Proceedings, Sixth
VerDate 18
Symposium on Turbulence and Diffusion. on Air Quality Modeling, Washington, DC. A.8 Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model American Meteorological Society, Boston, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (OCD) MA; pp. 211–214. (Docket No. A–92–65, II– Research Triangle Park, NC. (Docket No. A– A. REF References A–7) 80–46, II–M–16) 101. Environmental Protection Agency, 114. Hanna, S.R., 1982. Natural Variability A.0 Introduction and Availability 1993. An Evaluation of a Solar Radiation/ of Observed Hourly SO2 and CO (1) This appendix summarizes key features Delta-T (SRDT) Method for Estimating Concentrations in St. Louis. Atmospheric of refined air quality models preferred for Pasquill-Gifford (P–G) Stability Categories. Environment, 16(6): 1435–1440. specific regulatory applications. For each EPA Publication No. EPA–454/R–93–055. 115. Fox, D.G., 1983. Uncertainty in Air model, information is provided on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Modeling. Bulletin of the American availability, approximate cost (where Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB Meteorological Society, 65(1): 27–36. applicable), regulatory use, data input, 94–113958) 116. Bowne, N.E., 1981. Validation and 102. Irwin, J.S., 1980. Dispersion Estimate Performance Criteria for Air Quality Models. output format and options, simulation of Suggestion #8: Estimation of Pasquill Appendix F in Air Quality Modeling and the atmospheric physics, and accuracy. These Stability Categories. U.S. Environmental Clean Air Act: Recommendations to EPA on models may be used without a formal Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory demonstration of applicability provided they NC (Docket No. A–80–46, II–B–10) Applications. American Meteorological satisfy the recommendations for regulatory 103. Mitchell, Jr., A.E. and K.O. Timbre, Society, Boston, MA; pp. 159–171. (Docket use; not all options in the models are 1979. Atmospheric Stability Class from No. A–80–46, II–A–106) necessarily recommended for regulatory use. Horizontal Wind Fluctuation. Presented at 117. Bowne, N.E. and R.J. Londergan, 1983. (2) Many of these models have been 72nd Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Overview, Results, and Conclusions for the subjected to a performance evaluation using Control Association, Cincinnati, OH; June EPRI Plume Model Validation and comparisons with observed air quality data. 24–29, 1979. (Docket No. A–80–46, II–P–8) Development Project: Plains Site. EPRI EA– Where possible, several of the models 104. Smedman—Hogstrom, A. and V. 3074. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo contained herein have been subjected to Hogstrom, 1978. A Practical Method for Alto, CA. evaluation exercises, including (1) statistical Determining Wind Frequency Distributions 118. Moore, G.E., T.E. Stoeckenius and performance tests recommended by the for the Lowest 200m from Routine D.A. Stewart, 1982. A Survey of Statistical American Meteorological Society and (2) Meteorological Data. Journal of App. Meteor., Measures of Model Performance and peer scientific reviews. The models in this 17(7): 942–954. Accuracy for Several Air Quality Models. appendix have been selected on the basis of 105. Smith, T.B. and S.M. Howard, 1972. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/4–83–001. the results of the model evaluations, Methodology for Treating Diffusivity. MRI 72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, experience with previous use, familiarity of FR–1030. Meteorology Research, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB the model to various air quality programs, Altadena, CA. (Docket No. A–80–46, II–P–8) 83–260810) 106. Environmental Protection Agency, 119. Rhoads, R.G., 1981. Accuracy of Air and the costs and resource requirements for 1998. User’s Guide for the AERMOD Quality Models. Staff Report. U.S. use. Meteorological Preprocessor: AERMET. Environmental Protection Agency, Research (3) With the exception of EDMS, codes and (Revised Draft) U.S. Environmental Triangle Park, NC. (Docket No. A–80–46, II– documentation for all models listed in this Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, G–6) appendix are available from EPA’s Support NC. (Docket No. A–99–05, II–A–3) 120. Pasquill, F., 1974. Atmospheric Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM) 107. Environmental Protection Agency, Diffusion, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, website at www.epa.gov/scram001. 1993. PCRAMMET User’s Guide. EPA New York, NY; 479 pp. Documentation is also available from the Publication No. EPA–454/R–96–001. U.S. 121. Austin, B.S., T.E. Stoeckenius, M.C. National Technical Information Service Environmental Protection Agency, Research Dudik and T.S. Stocking, 1988. User’s Guide (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 97–147912) to the Expected Exceedances System. Springfield, VA 22161; phone: (800) 553– 108. Environmental Protection Agency, Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA. 6847. Where possible, accession numbers are 1996. Meteorological Process for Regulatory Prepared under Contract No. 68–02–4352 provided. Models (MPRM) User’s Guide. EPA Option I for the U.S. Environmental Publication No. EPA–454/B–96–002. U.S. Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, A.1 AMS/EPA Regulatory Model— Environmental Protection Agency, Research NC. (Docket No. A–88–04, II–I–3) AERMOD Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 96–180518) 122. Thrall, A.D., T.E. Stoeckenius and C.S. References 109. Paine, R.J., 1987. User’s Guide to the Burton, 1985. A Method for Calculating CTDM Meteorological Preprocessor Program. Dispersion Modeling Uncertainty Applied to Cimorelli, A.J., S.G. Perry, A. Venkatram, EPA Publication No. EPA–600/8–88–004. the Regulation of an Emission Source. J.C. Weil, R.J. Paine, R.B. Wilson, R.F. Lee U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA. and W.D. Peters, 1998. AERMOD: Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Description of Model Formulation. (12/15/98 88–162102) Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Draft Document) Prepared for Environmental 110. Scire, J.S., F.R. Francoise, M.E. Fernau NC. (Docket No. A–80–46, IV–G–1) Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, and R.J. Yamartino, 1998. A User’s Guide for NC. 113pp. (Docket No. A–99–05; II–A–1) the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version Appendix A to Appendix W of Part Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. 5.0). Earth tech, Inc., Concord, MA 51—Summaries of Preferred Air User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory (www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm) Quality Models Model—AERMOD. (11/10/98 Draft) Office of 111. Environmental Protection Agency, Table of Contents Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1984. Calms Processor (CALMPRO) User’s Research Triangle Park, NC. (Docket No. A– Guide. EPA Publication No. EPA–901/9–84– A.0 Introduction and Availability 99–05, II–A–2) 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A.1 AMS/EPA Regulatory Model-AERMOD Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Region I, Boston, MA. (NTIS No. PB 84– A.2 Buoyant Line and Point Source User’s Guide for the AERMOD 229467) Dispersion Model (BLP) 112. Burton, C.S., 1981. The Role of A.3 CALINE3 Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET). Atmospheric Models in Regulatory Decision- A.4 CALPUFF (November 1998 Draft) Office of Air Quality Making: Summary Report. Systems A.5 Complex Terrain Dispersion Model Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA. Prepared Plus Algorithms for Unstable Situations Park, NC. (Docket No. A–99–05, II–A–3) under contract No. 68–01–5845 for U.S. (CTDMPLUS) Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Environmental Protection Agency, Research A.6 Emissions and Dispersion Modeling User’s Guide for the AERMOD Terrain Triangle Park, NC. (Docket No. A–80–46, II– System (EDMS) 3.1 Preprocessor (AERMAP). (11/30/98 Draft) M–6) A.7 Industrial Source Complex Model with Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 113. Environmental Protection Agency, Prime Downwash Algorithm (ISC- Research Triangle Park, NC. (Docket No. A– 1981. Proceedings of the Second Conference PRIME) 99–05, II–A–4)
VerDate 18
Availability 7zo and 100m (reference wind speed that can be imported into graphics software The model codes and associated measurement from which a vertical profile for plotting contours; an unformatted listing documentation are available on EPA’s can be developed), wind direction, cloud of raw results above a threshold value with Internet SCRAM website (Section A.0). cover, and temperature between zo and 100m a special structure for use with the TOXX (reference temperature measurement from model component of TOXST; a listing of Abstract which a vertical profile can be developed). A concentrations by rank (e.g., for use in AERMOD is a steady-state plume morning sounding (in National Weather quantile-quantile plots); and, a listing of dispersion model for assessment of pollutant Service format) from a representative upper concentrations, including arc-maximum concentrations from a variety of sources. air station, latitude, longitude, time zone, and normalized concentrations, suitable for AERMOD simulates transport and dispersion wind speed threshold are also required in model evaluation studies. from multiple point, area, or volume sources AERMET. Additionally, measured profiles of d. Type of Model based on an up-to-date characterization of the wind, temperature, vertical and lateral turbulence may be required in certain AERMOD is a steady-state plume model, atmospheric boundary layer. Sources may be using Gaussian distributions in the vertical located in rural or urban areas, and receptors applications (e.g., in complex terrain) to adequately represent the meteorology and horizontal for stable conditions, and in may be located in simple or complex terrain. the horizontal for convective conditions. The AERMOD accounts for building wake effects affecting plume transport and dispersion. Optionally, measurements of solar, or net vertical concentration distribution for (i.e., plume downwash). The model employs convective conditions results from an hourly sequential preprocessed radiation may be input to AERMET. Two files are produced by the AERMET assumed bi-Gaussian probability density meteorological data to estimate function of the vertical velocity. concentrations for averaging times from one meteorological preprocessor for input to the hour to one year. AERMOD is designed to AERMOD dispersion model. The surface file e. Pollutant Types operate in concert with two pre-processor contains observed and calculated surface AERMOD is applicable to primary codes: AERMET processes meteorological variables, one record per hour. The profile pollutants and continuous releases of toxic data for input to AERMOD, and AERMAP file contains the observations made at each and hazardous waste pollutants. Chemical processes terrain elevation data and generates level of a meteorological tower (or remote transformation is treated by simple receptor information for input to AERMOD. sensor), or the one-level observations taken exponential decay. Settling and deposition from other representative data (e.g., National are not yet simulated by AERMOD. a. Recommendations for Regulatory Use Weather Service surface observations), one (1) AERMOD is appropriate for the record per level per hour. f. Source-Receptor Relationships following applications: (i) Data used as input to AERMET should AERMOD applies user-specified locations • Point, volume, and area sources; possess an adequate degree of for sources and receptors. Actual separation • Surface, near-surface, and elevated representativeness to insure that the wind, between each source-receptor pair is used. releases; temperature and turbulence profiles derived Source and receptor elevations are user input • Rural or urban areas; by AERMOD are both laterally and vertically or are determined by AERMAP using USGS • Simple and complex terrain; representative of the source area. The DEM terrain data. Receptors may be located • Transport distances over which steady- adequacy of input data should be judged at user-specified heights above ground level. state assumptions are appropriate, up to 50 independently for each variable. The values g. Plume Behavior km; for surface roughness, Bowen ratio, and • 1-hour to annual averaging times; and albedo should reflect the surface (1) In the convective boundary layer (CBL), • Continuous toxic air emissions. characteristics in the vicinity of the the transport and dispersion of a plume is (2) For regulatory applications of meteorological tower, and should be characterized as the superposition of three AERMOD, the regulatory default option adequately representative of the modeling modeled plumes: The direct plume (from the should be set, i.e., the parameter DFAULT domain. Finally, the primary atmospheric stack), the indirect plume, and the penetrated should be employed in the MODELOPT input variables including wind speed and plume, where the indirect plume accounts record in the COntrol Pathway. The DFAULT direction, ambient temperature, cloud cover, for the lofting of a buoyant plume near the option requires the use of terrain elevation and a morning upper air sounding should top of the boundary layer, and the penetrated data, stack-tip downwash, sequential date also be adequately representative of the plume accounts for the portion of a plume checking, and does not permit the use of the source area. that, due to its buoyancy, penetrates above model in the SCREEN mode. In the (ii) For recommendations regarding the the mixed layer, but can disperse downward regulatory default mode, pollutant half life or length of meteorological record needed to and re-enter the mixed layer. In the CBL, decay options are not employed, except in perform a regulatory analysis with AERMOD, plume rise is superposed on the the case of an urban source of sulfur dioxide see Section 8.3.1. displacements by random convective where a four-hour half life is applied. Terrain (3) Receptor data: Receptor coordinates, velocities (Weil et al., 1997). elevation data from the U.S. Geological elevations, height above ground, and height (2) In the stable boundary layer, plume rise Survey 7.5-Minute Digital Elevation Model scales are produced by the AERMAP terrain is estimated using an iterative approach, (edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/doc/edchome/ndcdb/ preprocessor for input to AERMOD. Discrete similar to that in the CTDMPLUS model ndcdb.html) or equivalent (approx. 30-meter receptors and/or multiple receptor grids, (Perry, 1992; Section 11.0, ref. 33). resolution) should be used in all Cartesian and/or polar, may be employed in (3) Stack-tip downwash and buoyancy applications. In some cases, exceptions of the AERMOD. AERMAP requires input of Digital induced dispersion effects are modeled. terrain data requirement may be made in Elevation Model (DEM) terrain data produced Building wake effects are simulated for stacks consultation with the permit/SIP reviewing by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), or less than good engineering practice height authority. other equivalent data. AERMAP can be used using the methods contained in ISCST optionally to estimate source elevations. (Section 11.0, ref. 60). For stacks higher than b. Input Requirements building height plus one-half the lesser of the (1) Source data: Required input includes c. Output building height or building width, the source type, location, emission rate, stack Printed output options include input building wake algorithm of Huber and height, stack inside diameter, stack gas exit information, high concentration summary Snyder (1976) is used. For lower stacks, the velocity, stack gas temperature, area and tables by receptor for user-specified building wake algorithm of Schulman and volume source dimensions, and source averaging periods, maximum concentration Scire (Schulman and Hanna, 1986) is used, elevation. Building dimensions and variable summary tables, and concurrent values but stack-tip downwash and buoyancy- emission rates are optional. summarized by receptor for each day induced dispersion are not used. (2) Meteorological data: The AERMET processed. Optional output files can be (4) For elevated terrain, AERMOD meteorological preprocessor requires input of generated for: A listing of occurrences of incorporates the concept of the critical surface characteristics, including surface exceedances of user-specified threshold dividing streamline height, in which flow roughness (zo), Bowen ratio, and albedo by value; a listing of concurrent (raw) results at below this height remains horizontal, and sector and season or month, as well as, each receptor for each hour modeled, suitable flow above this height tends to rise up and hourly observations of wind speed between for post-processing; a listing of design values over terrain (Snyder et al., 1985). Plume
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
American Meteorological Society, Boston, Rao, T.R. and M.T. Keenan, 1980. Weil, J.C. and R.P. Brower, 1984. An MA. Suggestions for Improvement of the EPA– Updated Gaussian Plume Model for Tall Irwin, J.S., 1979. A Theoretical Variation of HIWAY Model. Journal of the Air Pollution Stacks. Journal of the Air Pollution Control the Wind Profile Power-Law Exponent as a Control Association, 30: 247–256 (and Association, 34: 818–827. Function of Surface Roughness and Stability. reprinted as Appendix C in Petersen, 1980). Weil, J.C., 1996. A new dispersion Atmospheric Environment, 13: 191–194. Schulman, L.L. and S.R. Hanna, 1986. algorithm for stack sources in building Liu, M.K. et al., 1976. The Chemistry, Evaluation of Downwash Modification to the wakes, Paper 6.6. Ninth Joint Conference on Dispersion, and Transport of Air Pollutants Industrial Source Complex Model. Journal of Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology Emitted from Fossil Fuel Power Plants in the Air Pollution Control Association, 36: with A&WMA, January 28–February 2, 1996. California: Data Analysis and Emission 258–264. Atlanta, GA. Impact Model. Systems Applications, Inc., Segal, H.M., 1983. Microcomputer Weil, J.C., L.A. Corio, and R.P. Brower, San Rafael, CA. Graphics in Atmospheric Dispersion 1997. A PDF dispersion model for buoyant Pasquill, F., 1976. Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling. Journal of the Air Pollution plumes in the convective boundary layer. J. Parameters in Gaussian Plume Modeling Part Control Association, 23: 598–600. Appl. Meteor., 36: 982–1003. Zhang, X., 1993. A computational analysis II. Possible Requirements for Change in the Snyder, W.H., R.S. Thompson, R.E. of the rise, dispersion, and deposition of Turner Workbook Values. EPA Publication Eskridge, R.E. Lawson, I.P. Castro, J.T. Lee, buoyant plumes. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts No. EPA–600/4–76–030b. U.S. J.C.R. Hunt, and Y. Ogawa, 1985. The Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Environmental Protection Agency, Research structure of the strongly stratified flow over Zhang, X. and A.F. Ghoniem, 1993. A Triangle Park, NC. hills: Dividing streamline concept, J. Fluid computational model for the rise and Petersen, W.B., 1980. User’s Guide for Mech., 152: 249–288. dispersion of wind-blown, buoyancy-driven HIWAY–2 A Highway Air Pollution Model. Turner, D.B., 1969. Workbook of plumes—I. Neutrally stratified atmosphere. EPA Publication No. EPA–600/8–80–018. Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. PHS Atmospheric Environment, 15: 2295—2311. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No. 999–26. U.S. Environmental Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS PB 80– Protection Agency, Research Triangle, Park, [FR Doc. 00–4235 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] 227556) NC. BILLING CODE 6560±60±P
VerDate 18
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 435 Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category; Proposed Rule
VerDate 18
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The data and analyses being to the record supporting this rulemaking AGENCY announced today are available for (Docket No. W–98–26) in the EPA Water review in the EPA Water Docket at EPA Docket. Electronic comments must be 40 CFR Part 435 Headquarters at Waterside Mall, Room submitted as a Wordperfect, ASCII, or [FRL±6581±4] EB–57, 401 M. St. SW, Washington, DC Adobe Acrobat (*.pdf) format file 20460. For access to the docket avoiding the use of any form of Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the materials, call (202) 260–3027 between encryption. Electronic comments must Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for an be identified by the docket number W– Category appointment. A reasonable fee may be 98–26 and may be filed online at many charged for copying. Federal Depository Libraries. No AGENCY: Environmental Protection The public meeting will be held at the confidential business information (CBI) Agency (EPA). Minerals Management Service (MMS), should be sent via e-mail. EPA’s ACTION: Proposed Rule; Supplemental Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office, information technology services (e.g., e- information and notice of meeting. Room 111, 1201 Elmwood Park mail, website) were temporarily shut down, beginning Thursday, February SUMMARY: On February 3, 1999 (64 FR Boulevard, New Orleans, LA, 70123– 17, in order to review and improve 5488), EPA proposed technology-based 2394. security measures. EPA’s e-mail services effluent limitations guidelines and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For are now operational. However, EPA standards under the Clean Water Act additional technical information, recommends that persons submitting (CWA) for the discharge of pollutants contact Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) comments electronically call Mr. Carey from oil and gas drilling operations 260–7186 or at the following e-mail A. Johnston, (202) 260–7186, to confirm associated with the use of synthetic- address: [email protected]. For EPA receipt. based drilling fluids (SBFs) and other additional economic information non-aqueous drilling fluids into waters contact Mr. James Covington at (202) Contents of This Document of the United States. This proposed rule 260–5132 or at the following e-mail I. Purpose of this Notice would apply to certain existing and new address: [email protected]. II. Overview of Proposal and Data Acquired facilities in the offshore subcategory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Visitors Since the Proposal beyond three miles from shore and attending the New Orleans public III. Revised Models IV. Revised Analyses offshore of Alaska, and the Cook Inlet, meeting (see ADDRESSES) will need to Alaska, portion of the coastal V. Best Management Practices (BMPs) sign in at the MMS guard booth and Alternatives to Numeric Limitations and subcategory of the oil and gas extraction obtain a visitors badge. If you wish to Standards point source category. present formal comments at the public This document presents a summary of meeting you should have a written copy I. Purpose of This Notice all data received and collected by EPA for submittal. No meeting materials will On February 3, 1999 (64 FR 5488), since publication of the proposal; an be distributed in advance of the public EPA proposed technology-based effluent assessment of the usefulness of the data meeting; all materials will be distributed limitations guidelines and standards in EPA’s analyses; summary at the meeting. Limited teleconferencing under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for descriptions of revised engineering and capability will be available for the the discharge of pollutants from oil and economic models; and updated meeting. Persons wishing to participate gas drilling operations associated with modeling results incorporating the new via telephone or who have special the use of synthetic-based drilling fluids data. This notice also discusses ‘‘best audio-visual needs should contact Mr. (SBFs) and other non-aqueous drilling management practices’’ (BMPs) as Carey A. Johnston, (202) 260–7186. fluids into waters of the United States. potential alternative requirements to The Agency invites all parties to This proposed rule would apply to reduce the discharges of toxic and coordinate their data collection certain existing and new facilities in the hazardous pollutants. activities with EPA to facilitate offshore subcategory (i.e., facilities DATES: Submit your comments by June mutually beneficial and cost-effective seaward of the inner territorial 20, 2000. A public meeting will be held data submissions. Please refer to the FOR boundary) and the Cook Inlet, Alaska, on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, from 1:00 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for portion of the coastal subcategory of the p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Central Standard technical contacts at EPA. oil and gas extraction point source Time. To ensure that EPA can properly category. ADDRESSES: Submit comments by mail respond to comments, the Agency In this notice, EPA is making new to Mr. Carey A. Johnston at the prefers that commenters cite, where data submissions available for comment. following address: U.S. Environmental possible, the paragraph(s) or sections in Additionally, EPA is providing Protection Agency; Engineering and the notice or supporting documents to descriptions of revised economic and Analysis Division (4303); 1200 which each comment refers. Please engineering models incorporating the Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; Washington, submit an original and two copies of new data. Summary descriptions of DC 20460. Please submit any references your comments and enclosures updated modeling results are also given cited in your comments. EPA would (including references). in this notice. This notice also discusses appreciate an original and two copies of Commenters who want EPA to ‘‘best management practices’’ (BMPs) as your comments and enclosures acknowledge receipt of their comments potential alternative requirements to (including references). Hand delivered should enclose a self-addressed, reduce the discharges of toxic and comments may be submitted at the EPA stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) hazardous pollutants. Finally, this Headquarters Water Docket (address will be accepted. Comments and data notice announces that EPA has below). Comments may also be filed will also be accepted on disks in submitted an Information Collection electronically to Wordperfect, ASCII, or Adobe Acrobat Request (ICR) to the Office of ‘‘[email protected].’’ Electronic (*.pdf) format. Management and Budget (OMB) for comments sent to the above e-mail All comments will be organized by these BMP alternatives to numeric address will be treated like all other EPA’s Engineering and Analysis effluent limitations and standards. EPA submitted comments. Division (EAD) and submitted by EAD solicits public comment on any of the
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TABLE II.A.1.1: INDUSTRY LC50 SEDIMENT TOXICITY DATA FOR VARIOUS DRILLING BASE FLUIDS AT TWO DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS
95% Confidence Drilling base fluid LC50 (mg/Kg) interval
Baker Hughes INTEQ-Generated Data
96-Hour Test ...... C14/16/18 IO ...... 4020 2926±8219 C14/16/18/20 IO ...... >5111 NA C16/18 IO ...... 3515 2726±5215 C14/15/16/17/18 LAO/IO ...... 1497 1299±1725 10-Day Test ...... Diesel ...... 343 297±391 C14/16/18 IO ...... 646 625±1250 C14/16/18/20 IO ...... 1218 1070±1453 C16/18 IO ...... 1464 1172±1681 C14 LAO ...... 205 187±223 C16 LAO ...... 407 353±473 C14/15/16/17/18 LAO/IO ...... 854 696±1018 C30+PAO ...... 2359 1478±5156 Enhanced Mineral Oil ...... 79 37±117 Linear Paraffin ...... 1047 846±1257 Paraffin ...... 111 101±122
Baroid-Generated Data
96-Hour Test ...... Diesel ...... 453 416±493 IO ...... 876 442±1663 LAO ...... 490 291±924 Ester ...... >20000 NA Ester (Low viscosity) ...... >20000 NA 10-Day Test ...... Diesel ...... 230 209±251 IO ...... 564 447±639 LAO ...... 338 294±378 Ester ...... >10000 NA Ester (Low viscosity) ...... 2447 2197±2701
MIDF Drilling-Generated Data
96-Hour Test ...... Diesel ...... 566 510±629 IO ...... 3686 2890±4893 Method Reference: EPA February 1999 Proposal (64 FR 5488). Finally, one commenter on the February 1999 proposal, Baroid Drilling Fluids, provided preliminary sediment toxicity data for two of its ester-based drilling fluids. The data provided in the comments indicate that both esters may have lower toxicities than other base fluids (e.g., C16–C18 IO, paraffin, mineral oil, diesel oil). However, EPA data presented in Table II.B.1.1 indicate that the sediment toxicity of IO and ester are significantly better than other alternative base fluids. 2. Biodegradation Test Results and Revised Methods In the February 1999 proposal, EPA set the BAT and NSPS stock limitation for biodegradation rate as: ‘‘percent stock base fluid degraded at 120 days minus percent C16–C18 internal olefin degraded at 120 days shall not be less than zero.’’ EPA also proposed a compliance method for this stock limitation (Appendix 4 to Subpart A of Part 435). Industry stakeholders conducted a series of biodegradation tests for determining biodegradation of SBFs and OBFs using the method proposed by EPA (Appendix 4). Industry stakeholders also identified alternative analytical biodegradation methods and used these alternative methods to generate data. EPA solicits comment in this notice on use of these alternative methods and corresponding data to set biodegradation limitations and standards and compliance methods. EPA proposes to use one of these methods for: (1) The establishment of an appropriate biodegradation rate stock limitation in the final rule; and (2) use as a compliance tool. The first analytical test method is the solid-phase degradation test as EPA proposed in February 1999 (Appendix 4). This method consists of spiking ‘‘clean’’ marine or estuarine sediment with a base fluid and placing these test samples in exposure tanks filled with seawater. The concentration of base fluid is measured at regular intervals during the test to monitor the degradation of the base fluid.
VerDate 18
Industry-supplied data using the solid phase test are summarized in Table II.A.2.1.
TABLE II.A.2.1: INDUSTRY SOLID PHASE BIODEGRADATION TEST RESULTS
Percent loss relative to day 0 Elapsed time of test Finagreen C16±C18 Neodene Olive oil ester Diesel Internal 1518 (percent) (percent) (percent) olefin (percent)
Day 10 ...... 84 56 * * * Day 20 ...... 88 59 * * * Day 45 ...... 96 90 ¥2392 Day 110 ...... 99 95 22 73 58 Day 186 ...... 99 99 55 93 83 Method Reference: EPA February 1999 Proposal (64 FR 5488). *Not tested. The second biodegradation method evaluated by industry is the marine anaerobic closed bottle test. This test procedure places a mixture of SBFs or OBFs, marine sediment, and sea water into a tightly capped clean serum bottle. The conditions within the closed bottle result in the anaerobic degradation of SBFs or OBFs. The anaerobic processes degrading the base fluids produce gas. This gas production is monitored as a measure of the degradation process. Industry-supplied data using the closed bottle test are summarized in Table II.A.2.2.
TABLE II.A.2.2: INDUSTRY MARINE ANAEROBIC CLOSED BOTTLE BIODEGRADATION TEST RESULTS
Cumulative gas production over time (ml)
Elapsed time of test C14±C16 lin- C16±C18 in- Synthetic Blank con- Olive oil ear alpha C30 ternal olefin olefin paraffin trol
Day 0 ...... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Day 5 ...... 9.29 2.77 3.67 3.32 3.32 3.88 Day 25 ...... 50.00 8.59 10.00 7.05 6.62 5.99 Day 33 ...... 103.50 12.50 15.00 10.00 8.00 8.30 Day 67 ...... 150.41 18.38 22.15 13.67 10.45 11.12 Day 77 ...... 152.50 22.21 26.46 15.83 12.42 12.28 Day 95 ...... 160.61 24.60 32.74 18.16 12.18 12.98 Day 113 ...... 162.88 29.71 42.91 21.14 12.80 13.30 Day 132 ...... 164.78 39.74 55.50 23.17 13.38 14.01 Day 155 ...... 169.18 59.00 88.16 27.19 15.42 16.07 Day 194 ...... 167.74 92.36 114.50 25.82 13.97 14.57 Day 231 ...... 171.57 104.50 138.22 29.49 17.47 17.63 Day 271 ...... 175.58 119.88 151.20 33.33 21.63 22.11 Method Reference: ISO 11734: ``Water qualityÐEvaluation of the `ultimate' anaerobic biodegradability of organic compounds in digested sludgeÐMethod by measurement of the biogas production'' (1995 edition). The third biodegradation test method is the respirometry test. This analytical method determines biodegradation by measuring the carbon dioxide production and/or oxygen consumption due to microbial oxidation of the test fluid in sediment. Industry-supplied data using the respirometry test are summarized in Table II.A.2.3.
TABLE II.A.2.3: INDUSTRY RESPIROMETRY BIODEGRADATION TEST RESULTS
Cumulative oxygen consumption over time (mg) Elapsed time of test Rapeseed oil Amodrill 1000 Blank control control SBF
Day 1 ...... 3.38 4.57 4.46 Day 2 ...... 6.26 8.26 6.62 Day 3 ...... 6.52 9.03 10.49 Day 4 ...... 12.68 22.29 14.13 Day 5 ...... 16.42 34.29 18.43 Day 6 ...... 18.50 41.33 21.02 Day 7 ...... 21.40 50.02 24.67 Day 8 ...... 24.02 58.42 27.96 Day 9 ...... 26.66 66.12 31.19 Day 10 ...... 29.10 72.88 34.36 Day 11 ...... 31.48 78.86 37.25 Day 12 ...... 33.88 84.26 39.96 Day 13 ...... 36.27 89.00 42.67 Day 14 ...... 38.80 93.33 45.48 Day 15 ...... 41.28 97.26 48.24 Day 16 ...... 43.31 100.76 50.96 Day 17 ...... 45.19 103.86 53.47
VerDate 18
TABLE II.A.2.3: INDUSTRY RESPIROMETRY BIODEGRADATION TEST RESULTSÐContinued
Cumulative oxygen consumption over time (mg) Elapsed time of test Rapeseed oil Amodrill 1000 Blank control control SBF
Day 19 ...... 49.29 110.34 58.86 Day 20 ...... 50.80 112.69 60.76 Day 21 ...... 52.53 115.34 62.78 Day 22 ...... 54.23 117.98 64.83 Day 23 ...... 55.73 120.38 66.57 Day 26 ...... 60.94 127.73 72.97 Day 27 ...... 62.32 129.64 74.76 Day 28 ...... 64.00 131.77 76.66 Day 29 ...... 65.60 133.81 78.81 Day 30 ...... 67.14 135.75 81.04 Day 31 ...... 68.59 137.53 82.97 Day 32 ...... 70.10 139.32 84.96 Day 33 ...... 71.66 141.13 86.98 Day 34 ...... 73.09 143.45 88.84 Day 35 ...... 74.82 144.51 91.08 Day 36 ...... 76.29 146.15 93.17 Day 37 ...... 77.47 147.59 94.68 Day 38 ...... 79.11 149.22 96.82 Day 39 ...... 80.64 150.80 98.87 Day 40 ...... 82.31 152.51 101.26 Day 41 ...... 83.44 153.83 102.68 Note: data were not collected on Days 18, 24, and 25. Method Reference: Modification of OPPTS 835.3110: ``Fate, Transport and Transformation Test Guidelines: Ready Biodegradability,'' EPA 712±C±98±076, January 1998.
A more complete review of these to minimize interference from BAT limitation and NSPS controlling procedures and data can be found in emulsifiers. A more complete review of SBF retained on discharged cuttings: (1) section III.B.(b) of the rulemaking this procedure can be found in section a single numeric discharge limitation record. III.B.(b) of the rulemaking record. with an accompanying compliance test Finally, one commenter on the The GC/MS method is expected to be method; (2) allowing operators to February 1999 proposal, American performed in a land-based laboratory. choose either a single numeric discharge Petroleum Institute/National Ocean This procedure, which measures the limitation with an accompanying Industries Association (API/NOIA), area under GC peaks and target compliance test method, or as an stated, without any supporting data, that aromatics, is a dependable laboratory alternative, a set of BMPs that employs esters biodegrade more quickly than the technique proposed by EPA to limited cuttings monitoring; or (3) alternative non-aqueous fluid systems. supplement the RPE test for verification allowing operators to choose either a EPA agrees with this statement based on purposes. A more complete review of single numeric discharge limitation recent EPA biodegradation test results this procedure can be found in section with an accompanying compliance test (see section II.B.2). III.B.(b) of the rulemaking record. method or an alternative set of BMPs that employ no cuttings monitoring. 3. Formation Oil Contamination 4. SBF on Cuttings Retention Data Further EPA corrected technical (Offshore and On-shore Tests) In this section, EPA summarizes the errors in the proposed rule based on the In the February 1999 proposal, EPA relationship of the industry supplied statistical analysis of the SBF on proposed the BAT limitation and NSPS data to EPA’s proposal, the relationship cuttings data obtained from the Gulf of for formation oil as zero discharge. EPA of these data to reductions in discharges Mexico (GOM). The average percent also proposed a screening method to the environment, and the SBF on SBF on cuttings was corrected from 11.5 [Reverse Phase Extraction (RPE) method cuttings data submitted by industry. to 11.4 for current practice and from given in Appendix 6 to Subpart A of a. SBF on Cuttings Data in Relation to 7.11 to 7.09 for the BAT/NSPS Part 435] and an assurance method [Gas EPA’s Proposal. In February 1999, EPA technology. The proposed well averaged Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/ proposed a BAT limitation and NSPS maximum limitation and standard were MS) method given in Appendix 5 to for base fluid retained on cuttings as a corrected from 10.2 to 9.42. Cost and Subpart A of Part 435] for determining maximum value of 10.2 percent, not to loading calculations presented in the compliance. These methods continue to be exceeded by the weighted average for February 1999 SBF technical support be EPA’s preferred option for the final retention over the course of drilling a documents were not affected by these rule. well. EPA also proposed a method for changes because these calculations were Industry has sponsored research demonstrating compliance with this based on the rounded values of 11 for regarding both of these analytical discharge limitation (Appendix 7 to current practice and 7 for the BAT/ methods for determining formation oil Subpart A of Part 435). In today’s notice NSPS technology. The technical errors contamination. The RPE procedure is to EPA, with input from industry, presents requiring these changes were related to be used offshore. It measures ultraviolet the proposed option along with several EPA’s calculation of drilling intervals. (UV) fluorescence to detect the presence alternatives utilizing Best Management EPA calculates drilling intervals as of aromatic compounds. Since proposal, Practices (BMPs). EPA is considering the depth drilled since the last refinements have been made in the test three options for the final rule for the measurement for retention on cuttings.
VerDate 18
EPA uses this measurement in combination of these effects. Numerous Overall, lowering the percentage of conjunction with pipe diameter to field studies show that the most harmful residual drilling fluid retained on estimate the volume of cuttings benthic effects are generally within 500 cuttings increases the recovery rate of associated with a particular retention on meters of development drilling the seabed receiving the cuttings (Getliff cuttings measurement. EPA then uses operations and within 250 meters of et al., 1997; Vik et al., 1996). Therefore, this volume in the weighted summary single well sites (Davies et al., 1989). limiting the amount of NAF content in statistics for the retention on cuttings Reducing the amount of initial base discharged cuttings controls: (1) The data. Some data used at proposal were fluid on cuttings is beneficial in amount of NAF discharged to the ocean; submitted with drilling intervals already promoting biodegradation of SBFs in the (2) the biodegradation rate of discharged calculated and other data were benthic environment. Literature data NAF; and (3) the potential for NAF- submitted with depth measurements make clear that the biodegradation of cuttings to develop cuttings piles and calculated from the ocean floor. In the SBFs in the environment is not simply mats which are detrimental to the proposed rule as published in the an exponential decay (Getliff et al., benthic environment. Federal Register, EPA used both sets of 1997). The half-life of the base fluid c. SBF on Cuttings Data Submitted by measurements as if they all represented decreases as the initial concentration of Industry. Subsequent to proposal, SBF drilling intervals. However, in the base fluid on cuttings decreases. on cuttings data from various formations record for the proposed rule, EPA Therefore, it is vital to minimize the within the GOM have been submitted by calculated and used drilling intervals initial concentration of base fluid on an industry workgroup, individual for those data submitted with depth cuttings discharged to maximize the operators, and by equipment vendors. measurements calculated from the rates of biodegradation and seabed These data characterize performance for ocean floor. More information on these recovery. a variety of cuttings treatment errors and the corrections is given in Reducing the amount of initial base technologies, including existing shaker fluid on cuttings is also beneficial in section I.C(d)(59) of the rulemaking technologies and add-on equipment. preventing the build-up of deleterious record. Several comments on the February 1999 cuttings piles and mats. A decrease in Several comments received on the proposal also provided cursory benthic individuals within the zone of February 1999 proposal related to the information and data related to the maximum cuttings deposition (i.e., use of cuttings retention data from the performance of new and existing solids cuttings piles and mats) is a result of North Sea to set the GOM numeric control equipment and drilling fluids. physical smothering and organic guidelines and standards for percent For example, one comment by Derrick retention. As discussed below, EPA has enrichment which produces anoxic Equipment Company described SBF subsequently obtained sufficient data conditions and toxic sulfide cuttings retention values in the range of from the GOM to set limitations and biodegradation by-products (Daan et al., 8 to 9% by weight for a GOM well using standards without use of the North Sea 1996; Limia, 1996). A reduction of a new shale shaker design. A comment data. benthic individuals beyond the b. Relationship of SBF on Cuttings immediate area of physical impact may by Baroid Drilling Fluids stated that the Retention Data to Protection of the be indicative of a toxic effect (Davies lower viscosity of its new ester-based Environment. Cuttings retention data and Kingston, 1992). The build-up of drilling fluid will lead to greater measure the amount of residual drilling these harmful cuttings piles and mats is recovery of its ester-based fluid from fluid retained on cuttings. A higher controlled by several factors including cuttings. cuttings retention value indicates that the conditions of the receiving waters Based on these data and other GOM more drilling fluid is adhering to the (e.g., currents, distance from discharge data presented at proposal, EPA has cuttings. EPA is interested in the to seabed) and the retention of SBF on modeled and analyzed the cuttings cuttings retention measurement not only cuttings. A study of cuttings piles in the retention performance of several as an indicator of the amount drilling North Sea found that piles of cuttings technologies. A summary of the revised fluid discharged into the ocean but also are found predominantly at particular models is presented in section III.D. A as an indicator of the ability of cuttings sites in the central and northern North summary of the analyses developed by to biodegrade and disperse and not form Sea, where water depths are greater, and EPA, including the development of deleterious cuttings piles and mats. currents less than, the southern North numeric guidelines and standards, is Moreover, understanding the fate and Sea (Bell et al., 1998). presented in section IV.D. Detailed transport of discharged cuttings is an Results from laboratory experiments descriptions of the statistical methods, important step in modeling and modeling typical ocean conditions show summary statistics, overall averages, monitoring potential environmental and that high NAF content on cuttings (i.e., and percentiles associated with each human health impacts. high cuttings retention values) lead to technology can be found in section SBFs are a subcategory of non- ‘‘lumps’’ of material, rather than III.C.(a) of the rulemaking record. aqueous drilling fluids (NAFs) which do separate particles, which rapidly settle 5. Industry Seabed Survey not easily disperse in the water column. out (i.e., have high fall velocities) to the The effects of NAF-cuttings on benthic benthic environment (Delvigne, 1996). Permits authorizing the discharge of fauna may be categorized as being Moreover, field results show that SBF-cuttings are required to meet (a) caused by: (1) physical smothering; (2) cuttings are dispersed during transit to technology-based requirements, and (b) the presence of potential toxic and the seabed and no cuttings piles are CWA section 403(c) Ocean Discharge hazardous pollutants and formed when SBF concentrations on Criteria, or, in State waters of Cook biodegradation by-products (e.g., heavy cuttings are held below 5% (Getliff et Inlet, Alaska, State water quality metals, aromatics, hydrocarbons, al., 1997; Hanni et al., 1998). criteria. The February 1999 proposal sulfides); and (3) the organic enrichment Additionally, cuttings discharged from described the CWA 403(c) requirements of sediment which may produce anoxic cuttings dryers (with SBF retention and the seabed surveys EPA thinks conditions (Limia and Peresich, 1992). values under 5%) in combination with would be occurring, based on Field studies indicate that the responses a sea water flush, hydrate very quickly information available at that time to shown by benthic communities to and disperse like water-based cuttings satisfy these permit requirements. cuttings discharges are the result of a (Hanni et al., 1998). Today’s notice updates the description
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
EPA may consider different provide addition environmental Gulf Breeze Laboratory evaluated the technology options for these micro- protection. EPA is requesting comments sediment toxicity of three synthetic base encapsulated cuttings discharges. These and information related to the fluids compared to diesel and have options include product substitution of environmental, technical, and economic consisted of 96-hour and 10-day only certain types of drilling fluids performance of this and similar micro- exposure tests with an IO, a LAO, and available for use in micro-encapsulating encapsulation technologies and the an ester as the base fluids as compared systems; different monitoring and incentive/disincentive issue with to No. 2 diesel oil. At the same time, sampling requirements for micro- respect to the proposed retention EPA’s contract laboratory, Battelle, also encapsulated discharges; different limitation and standard using the retort conducted initial sediment toxicity tests toxicity tests; and different cuttings method as the compliance test method. on mineral oil and paraffin in addition retention requirements. Specifically, to the same three synthetic base fluids EPA is proposing that this technology B. EPA Data Collection Since Proposal Publication evaluated by the EPA Gulf Breeze may be more beneficial in combination Laboratory. with other technologies (e.g., product 1. Sediment Toxicity Test Results substitution, add-on solids removal EPA is currently conducting tests to equipment) to assist operators in Because of the limited data available determine influences of whole fluid meeting site specific CWA section 403 for the proposal on the sediment compositions and crude oil NPDES permit requirements. As stated toxicity of both the base fluids and contamination on the sediment toxicity previously, switching to less toxic and whole drilling fluid systems, EPA has of an internal olefin (IO), linear alpha more biodegradable drilling fluids, begun a study using sediment toxicity olefin (LAO), and ester. Current and reducing the oil on cuttings, and test methods to: (1) determine the previous sediment toxicity tests increasing the dispersion of the cuttings toxicity of various base fluids and whole conducted by EPA have used the ASTM is instrumental in preventing build-up synthetic fluid drilling systems on E1367–92 sediment toxicity method of cuttings piles and reducing impacts amphipods for purposes of selecting supplemented with a sediment to the benthic environment. Use of this fluids that represent the appropriate preparation procedure (see 64 FR 5536: micro-encapsulation technology to level of technology; and (2) evaluate Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Part 435). promote cuttings dispersion and further possible sediment toxicity compliance Table II.B.1.1 summarizes the sediment sequester the oil on cuttings, after use of method options. The initial tests toxicity data that EPA has collected new solids control equipment, may conducted in December 1999 at the EPA since proposal.
TABLE II.B.1.1: EPA-COLLECTED LC50 SEDIMENT TOXICITY DATA WITH VARIOUS DRILLING BASE FLUIDS FOR TWO DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS
95% Confidence Drilling base fluid LC50 (mg/Kg) interval
EPA Gulf Breeze LaboratoryÐGenerated Data
96-Hour Test ...... Internal Olefin ...... ND NA Linear Alpha Olefin ...... 750 677±930 Ester ...... 10812 9138±12793 Diesel ...... 463 426±505 10-Day Test ...... Internal Olefin ...... 660 423±1029 Linear Alpha Olefin ...... 419 350±502 Ester ...... ND NA Diesel ...... 199 171±232
EPA Contract Laboratory (Battelle)ÐGenerated Data
96-Hour Test ...... Internal Olefin ...... >8000 NA Linear Alpha Olefin ...... 2921 2260Ð3775 Ester ...... 7686 7158Ð8253 Mineral Oil ...... 436 485Ð391 Paraffin ...... 2263 1936Ð2644 10-Day Test ...... Internal Olefin ...... 2530 2225Ð2876 Linear Alpha Olefin ...... 1208 1089Ð1339 Ester ...... 4275 3921Ð4662 Mineral Oil ...... 176 163Ð190 Paraffin ...... 1151 1038Ð1276 Method Reference: EPA February 1999 Proposal (64 FR 5488). NDÐNot determined; NAÐNot applicable.
In addition, EPA is assessing the hydrocarbons) produce by-products that products (e.g., alcohols) may exhibit toxicity potential for degradation by- include biodegradable alcohols and fatty toxic effects in the water column products. EPA has some information acids. Some SBFs, such as linear (Johnston, 2000a). EPA solicits related to SBF by-products (Candler et paraffins, are still the subject of some comments and data on whether there al., 1995; Getliff et al., 1997; Johnston, debate as to their exact mode of are any known persistent or toxic by- 2000a). These data show that aerobic biodegradation and associated by- products created by the biodegradation and anaerobic degradation mechanisms products under anaerobic conditions. In of synthetic base fluids. This for many SBFs (especially linear addition, ester-based drilling fluids by- information will allow EPA to assess the
VerDate 18
TABLE II.B.2.1: EPA SOLID PHASE BIODEGRADATION TEST
Percent loss relative to day 0 Poly (alpha) Internal Linear alpha Ester Paraffin olefin Mineral oil olefin olefin (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Day 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 Day 14 ...... 53 21 22 20 9 8 Day 28 ...... 60 19 25 21 18 16 Method Reference: EPA February 1999 Proposal (64 FR 5488).
3. EPA Engineering Data Collection SBF and SBF-waste management as a factor in supporting the selection of Activities practices. a controlled discharge option in the During the week of October 25, 1999, Finally, EPA collected information final rule. EPA staff traveled to Texas and from MMS regarding accidental spills of A more complete review of the EPA Louisiana to observe onshore and OBFs and SBFs. Spills can release small collected engineering data can be found offshore equipment used for treating and large quantities of drilling fluid. In in section III.B.(a) of the rulemaking and disposing of SBF and SBF-cuttings. particular, undetected leaking lines can record. Highlights of the onshore portion of the release several hundred barrels of drilling fluid while accidental riser 4. Non-Water Quality Environmental field trip include visits to an operating Impacts (NWQI) cuttings dryer unit, a fracture slurry disconnects can release several injection facility, and a barge facility on thousand barrels of whole drilling fluid The additional cuttings retention data the GOM intercoastal waterway. into the environment. Specifically, EPA submitted to EPA (see section II.A.4) Offshore highlights included visits to is interested in: (1) the occurrences of were used in the revision of the two oil and gas drilling operations to accidents and events that can cause the engineering models that form the basis observe waste management and release of OBF and SBF whole drilling for all per-well numeric compliance pollution prevention practices. EPA fluid (e.g., riser disconnects, blow-outs, analyses. Based on changes in the staff also observed working solids shallow water flow problems); (2) the engineering models described below in control equipment including cuttings number of these accidents and events section III.A, EPA revised the numeric dryers. These cuttings dryers are over the past five years for each MMS NWQIs of fuel usage, air emissions, and designed to recover more SBF from region (Alaska, California, GOM); (3) the solid waste generation. cuttings generated by primary and location of these events (i.e., shallow or The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) secondary shale shakers. This field trip deepwater); and (4) the volumes collected information about currently also included an all day meeting with associated with these accidents and operating onshore commercial disposal cuttings dryer equipment vendor events. Preliminary information is that facilities that are permitted to receive representatives and members of there have been several spills of OBFs offshore drilling wastes. The Argonne industry. Field notes from the site visit over the past five years, but most were National Laboratory (DOE) contacted and minutes of the all day meeting can small volumes. In addition, MMS data State officials in Louisiana, Texas, be found in section III.B.(a) of the identifies three events, including two California, and Alaska to obtain this rulemaking record. riser disconnects, that resulted in information. EPA also identified a list of EPA also obtained information from significant releases of SBFs into the Louisiana commercial non-hazardous the industry primarily related to the per- environment for the months of January oilfield wastes (NOW) facilities from the well aspects of drilling with SBF in and February 2000. Under the zero Louisiana Department of Natural three subject areas: (1) Drilling discharge option EPA assumes that all Resources. operations; (2) solids control equipment operators requiring NAF will switch to EPA also contacted Alaska, Texas, and systems; and (3) costs, in order to OBFs. As the toxicity of OBFs is greater and Louisiana regulatory agencies to better understand current and emerging than SBFs, EPA will use this spill data obtain current information concerning
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TABLE IV.A.1.1: SUMMARY ANNUAL COST/SAVINGS, EXISTING SOURCES (1998$/YEAR)
Costs (savings) in 1998$/year [wells/year] Technology basis Gulf of Offshore Cook Inlet, Mexico California Alaska Total [wells/yr] [wells/yr] [wells/yr] [wells/yr]
Baseline/Current Practice Technology Costs: Discharge with 11.4% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 20,032,850 ...... NA a ...... NA a ...... 20,032,850 [94 wells/yr] ...... [94 wells/yr] Zero Discharge via land disposal or onsite injection (cur- 3,494,062 ...... 2,287,281 ...... 214,237 ...... 5,995,580 rent OBF-drilled wells only). [23 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [36 wells/yr] Total Baseline Costs per Area ...... 23,526,912 ...... 2,287,281 ...... 214,237 ...... 26,028,430 [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Technology Option Costs: Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 20,257,350 ...... 2,463,440 ...... 211,350 ...... 22,932,140 [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 20,365,837 ...... 2,472,517 ...... 214,672 ...... 23,053,026 [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or on- 31,666,153b ...... NA a ...... NA a ...... 31,666,153 site injection. [94 wells/yr] ...... [94 wells/yr] Incremental Tech. Option Costs (Savings): Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (3,269,562) ...... 176,159 ...... (2,887) ...... (3,096,290) [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (3,161,075) ...... 185,236 ...... 435 ...... (2,975,404) [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr]
VerDate 18
TABLE IV.A.1.1: SUMMARY ANNUAL COST/SAVINGS, EXISTING SOURCES (1998$/YEAR)ÐContinued
Costs (savings) in 1998$/year [wells/year] Technology basis Gulf of Offshore Cook Inlet, Mexico California Alaska Total [wells/yr] [wells/yr] [wells/yr] [wells/yr]
Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or on- 11,633,303c ...... NA a ...... NA a ...... 11,633,303 site injection. [94 wells/yr] ...... [94 wells/yr] a NA: Not applicable since currently there are no discharges of SBF-cuttings in these waters. b This technology option cost estimates zero discharge costs associated with the 94 GOM wells that are currently allowed to discharge SBF. c This incremental technology option cost only covers the 94 GOM wells that are currently allowed to discharge SBF and does not include baseline compliance costs of zero discharge for the 23 GOM OBF wells (i.e., $3,494,062).
TABLE IV.A.1.2: SUMMARY ANNUAL COST/SAVINGS, NEW SOURCES (1998$/YEAR)
Technology basis Gulf of Mexico
Baseline/Current Practice Technology Costs: Discharge with 11.4% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 2,306,325 Technology Option Costs: Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 1,388,250 Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 1,395,913 Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or onsite injection ...... 4,581,838 Incremental Technology Option Costs (Savings): Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (918,075) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (910,412) Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or onsite injection ...... 2,275,513 Note: All cost estimates in this table are based on an assumption of 19 new source wells per year. Details of the revised compliance cost data and analyses are available in a technical support document in section III.C.(b) of the rulemaking record. 2. Small Volume Discharges As stated in section III.A.2 of this notice, EPA learned that SBF is controlled with zero discharge practices at the drill floor, in the form of vacuums and sumps to retrieve spilled fluid. Industry estimated that essentially all of the SBF that spills on the rig floor is recovered using the controls described above. The amount of SBF spilled on the rig floor that is not captured by current practices is estimated at less than 1 gallon SBF per 100 feet drilled. Industry representatives have stated that industry is split on the practice of discharging accumulated solids with some discharging accumulated solids provided permit limitations and standards are met and others opting to haul this material to shore for disposal (see section II.B.3). Approximately 75 barrels per well of fine solids and barite, of which up to 25% is SBF, accumulate in the rig mud pits, sand traps, and other equipment. Several hundred barrels (approximately 200 to 400 barrels) of water are used to wash out the mud pits. Industry representatives also indicated to EPA that those oil and gas extraction operations that discharge wash water and accumulated solids first recover free SBF. EPA used the line-item costs developed for the zero discharge compliance cost analysis to calculate per-well and total costs for existing and new sources to dispose of accumulated solids via hauling to land based disposal facilities. Section III.A.2 outlines the assumptions used to calculate the annual zero discharge costs for small volume wastes given below in Table IV.A.2.1. Overall, the estimated per-well costs (1998$) were $1,221 for GOM wells, $2,186 for Offshore California wells, and $10,638 for Cook Inlet wells.
TABLE IV.A.2.1: ANNUAL ZERO DISCHARGE COSTS FOR SMALL-VOLUME SBF WASTES (1998$/YEAR)
Technology Basis Gulf of Mexico California Cook Inlet, AK Total
Existing Sources: Baseline and BAT/NSPS Discharge Scenarios a ...... $142,857 $26,235 $10,638 $179,730 Zero Discharge b ...... 114,774 d NA d NA 114,774 New Sources: All Scenarios (Baseline, BAT/NSPS Discharge, and Zero Discharge) c .. 23,199 d NA d NA 23,199 a Costs are the same for baseline and two discharge scenarios because each analysis is based on 117 wells. b Zero discharge costs for existing sources are based on 94 wells. c Costs are the same for all new-source scenarios because each analysis is based on 19 wells. d NA: Not Applicable. B. Revised Pollutant Loadings Results EPA reviewed additional information regarding drilling fluid additives provided by the industry representatives in response and subsequent to the February 1999 proposal, and found no information prompting changes to the concentrations or list of pollutants presented at the time of proposal. EPA revised the pollutant loadings analysis according to the changes in the engineering and statistical models described in section III.A and III.D of this notice.
VerDate 18
The loadings analysis depends on the estimated volumes of cuttings and SBF discharged per model well for each discharge scenario. Other than adjusting the loadings to the revised waste volumes and revised discharge scenarios, the analysis remains unchanged from the February 1999 analyses. Tables IV.B.1 and IV.B.2 present the revised loadings for existing and new sources, respectively. EPA assumes that operators will switch from OBFs in the current baseline model to SBFs under both SBF controlled discharge options. These tables present the loadings associated with discharges of SBF and entrained fines [e.g., <5 microns (10¥6 meters)]. EPA also calculated the loadings associated with SBF solids that can be removed by solids control equipment (e.g., >5 microns).
TABLE IV.B.1: SUMMARY ANNUAL SBF POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (LBS/YEAR) a
SBF pollutant loadings (reductions) in pounds/year a [wells/year] Technology basis Offshore Gulf of Mexico California Cook Inlet, Alaska Total
Baseline/Current Practice Tech. Loadings: Discharge with 11.4% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 34,364,661 ...... b NA ...... b NA ...... 34,364,661 [94 wells/yr] ...... [94 wells/yr] Zero Discharge via land disposal or onsite injection (cur- 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 rent OBF-drilled wells only). [23 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [36 wells/yr] Total Baseline Loadings per Area ...... 34,364,661 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 34,364,661 [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Technology Option Loadings: Discharge with 2.68% retention of base fluid on cuttings 7,328,175 ...... 466,072 ...... 26,413 ...... 7,820,660 [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Discharge with 2.45% retention of base fluid on cuttings 6,464,827 ...... 411,167 ...... 23,302 ...... 6,889,295 [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or on- 0 ...... b NA ...... b NA ...... 0 site injection. [94 wells/yr] ...... [94 wells/yr] Increm. Tech. Opt. Loadings (Reductions): Discharge with 2.68% retention of base fluid on cuttings (27,036,486) ...... 466,072 ...... 26,413 ...... (26,544,001) [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Discharge with 2.45% retention of base fluid on cuttings (27,899,834) ...... 411,167 ...... 23,302 ...... (27,465,365) [117 wells/yr] ...... [12 wells/yr] ...... [1 well/yr] ...... [130 wells/yr] Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or on- (34,364,661) ...... b NA ...... b NA ...... (34,364,661) site injection. [94 wells/yr] ...... [94 wells/yr] a SBF pollutant loadings only includes loadings associated with discharges of SBF and entrained fines (e.g., < 5 microns) b NA Not Applicable
TABLE IV.B.2: SUMMARY ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR NEW SOURCES (LBS/YEAR) a
Technology basis Gulf of Mexico
Baseline/Current Practice Technology Loadings: Discharge with 11.4% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 3,949,786 Technology Option Loadings: Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 745,855 Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings...... 657,981 Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or onsite injection ...... 0 Incremental Technology Option Loadings (Reductions): Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (3,203,931) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings...... (3,291,805) Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or onsite injection ...... (3,949,786) Note: All loading (reduction) estimates in this table are based on an assumption of 19 new source wells/yr. a Only includes loadings associated with discharges of SBF and entrained fines (e.g., <5 microns)
The zero discharge option also SBF-solids from new sources is C. Revised Non-Water Quality reduces the amount of SBF-solids [i.e., 14,519,050 lbs./year. The estimated Environmental Impacts (NWQI) Results solids that can be removed by solids annual loadings (in lbs./year) of SBF- 1. Air Emissions and Fuel Usage control equipment (e.g., >5 microns)] solids for new sources are: 14,519,050 from the current baseline. The estimated (2.68% retention controlled discharge EPA revised the analysis of the annual baseline discharges of SBF- option); 14,083,488 (2.45% retention numeric NWQIs of air emissions and solids from existing sources is controlled discharge option); and 0 (zero fuel usage pursuant to the changes in 126,321,650 lbs./year. The estimated discharge option). Complete details of the engineering models described in annual loadings (in lbs./year) of SBF- the loadings analysis are available in a section III.A of today’s notice. Changes solids for existing sources are: technical support document in the to the numeric NWQI analysis derive 152,240,270 (2.68% retention controlled rulemaking record for this notice. from the revised waste volumes, as well discharge option); 147,673,062 (2.45% as changes in the BAT/NSPS discharge retention controlled discharge option); scenarios. and 0 (zero discharge option). The In both the first and second BAT/ estimated annual baseline discharge of NSPS discharge scenarios, additional air
VerDate 18
TABLE IV.C.1: SUMMARY ANNUAL NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, EXISTING SOURCES
Non-water quality environmental impacts reductions (increases) [wells/yearÐwpr]
Technology basis Gulf of Mexico Offshore California Cook Inlet, AK Total Air Fuel Air Fuel Air Fuel Air Fuel emissions usage emissions usage emissions usage emissions usage (tons/yr) (BOE/yr) (tons/yr) (BOE/yr) (tons/yr) (BOE/yr) (tons/yr) (BOE/yr)
Baseline/Current Practice NWQIs: Discharge with 11.4% retention 42 ...... 4,512 ...... aNA ...... aNA ...... aNA ...... aNA ...... 42 ...... 4,512 of base fluid on cuttings. [94 wpy] ... [94 wpy] ... [94 wpy] ... [94 wpy] Zero Discharge (current OBF- 65 ...... 4,811 ...... 47 ...... 2,940 ...... 2.5 ...... 338 ...... 115 ...... 8,089 wells only). [23 wpy] ... [23 wpy] ... [12 wpy] ... [12 wpy] ... [1 wpy] ..... [1 wpy] ..... [36 wpy] ... [36 wpy] Total Baseline NWQIs per 107 ...... 9,323 ...... 47 ...... 2,940 ...... 2.5 ...... 338 ...... 157 ...... 12,601 Area. [117 wpy] [117 wpy] [12 wpy] ... [12 wpy] ... [1 wpy] ..... [1 wpy] ..... [130 wpy] [36 wpy] Technology Option NWQIs: Discharge with 2.68% retention 127 ...... 10,422 ...... 7.6 ...... 673 ...... 0.06 ...... 40 ...... 135 ...... 11,135 of SBF on cuttings. [117 wpy] [117 wpy] [12 wpy] ... [12 wpy] ... [1 wpy] ..... [1 wpy] ..... [130 wpy] [130 wpy] Discharge with 2.45% retention 191 ...... 15,685 ...... 52 ...... 853 ...... 0.20 ...... 67 ...... 243 ...... 16,605 of SBF on cuttings. [117 wpy] [117 wpy] [12 wpy] ... [12 wpy] ... [1 wpy] ..... [1 wpy] ..... [130 wpy] [130 wpy] Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes 561 ...... 39,702 ...... aNA ...... aNA ...... aNA ...... aNA ...... 561 ...... 39,702 via land disposal or onsite in- [94 wpy] ... [94 wpy] ... [94 wpy] jection. Incr. Tech. Opt. NWQI Red. (Incr.): Discharge with 2.68% retention 20 ...... (1,099) ..... 40 ...... 2,267 ...... 2.45 ...... 298 ...... 22 ...... 1,466 of SBF on cuttings. [117 wpy] [117 wpy] [12 wpy] ... [12 wpy] ... [1 wpy] ..... [1 wpy] ..... [130 wpy] [130 wpy] Discharge with 2.45% retention (84) ...... (6,362) ..... (4.8) ...... 2,087 ...... 2.31 ...... 271 ...... (87) ...... (4,004) of SBF on cuttings. [117 wpy] [117 wpy] [12 wpy] ... [12 wpy] ... [1 wpy] ..... [1 wpy] ..... [130 wpy] [130 wpy] Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes (519) ...... (35,191) ... aNA ...... aNA ...... aNA ...... aNA ...... (519) ...... (35,191) via land disposal or onsite in- [94 wpy] ... [94 wpy] ... [94 wpy] ... [94 wpy] jection. Note: 1 ton = 2000 lbs; BOE = barrels of oil equivalent a NA: Not Applicable
TABLE IV.C.2: SUMMARY ANNUAL NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, NEW SOURCES
Gulf of Mexico Technology basis Air emissions Fuel usage (tons/yr) (BOE/yr)
Baseline/Current Practice Technology NWQIs: Discharge with 11.4% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 4.8 515 Technology Option NWQIs: Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 13 1,073 Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings...... 23 1,923 Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or onsite injection ...... 68 4,784 Incremental Technology Option NWQIs Reductions (Increases): Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (8.2) (558) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings...... (18) (1,408) Zero Discharge of SBF-wastes via land disposal or onsite injection ...... (63) (4,269) Note: All NWQI reductions (increases) in this table are based on an assumption of 19 new source wells/yr Note: 1 ton = 2000 lbs; BOE = barrels of oil equivalent
VerDate 18
2. Solid Waste Generation and production projects is the exposure of Institute (API), and the Offshore Marine Management wellsite personnel to vapors generated Service Association (OMSA). The EPA assumes that based on the by organic materials in drilling fluids following is a summary of the findings relative cheaper cost of OBF (Candler et al., 1995). Areas on the from this review. The data indicate that there are (approximately 5 times less expensive drilling location with the highest reported incidents that are associated per barrel than SBFs), operators will use exposure potentials are sites near solids with the collection, hauling, and OBFs rather than SBFs if EPA selects control and open pits. These areas are often enclosed in rooms and ventilated onshore disposal of wastes from the zero discharge option for all SBF- to prevent unhealthy levels of vapors offshore. However, the data do not wastes. Consequently, operators will be from accumulating. If the total volume distinguish whether any of these land disposing or injecting OBFs if EPA of organic vapors can be reduced then incidents can be attributed to specific selects the zero discharge option for all any potential health effects will also be waste management activities. SBF-wastes. reduced regardless of the nature of the Most offshore incidents are due to As stated in the February 1999 vapors. human error or equipment failure. The proposal, the regulatory options Generally speaking the aromatic rate at which these incidents occur will considered for this rule will not cause fraction of the vapors is the most toxic not be changed significantly by generation of additional solids. to the mammalian system. The high increased waste management activities. However, EPA calculated the amount of volatility and absorbability through the However, if the number of man hours waste cuttings that would be land lungs combined with their high lipid and/or equipment hours are increased, disposed and injected onsite in each solubility serve to increase their there will be more reportable incidents regulatory scenario, and determined that toxicity. OBFs have a high aromatic given an unchanged incident rate. These there would be a considerable reduction content and vapors generated from potential increases may be offset by in the amount of mineral-oil or diesel using these drilling fluids include reduced incident rates through oil-contaminated cuttings land disposed aromatics (e.g., alkybenzenes, increased training or equipment and injected with the implementation of naphthalenes, and alkyl-naphthalenes), maintenance and inspection; but these either of the controlled discharge alkanes (e.g., C7–C18 straight chained changes cannot be predicted. One options. and branched), and alkenes. Some indication that training and Applying the revised waste volumes minerals oils also generate vapors that maintenance can reduce incident rates and discharge scenarios described contain the same types of chemical is a 1998 API report entitled ‘‘1997 above, the accounting of disposed waste compounds, but generally at lower Summary of U.S. Occupational Injuries, is revised as follows. In the baseline concentrations, as those found in the Illnesses, and Fatalities in the Petroleum analysis, wells that currently drill using diesel vapors (e.g, aromatics, alkanes, Industry,’’ which established that injury OBFs generate 27 million (MM) pounds cyclic alkanes, and alkenes). Because incident rates have been decreasing over of waste cuttings that are land disposed, SBF are manufactured from compounds the last 14 years. If this decrease and 6.8 MM pounds that are injected with specifically defined compositions, continues, there should be no increase onsite, for a total of 34 MM pounds of the subsequent compound can exclude in the number of safety incidents due to waste cuttings disposed. This amount of toxic aromatics. Consequently, toxic a requirement to haul SBF-contaminated disposed waste would be reduced to aromatics can be excluded from the cuttings to shore for disposal. The zero under the BAT/NSPS options vapors generated by using SBFs. details of this analysis are available in allowing discharge at 2.68% retention, In general, SBFs (e.g., esters, LAOs, a technical support document in the and would be reduced to 6.4 MM PAOs, IOs) generate much lower rulemaking record for today’s notice. pounds under the BAT/NSPS option concentrations of vapors than do OBFs 4. Monetized Health Benefits allowing discharge at 2.45%. The 6.4 (Candler et al., 1995). Moreover, the MM pounds disposed in the second vapors generated by these SBFs are less EPA estimated emissions associated discharge scenario is the fine particle toxic than traditional OBFs because they with each of the regulatory options as waste retained for hauling to land based do not contain aromatics. part of the NWQI analyses. The disposal. Under the zero discharge b. Waste Hauling Activities. Industry pollutants considered in the NWQI option, the baseline amount of waste has commented in previous effluent analyses are nitrogen oxides (NOX), disposed is increased to 152 MM guidelines, such as the Coastal volatile organic carbon (VOC), pounds. Subcategory Oil and Gas Extraction and particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide Development ELG, that a zero discharge (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). Of 3. Safety Issues requirement would increase the risk of these pollutants, EPA has monetized the The impact of the effluent limitation injury to workers due to increased waste human health benefits or impacts guidelines (ELG) on safety is one factor hauling activities. These activities associated with VOC, PM, and SO2 considered in the non-water quality include vessel trips to and from the emissions using the methodology environmental impact analysis. EPA has drilling platform to haul waste, transfer presented in the Environmental identified two safety issues related to of waste from the platform onto a Assessment of the Final Effluent drilling fluids: (1) deleterious vapors service vessel, and transfer in port onto Limitations Guidelines and Standards generated by organic materials in a barge or dock. for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing drilling fluids; and (2) waste hauling EPA has identified and reviewed Industry (EPA–821–B–98–008). Each of activities that increase the risk of injury additional data sources to determine the these pollutants have human health to workers. EPA is requesting comments likelihood that imposition of a zero impacts and reducing these emissions and data related to these two safety discharge limitation on cuttings can reduce these impacts. issues as well as other safety issues contaminated with SBF could increase Several VOCs exhibit carcinogenic related to drilling fluid selection and risk of injury due to additional waste and systemic effects and VOCs, in waste management. hauling demands. The sources of safety general, are precursors to ground-level a. Vapors Generated by Organic data are the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), ozone, which negatively affects human Materials in Drilling Fluids. One of the the Minerals Management Service health and the environment. PM key concerns in exploration and (MMS), the American Petroleum impacts include aggravation of
VerDate 18
respiratory and cardiovascular disease VOC; $10,823 per Mg of PM; and $3,516 have unit values for CO and NOX and and altered respiratory tract defense to $4,194 per Mg of SO2. Using the is soliciting information regarding their mechanisms. SO2 impacts include nasal Engineering News Record Construction valuation. Following is a summary of irritation and breathing difficulties in Cost Index (see www.enr.com/cost/ the monetized benefits for each of the humans and acid deposition in aquatic costcci.asp) these conversion factors are regulatory options for both existing and and terrestrial ecosystems. scaled up using the ratio of 5920:4732 new sources. The unit values (in 1990 dollars) are (1998$:1990$). EPA currently does not $489 to $2,212 per megagram (Mg) of
TABLE IV.C.3: SUMMARY OF MONETIZED HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OR IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH VOC, PM, AND SO2 EMISSIONS, EXISTING SOURCES (1998$/YR)
Criteria air pollutant
VOC PM SO2
Baseline/Current Practice Air Emissions, Mg/yr: Discharge with 11.4% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 2.15 ...... 1.87 ...... 1.74 Zero Discharge (current OBF wells only) ...... 9.57 ...... 1.93 ...... 1.68 Total Baseline Air Emissions, Mg/yr ...... 11.72 ...... 3.80 ...... 3.42 Compliance Air Emissions, Mg/yr: (1) Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 6.90 ...... 5.98 ...... 5.57 (2) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 25.68 ...... 9.65 ...... 8.45 (3) Zero Discharge a ...... 113.84 ...... 20.96 ...... 18.42 Incremental Compliance Emission Reductions (Increases), Mg/yr: (1) Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 4.82 ...... (2.18) ...... (2.15) (2) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (13.96) ...... (5.85) ...... (5.03) (3) Zero Discharge a ...... (11.69) ...... (19.09) ...... (16.68) Unit Value of Poll. Reductions, 1990$/Mg: b ...... 489 to 2,212 10,823 ...... 3,516 to 4,194 Unit Value of Poll. Reductions, 1998$/Mg: c ...... 612 to 2,767 13, 540 ...... 4,399 to 5,247 Incremental Compliance Benefits (Costs), 1998$/yr: (1) Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 2,950 to (29,517) ...... (9,458) to 13,337. (11,281) (2) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (8,544) to (79,209) ...... (22,127) to (38,627). (26,392) (3) Zero Discharge a ...... (68,354) to (258,479) ..... 73,375) to (309,046). (87,520) a Via land disposal or on-site offshore injection b Conversion factors from Environmental Assessment of the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manu- facturing Industry¢ (EPA±821±B±98±008). c Scaled from 1990$ using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
TABLE IV.C.4: SUMMARY OF MONETIZED HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OR IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH VOC, PM, AND SO2 EMISSIONS, NEW SOURCES (1998$/YR)
Criteria air pollutant VOC PM SO2
Baseline/Current Industry Practice Air Emissions, Mg/yr: Discharge with 11.4% retention of SBF on cuttings...... 0.25 ...... 0.21 ...... 0.20 Compliance Air Emissions, Mg/yr: (1) Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 0.66 ...... 0.57 ...... 0.53 (2) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... 2.73 ...... 0.91 ...... 0.88 (3) Zero Discharge a ...... 14.62 ...... 2.67 ...... 2.32 Incremental Compliance Emission Reductions (Increases), Mg/yr: (1) Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (0.41) ...... (0.36) ...... (0.33) (2) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (2.48) ...... (0.70) ...... (0.68) (3) Zero Discharge a ...... (14.37) ...... (2.45) ...... (2.13) Unit Value of Poll. Reductions, 1990$/Mg: b ...... 489 to 2,212 10,823 ...... 3,516 to 4,194 Unit Value of Poll. Reductions, 1998$/Mg: c ...... 612 to 2,767 13,540 ...... 4,399 to 5,247 Incremental Compliance Benefits (Costs), 1998$/yr: (1) Discharge with 2.68% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (251) to (4,874) ...... (1,452) to (1,134) (1,731) (2) Discharge with 2.45% retention of SBF on cuttings ...... (1,518) to (9,478) ...... (2,991) to (6,862) (3,568) (3) Zero Discharge a ...... (8,794) to (33,173) ...... (9,370) to (39,762) (11,176) a Via land disposal or on-site offshore injection.
VerDate 18
b Conversion factors from Environmental Assessment of the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manu- facturing Industry (EPA±821±B±98±008). c Scaled from 1990$ using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
D. Revised Cuttings Retention If EPA selects numeric maximum well 3. Sediment Guidelines Analyses Limitations and Standards averaged cuttings retention discharge In the February 1999 proposal, the As stated in the February 1999 limitations and standards as the only BAT/NSPS-model controlled discharge proposal, EPA is considering setting method for controlling SBF discharges option resulted in sediment guidelines limitations and standards for the associated with cuttings in the final exceedances for the deep water and percent retention of synthetic-based rule, then all operators would be shallow water exploratory wells. EPA drilling fluids on cuttings that may be expected to either: (1) meet the numeric proposed sediment guidelines can be discharged from the cuttings dryer and maximum well averaged cuttings found in section I.D.(a).13 of the fines removal technologies. EPA retention limitations and standards; or rulemaking record. The revised EA received cuttings retention data after the (2) dispose of their waste through on- sediment guidelines analyses, based on February 1999 proposal (see section site formation injection or ship their updated water quality criteria, loadings, II.A.4) and revised its statistical models cuttings to shore for land disposal. In and dilution data, result in exceedances (see section III.D). addition, EPA may elect in the final rule under the baseline model (or BPT) As demonstrated by oil drilling to allow operators the flexibility of scenario only. There are no sediment operations in various geologic choosing either numeric limitations and guidelines exceedances for any of the formations within the Gulf of Mexico standards or BMPs to control SBF BAT/NSPS-models. (see section II.A.4), the average of the discharges associated with cuttings (see V. Best Management Practices (BMPs) individual well averages for percent section V). A detailed description of the Alternatives to Numeric Limitations SBF retention on cuttings from the statistical analyses used to develop the and Standards cuttings dryer is 2.45, the estimated proposed limitations and standards for 95th percentile is 3.11, and the percent retention of drilling fluids on A. General estimated 99th percentile is 3.38. The cuttings is given in section III.C.(a) of the rulemaking record. EPA is considering three options for observed individual well averaged SBF the final rule for the BAT limitation and cuttings retention values are all less E. Revised Environmental Assessment NSPS controlling SBF retained on than the 95th percentile. For fines Results discharged cuttings: (1) a single numeric removal equipment, the average of the The complete results of the revised discharge limitation with an individual well averages for percent EA analyses are given in section III.F.(b) accompanying compliance test method; SBF retention on cuttings is 10.0, the of the rulemaking record. (2) allowing operators to choose either estimated 95th percentile is 13.1, and a single numeric discharge limitation the estimated 99th percentile is 14.4. 1. Water Column Water Quality with an accompanying compliance test Only one of the observed individual Analyses method, or as an alternative, a set of well SBF cuttings retention values for In the February 1999 proposal EA BMPs that employs limited cuttings fines removal equipment exceeds the analyses, there were no exceedances of monitoring; or (3) allowing operators to 95th percentile and none exceed the water quality criteria in the water choose either a single numeric discharge 99th percentile. column. Based on the revised EA limitation with an accompanying Based on these summary statistics, analyses using updated dilution values compliance test method or an EPA has revised the proposed and Federal water quality criteria, there alternative set of BMPs that employ no limitations and standards for percent are still no water quality criteria cuttings monitoring. Additionally, EPA retention of drilling fluids on cuttings. exceedances in the water column for is considering two options in the final Assuming that: (a) 97% of the volume any of the regulatory options being rule for BAT limitation and NSPS for of cuttings discharged come from the considered. controlling SBFs not associated with cuttings dryer and 3% from fines SBF drill cuttings: (1) zero discharge; or 2. Pore Water Quality Analyses removal; and (b) the limit will be based (2) allowing operators to choose either on a 95th percentile; the new discharge The revised EA analyses estimate that zero discharge or an alternative set of limitation of base fluid retained on baseline-model (or BPT) pore water BMPs with an accompanying cuttings is 3.41% [i.e., (0.97)(3.11%) + pollutant concentrations at 100 m from compliance method. (0.03)(13.1%) = 3.41%]. Assuming that: the discharge exceed water-quality EPA has initial data on the (a) 97% of the volume of cuttings criteria for: (1) three pollutants (Cr, Pb, effectiveness of BMPs for controlling discharged come from the cuttings dryer Ni) for the deep water exploratory well; SBF-discharges (Farmer, 2000; Hanni et and 3% from fines removal; and (b) the (2) one pollutant (Cr) for the shallow al, 1998). The initial data on BMP limit will be based on a 99th percentile; exploratory well; and one pollutant (Cr) effectiveness was generated from over the new discharge limitation of base for the deepwater development well. 12 deepwater projects in the North Sea fluid retained on cuttings is 3.71% [i.e., Barite is used as a weighting agent in and 11 deepwater projects in the GOM. (0.97)(3.38%) + (0.03)(14.4%) = 3.71%]. the drilling fluid and is also the primary Data from Farmer (2000) was received EPA is also considering basing source of heavy metals (e.g., Cr, Pb, Ni) by EPA just before publication of this percent retention limitations and in SBF. Therefore, the baseline-model notice and was unable to be fully standards on the cuttings dryer alone, in pore water exceedances are not due to analyzed. This data set represented conjunction with zero discharge for all the synthetic material in the SBF but North Sea and GOM wells that did not other cuttings. In that case, the rather the SBF weighting agents. employ a cuttings dryer, however, discharge limitation of base fluid The revised EA analyses estimate that certain drilling projects in the data set retained on cuttings would be 3.11% both BAT/NSPS-model controlled did use an extra technician (‘‘mud cop’’) when using the 95th percentile or discharge options result in no pore to assist in improving the efficiency of 3.38% when established using the 99th water pollutant concentrations that the existing solids control equipment percentile. exceed water-quality criterion. through use of BMPs.
VerDate 18
EPA is requesting additional data on 98–021). Many of these SBF pollutants alternative cuttings discharge, BMPs the use of BMPs to reduce or prevent are designated as hazardous pollutants option (i.e., cuttings not monitored), SBF-discharges. In particular, EPA under CWA section 307(a)(1), see 40 EPA is also considering whether to would like to see BMP documentation CFR. 410.15, and oil is a hazardous require as a BMP the use of a cuttings associated with cuttings retention substance under section 311 of the dryer discussed above as representative spreadsheets similar to those submitted CWA. of BAT/NSPS or to make the use of a to support the development of the It should also be noted that many of cuttings dryer optional. numeric guidelines and standards for these same pollutants can also be found Some industry representatives have the retention of SBF on cuttings. EPA in SBF discharges not associated with expressed an interest in using BMPs that will be using these data sets to cuttings (e.g., incidental spills, are not demonstrated through limited determine the effectiveness of BMPs and accumulated solids, deck drainage). cuttings monitoring as equivalent to a their use as alternatives to numeric Also, the drilling fluid (SBF based) can numeric cuttings retention limit to limitations and standards. EPA may contain barite and trace contaminants of control discharges of SBF associated select any of these BMP alternative several heavy metals. Incidental spills of with cuttings. Two issues were options or any combination of these SBF can release these toxic and identified by the industry BMP alternative options in the final hazardous pollutants into the representatives as a basis for their rule. environment. In addition, support of using BMPs as an alternative Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and approximately 75 barrels per well of discharge limitation: (1) Low gravity 501(a) of the Clean Water Act authorize solids, of which up to 25% is SBF, solids (or ‘‘fines’’) build-up in an active the Administrator to prescribe BMPs as accumulate in the rig mud pits, sand mud system; and (2) engineering part of effluent limitations guidelines traps, and other equipment. These limitations in the installation of cuttings and standards or as part of a permit. accumulated solids may be discharged dryers and supporting equipment on EPA’s BMP regulations are found at 40 during equipment cleaning operations. certain rigs. If operators are correct in CFR 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the SBF discharges such as spills and their assertion that setting a numeric CWA authorizes EPA to include BMPs leaks and accumulated solids may also cuttings retention limit is infeasible, in effluent limitation guidelines for be co-mingled with deck drainage EPA may use BMPs to control SBF- certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for which may also contain other toxic and wastes. the purpose of controlling ‘‘plant site hazardous pollutants. Deck drainage As discussed in the Development runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste includes all water resulting from spills, Document for the February 1999 disposal, and drainage from raw platform washings, deck washings, tank Proposal (EPA–821–B–98–021), solids material storage.’’ Section 402(a)(1) and cleaning operations and run-off from control equipment generally increases NPDES regulations [40 CFR 122.44(k)] curbs, gutters, and drains including drip the mechanical degradation of drill also provide for best management pans and work areas. Lists of pollutants solids (i.e., larger particles are broken practices to control or abate the and pollutant concentrations, including into smaller particles). An undesirable discharge of pollutants when numeric toxic and hazardous pollutants, in increase in drilling fluid weight and limitations and standards are infeasible. untreated deck drainage are contained viscosity can occur when drill solids In addition, section 402(a)(2), read in in Tables X–17, X–18, and X–19 of the degrade into fines that cannot be concert with section 501(a), authorizes Final Offshore Development Document removed by solids control equipment EPA to prescribe as wide a range of (EPA–821–R–93–003). [i.e., generally classified as < 5 microns permit conditions as the Administrator Therefore, the BMP alternatives to (10¥6 meters) in length]. An deems appropriate in order to ensure numeric limitations and standards in unacceptable high fines content (i.e., compliance with applicable effluent this notice are directed, among other generally > 5% of total drilling fluid limitations and standards and such things, at preventing or otherwise weight) may consequently lead to other requirements as the Administrator controlling leaks, spills, and discharges drilling problems (e.g., undesirable deems appropriate. of toxic and hazardous pollutants in rheological properties, stuck pipe). SBFs adhered to discharged cuttings SBF cuttings and non-cuttings wastes. Therefore, it is possible that the may contain barite (used as a weighting increased recovery of SBF from cuttings B. BMP Alternatives for SBF Discharges agent in the drilling fluid system), and for re-use in the active mud system, Associated with Cuttings can also be contaminated with often achieved through use of the formation crude oil. Barite is a mineral As previously stated, EPA is cuttings dryer in solids control systems, principally composed of barium sulfate, considering three options for the final may lead to a build-up in fines for however, barite ore is generally known rule for the BAT limitation and NSPS certain formation characteristics (e.g., to have trace contaminants of several controlling SBF retained on discharged high reactivity of formation cuttings, heavy metals such as mercury, cuttings: (1) A single numeric discharge limited loss of drilling fluid into the cadmium, arsenic, chromium, copper, limitation with an accompanying formation). lead, nickel, and zinc. Formation oil is compliance test method; (2) allowing In order to meet EPA’s proposed an ‘‘indicator’’ pollutant for the many operators to choose either a single numeric cuttings retention value where toxic and hazardous pollutant numeric discharge limitation with an there are unfavorable formation components present in the formation accompanying compliance test method, characteristics, operators may be limited (crude) oil, such as aromatic and or as an alternative, a set of BMPs that to: (1) Diluting the fines in the active polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. employs limited cuttings monitoring; or mud system through the addition of These formation oil pollutants include (3) allowing operators to choose either ‘‘fresh’’ SBF; and/or (2) capturing a benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, a single numeric discharge limitation portion of the fines in a container and naphthalene, phenanthrene, and with an accompanying compliance test sending the fines to shore for disposal. phenol. For a complete listing of method or an alternative set of BMPs One SBF manufacturer stated in a verbal pollutants associated with SBF readers that employ no cuttings monitoring. The conversation with EPA that over the should turn to Table VII–1 in the EPA BMP alternatives were developed with course of the past year (1999), a February 1999 proposal SBF input from EPA Regional permit writers Canadian operator generated 12,000 Development Document (EPA–821–B– and industry. Under the third barrels of SBF which had a fines content
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TABLE V.D.1: BMP PLAN ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE DIFFERENT BMP ALTERNATIVES TO SBF NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
SBF wastestreams operator elects to manage with BMP alternatives BMP plan alter- BMP plan elements e (listed by section of this a SBF discharges not SBF discharges asso- SBF discharges asso- natives associated with ciated with cuttings ciated with cuttings notice) cuttings b (no monitoring) c (monitoring) d
1 ...... X Sec. V.D.1 to 5,6. 2 ...... X X Sec. V.D.1 to 5,6,7. 3 ...... X X Sec. V.D.1 to 5,6,8. 4 ...... X Sec. V.D.1 to 5,7. 5 ...... X Sec. V.D.1 to 5,8. a Operators that elect to meet numeric limitations and standards are not required to develop BMPs or a BMP Plan. b This includes incidental SBF spills, accumulated solids, and deck drainage (see section V.C). c This includes SBF discharges associated with cuttings with no equivalency determination through monitoring (see section V.B). d This includes SBF discharges associated with cuttings with an equivalency determination through monitoring (see section V.B). e Operators are only required to develop one BMP Plan if the operator elects to manage both SBF wastestreams (e.g., discharges associated with cuttings and SBF discharges not associated with cuttings) through use of the BMP alternatives.
1. SBF BMP Plan Purpose and 2. Requirements by changes in the operation or at the Objectives The BMP Plan must be consistent facility which are covered by the BMP. (ii) Be reviewed and endorsed by the The BMP Plan must be designed to with the objectives in section V.D.1. The individuals responsible for development prevent or minimize the generation and BMP Plan may reflect requirements and implementation of the BMP Plan. the potential for the discharge of SBF within spill response plans required by Such review and endorsement may be from the facility to the waters of the the Minerals Management Service (see performed by the establishment of a United States through normal 30 CFR 254) or other Federal or State program of documented initial and operations and ancillary activities. The requirements and incorporate any part annual refresher training of drilling Permittee must establish specific of such plans into the BMP Plan by equipment operators, maintenance objectives for the control of SBF by reference. personnel, and other technical and conducting the following evaluations: The Permittee must certify that its BMP Plan is complete, on-site, and supervisory personnel who have a. The Permittee should identify responsibility for operating, which SBF wastestreams (i.e., cuttings available upon request to EPA or the NPDES Permit controlling authority. maintaining, or supervising the related or non-cuttings related) are to be This certification should identify the operation and maintenance of drilling controlled through use of the BMP NPDES permit number and be signed by equipment. alternatives and which SBF an authorized representative of the (iii) Include a statement that the above wastestreams are to be controlled Permittee. For new exploratory reviews have been completed and that through use of numeric effluent operations, the certification should be the BMP Plan fulfills the requirements limitation guidelines and standards. submitted no later than the written set forth in this section of the notice. b. Each facility component or system notice of intent to commence discharge. The statement must be certified by the controlled through use of BMP For existing dischargers, the dated signatures of the individuals alternatives must be examined for its certification should be submitted within responsible for development and SBF-waste minimization opportunities one year of permit issuance. The BMP implementation of the BMP Plan. and its potential for causing a discharge Plan must: c. Establish specific best management of SBF to waters of the United States a. Be documented in narrative form, practices to meet the objectives due to equipment failure, improper and must include any necessary plot identified in section V.D.1, addressing operation, natural phenomena (e.g., plans, drawings or maps, and must be each component or system capable of rain, snowfall). developed in accordance with good generating or causing a release of c. For each SBF wastestream engineering practices. At a minimum, significant amounts of SBF, and controlled through BMP alternatives the BMP Plan must contain the identifying specific preventative or where experience indicates a reasonable planning, development and remedial measures to be implemented. potential for equipment failure (e.g., a implementation, and evaluation/ 3. Documentation tank overflow or leakage), natural reevaluation components. Examples of condition (e.g., precipitation), or other these components are contained in The Permittee must maintain a copy circumstances to result in SBF reaching ‘‘Guidance Document for Developing of the BMP Plan and related surface waters, the BMP Plan should Best Management Practices (BMP)’’ documentation (e.g., training include a prediction of the direction, (EPA 833–B–93–004, U.S. EPA, 1993). certifications, summary of the rate of flow and total quantity of SBF b. Include the following provisions monitoring results, records of SBF- which could be discharged from the concerning BMP Plan review: equipment spills, repairs, and facility as a result of each condition or (i) Be reviewed by plant engineering maintenance) at the facility and must circumstance. staff and the plant manager as warranted make the BMP Plan and related
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Burden means the total time, effort, or An agency may not conduct or Information and Regulatory Affairs, financial resources expended by persons sponsor, and a person is not required to Office of Management and Budget, 725 to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose respond to, a collection of information 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, or provide information to or for a unless it displays a currently valid OMB marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for Federal agency. This includes time control number. The OMB control EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any needed to: review instructions; develop, numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed correspondence. Since OMB is required acquire, install, and utilize technology in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter to make a decision concerning the ICR and systems for the purposes of 15. between 30 and 60 days after April 21, collecting, validating, and verifying Comments are requested on the 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured information, processing and Agency’s need for this information, the of having its full effect if OMB receives maintaining information and disclosing accuracy of the provided burden it by May 22, 2000. The final rule will and providing information; adjust the estimates, and any suggested methods respond to any OMB or public existing ways to comply with previously for minimizing respondent burden, comments on the information collection applicable instructions and including through the use of automated requirements contained in this notice. requirements; train personnel to be able collection techniques. Send comments Dated: April 12, 2000. to respond to the collection of on the ICR to the Director, Collection information; search data sources; Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental J. Charles Fox, complete and review the collection of Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Assistant Administrator for Water. information; and transmit or otherwise Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, [FR Doc. 00–9655 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] disclose the information. DC 20460; and to the Office of BILLING CODE 6560±50±P
VerDate 18
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule
VerDate 18
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION detailed filing instructions, including applicability of the Radionuclides Rule AGENCY electronic submissions. to a particular entity, consult the person The record for the proposal has been listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 established under the docket name: INFORMATION CONTACT section. National Primary Drinking Water [FRL±6580±8] Additional Information for Commenters Regulations for Radionuclides (W–00– RIN±2040±AC98 12). The record includes supporting To ensure that EPA can read, documentation as well as printed, paper understand and therefore properly National Primary Drinking Water versions of electronic comments. The respond to your comments, the Agency Regulations; Radionuclides; Notice of record is available for inspection from 9 requests that commenters follow the Data Availability a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, following format: type or print AGENCY: Environmental Protection excluding Federal holidays at the Water comments in ink, and cite, where Agency. Docket, 401 M Street SW, East Basement possible, the paragraph(s) in this document to which each comment ACTION: Notice of data availability for (Room EB 57), Washington, DC 20460. For access to the Docket materials, refers. Please use a separate paragraph proposed rules with request for for each issue discussed and limit your comments. please call (202) 260–3027 to schedule an appointment. comments to the issues addressed in today’s Document. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For If you want EPA to acknowledge Agency (EPA) proposed regulations to technical inquiries, contact David receipt of your comments, enclose a limit the amount of radionuclides found Huber, Standards and Risk Management self-addressed, stamped envelope. No in drinking water on July 18, 1991. In Division, Office of Ground Water and facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. general, the proposal revised current Drinking Water, EPA (MC–4607), 401 M Comments also may be submitted National Primary Drinking Water Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; electronically to ow- regulations (NPDWR); a NPDWR was telephone (202) 260–9566. In addition, [email protected]. Electronic proposed for uranium which is the Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open comments must be submitted as a unregulated. Since that time, new Monday through Friday, excluding WordPerfect 8.0 or ASCII file avoiding information has become available which Federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 the use of special characters and forms the Agency is considering in finalizing p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The Safe of encryption and must be transmitted these proposed regulations. In addition, Drinking Water Hotline, toll free 1–800– by midnight June 20, 2000. Electronic the 1996 Amendments to the Safe 426–4791. comments must be identified by the Drinking Water Act (SDWA) contained SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provisions which directly affect the docket name, number, or title of the 1991 proposed rule. Regulated Entities Federal Register. Comments and data also will be accepted on disks in This document presents additional Entities potentially regulated by the information relevant to the Maximum WordPerfect 8.0 or in ASCII file format. Radionuclides Rule are public water Electronic comments on this document Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), the systems that are classified as either Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), may be filed online at many Federal community water systems (CWSs) or Depository Libraries. and monitoring requirements contained non-transient non-community water in the 1991 proposal. EPA is seeking systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in public review and comment on these categories and entities include: This Notice new data. The Agency is also soliciting Organizations comments on several implementation Examples of regulated options that are being evaluated for Category entities APHA—American Public Health Association inclusion in the final regulations. ASTM—American Society for Testing and Industry ...... Privately-owned CWSs Materials DATES: Written comments should be and NTNCWSs. AWWA—American Water Works Association postmarked or delivered by hand by State, Tribal, and Publicly-owned CWSs ICRP—International Commission on June 20, 2000. Local Govern- and NTNCWSs. Radiological Protection ADDRESSES: Send written comments to ments. NBS—National Bureau of Standards the W–00–12 Radionuclides Rule NSF—National Sanitation Foundation This table lists the types of entities, ANPRM—Advanced Notices of Proposed Comment Clerk, Water Docket (MC– Rulemaking 4101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, currently known to EPA, that could ATSDR—Agency for Toxic Substances and Washington, DC 20460 or by sending potentially be regulated by the Disease Registry electronic mail (e-mail) to ow- Radionuclides Rule. It is not intended to BNL—Brookhaven National Laboratory [email protected]. Hand deliveries should be exhaustive, but rather provides a CFR—Code of Federal Regulations be delivered to: EPA’s Drinking Water guide for readers regarding entities EML—Environmental Measurements Docket at 401 M Street, SW, East likely to be regulated by the Laboratory Basement (Room EB 57), Washington, Radionuclides Rule. Other types of ERAMS—Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System DC 20460. Please submit an original and entities not listed in the table could also ERD—Environmental Radiation Data three copies of your comments and be regulated. To determine whether ERIC—Educational Resources Information enclosures (including references). If you your facility is regulated by the Center wish to hand-deliver your comments, Radionuclides Rule, you should FGR–13—Federal Guidance Report 13 please call (202) 260–3027 between 9:00 carefully examine the applicability FR—Federal Register a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through criteria in §§ 141.15 and 141.26 of title FRC—Federal Radiation Council Friday, excluding Federal holidays, to 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, NAS—National Academy of Sciences NCHS—National Center for Health Statistics obtain the room number for the Docket. and the definitions of Community Water NESHAP—National Emissions Standards for Please see Supplementary Information systems and Non-Transient, Non- Hazardous Air Pollutants under the heading ‘‘Additional Community water systems in § 141.2 If NIRS—National Inorganic and Radionuclide Information for Commenters’’ for you have questions regarding the Survey
VerDate 18
NIST—National Institute of Standards and BEIR—biological effects of ionizing radiation II. Health Effects Technology BMG—β2-microglobulin III. Analytical Methods NODA—Notice of Data Availability CWS—community water systems IV. Treatment Technologies and Costs NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge DL—detection limit V. Economics and Impacts Analysis Elimination System EDE—effective dose equivalent NPDWRs—National Primary Drinking Water FSH—follicle stimulating hormone I. Purpose and Organization of This Regulations GGT—gamma glutamyl transferase Document NRC—National Research Council GI—gastrointestinal NRC—Nuclear Regulatory Commission IE—ion exchange In 1976, EPA promulgated drinking NTIS—National Technical Information LDH—lactate dehydrogenase water regulations for several Service LET—low energy transfer radionuclides. In 1991 (56 FR 33050, ORNL—Oak Ridge National Laboratory LOAEL—lowest observed adverse effect level SAB—Science Advisory Board LP—Laser phosphorimetry July 18, 1991), EPA proposed revisions RADRISK—a computer code for radiation MCL—maximum contaminant levels to the current radionuclides (i.e. beta risk estimation MCLG—maximum contaminant level goals and photon emitters, radium-226 and SWTR—Surface Water Treatment Rule MDL—method detection limit radium-228, and gross alpha radiation) T&C—Technologies and Cost document n—number and proposed regulations for uranium β UCMR—Unregulated Contaminant NAG—N-acetyl- -D-glucosaminidas which is not currently regulated. EPA is Monitoring Rule NTNC—non-transient, non-community NTNCWS—non-transient, non-community publishing this Notice of Data USDOE—United States Department of Energy Availability (NODA) to inform the USDW—underground source of drinking water systems water PBMS—performance based measurement public and the regulated community of USEPA—United States Environmental system new information concerning Protection Agency PE—performance evaluation radionuclides in drinking water. EPA is USGS—United States Geological Survey POE—point-of-entry evaluating these additional data to USSCEAR—United Nations Scientific POU—point-of-use determine how they will affect the PQL—practical quantitation level Committee on the Effects of Atomic Agency’s decisions relative to final Radiation PT—performance testing PWS—public water systems regulations to control radionuclides in Units of Measurement RF—risk coefficient public water systems. The Agency is Bq—Becquerel RfD—reference dose under a court agreement to publish Ci—Curie RO—reverse osmosis these final regulations by November EDE/yr—effective dose equivalent per year RSC—relative source contribution 2000. Information in today’s Document kBq—kiloBecquerels SM—standard methods includes data about the occurrence, kBq/m 3—kiloBecquerels per cubic meter SMF—standardized monitoring framework SPAARC—Spreadsheet Program to Ascertain health effects, and treatment options for kg—kilogram radionuclides in drinking water, as well kgpd—kilogram per day Residual Radionuclide Concentration Mgkd—milligram per kilogram per day SSCTL—‘‘Small Systems Compliance as analytical methods, and monitoring L—liter Technology List’’ requirements. This Document also L/day—liter per day Stnd. Dev.—standard deviation presents data concerning the costs and mg—milligram TR—target risk level benefits of several regulatory options. mg/L—milligram per liter UIC—underground injection control EPA is soliciting public comment on a mg/kg—milligram per kilogram Table of Contents number of issues raised by this new mg UN/L—milligram uranyl nitrate per liter information. This introduction provides mg/kg/day—milligram per kilogram per day I. Purpose and Organization of this Document an overview of the document, and some mg U/kg/day—milligram uranium per II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory kilogram per day Background of the information available to EPA and mgd—million gallons per day A. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and to highlight the risk management mL—milliliter Amendments of 1986 and 1996 decisions the Agency is contemplating. mrem—millirem B. The 1991 Proposal Subsequent sections will contain more mrem/yr—millirem per year C. Court Agreement specific information, with a focus on Sv—Sievert D. Statutory Requirements for Revisions to what is new, relative to each of the µCi—microCurie Regulations µ topics listed previously. Finally, to Ci/kg—microCurie per kilogram III. Overview of Today’s Document further assist the public, the Agency has µg or ug—microgram A. Health Risk Consistency With Chemical µg/g or ug/g—microgram per gram Carcinogens compiled seven appendices, included µg/L or ug/L—microgram per liter B. Drinking Water Consumption with this NODA, with more detailed µg uranium/L—microgram uranium per liter C. Risk Modeling and the MCL information on each of these topics in µg uranium/kg/day—microgram uranium per D. Sensitive Sub-Population: Children addition to the public docket of kilogram per day E. MCL for Beta Particle and Photon reference materials. EPA seeks comment µR/hr—micro Roentgen per hour Radioactivity on the data and information presented µ Sv/cm—micro Sievert per centimeter F. Combined Ra-226 and Ra-228 in today’s NODA, particularly where NTU—Nephelometric Turbidity Unit G. Gross Alpha MCL regulatory options or alternatives are pCi—picoCurie H. Uranium pCi/day—picoCurie per day I. Inclusion of Non-Transient Non- discussed. Commenters are asked to pCi/g—picoCurie per gram Community Water Systems provide their rationale and any pCi/L—picoCurie per liter J. Analytical Methods supporting data or information they pCi/µg—picoCurie per microgram K. Monitoring wish to submit in support of comments L. Effective Dates offered. Other Terms M. Costs and Benefits ACA—anticentromere antigen IV. References Table I–1 summarizes the major ALP—alkaline phosphatase elements of the 1976 rule, the 1991 AS—alpha spectrometry Appendices proposal and the issues being BAT—best available treatment I. Occurence considered in today’s NODA.
VerDate 18
TABLE I±1.ÐCOMPARISON OF THE 1976 RULE, 1991 PROPOSAL, AND 2000 NODA
Provision 1976 Rule (Current Rule) 1991 Proposal 2000 NODA
Affected Systems CWS ...... CWS + NTNC ...... CWS + several NTNC options based on the 1991 proposal. MCLG ...... no MCLG ...... MCLG of zero ...... MCLG of zero. Radium MCL ...... Combined Ra-226 + Ra-228 MCL of 5 Ra-226 MCL of 20 pCi/L; Ra-228 MCL Maintain current MCL based on cor- pCi/L. of 20 pCi/L. rected estimates of risk of current MCL. Beta/Photon 4 mrem: Methodology for deriving indi- 4 mrem ede (Effective Dose Equiva- Maintain current MCL based on cor- Emitters MCL. vidual concentration limits incor- lent). Derived concentration limits rected estimates of risk of current porated by reference; MCL = sum of changed to reflect new dose limit; MCL. the fractions of dose from one or Current estimate of associated risks more contaminants; risks estimated for these concentration limits are be- not to exceed 5.6×10¥5. tween 10¥4 and 10¥3 for most. Gross alpha MCL 15 pCi/L excluding U and Rn, but in- ``Adjusted'' gross alpha MCL of 15 pCi/ Maintain current MCL based on unac- cluding Ra-226. L, excluding Ra-226, radon, and ura- ceptable risk level of 1991 proposed nium. MCL. Polonium-210 ...... Included in gross alpha ...... Included in gross alpha ...... No changes to current rule. Monitoring required under the UCMR rule. Fu- ture action may be proposed at a later date. Lead-210 ...... Not Regulated ...... Included in beta particle and photon ra- No changes to current rule. Monitoring dioactivity; concentration limit pro- required under the UCMR rule. Fu- posed at 1 pCi/L. ture action may be proposed at a later date Uranium MCL ...... Not Regulated ...... 20 µg/L or 30 pCi/L w/ option for 5±80 Three options being considered: 20, µg/L. 40, 80 µg/L and pCi/L Ra-224 ...... Part of gross alpha, but sample holding Part of gross alpha, but sample holding Same as current rule, but Ra-224 may time too long to capture Ra-224. time too long to capture Ra-224. be addressed in a future proposal. Radium monitoring Ra-226 linked to Ra-228; measure Ra- Measure Ra-226 and -228 separately. Measure Ra-226 and -228 separately 228 if Ra-226>3 pCi/L and sum. Monitoring base- 4 quarterly measurements. Monitoring Annual samples for 3 years; Std Moni- Implement Std Monitoring Framework line. reduction based on results: >50% of toring Framework: >50% of MCL re- as proposed in 1991. Four initial con- MCL required 4 samples every 4 yrs; quired 1 sample every 3 years; secutive quarterly samples in first <50% of MCL required 1 sample <50% of MCL enabled system to cycle. If initial average level >50% of every 4 yrs. apply for waiver to 1 sample every 9 MCL: 1 sample every 3 years; <50% years. of MCL: 1 sample every 6 years; Non-detect: 1 sample every 9 years. (beta particle and photon radioac- tivity has a unique scheduleÐsee Section III, part K). Beta monitoring .... Surface water systems >100,000 popu- Ground and surface water systems Same as 1991 proposal with clarifica- lation Screen at 50 pCi/L/; vulnerable within 15 miles of source screen at tions. systems screen at 15 pCi/L. 30 or 50 pCi/L. Those drawing water from a contaminated source screen at 15 pCi/L. Gross alpha moni- Analyze up to one year later ...... Six month holding time for gross alpha As proposed in 1991. Recommendation toring. samples; Annual compositing of to analyze within 48±72 hours to samples allowed. capture Ra-224. Analytical Methods Provide methods...... Method updates proposed in 1991; Current methods with clarifications. Current methods were updated in 1997.
II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory regulatory targets, called Maximum additional information and comments Background Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), for on radionuclides and numerous organic every contaminant ‘‘at the level at and inorganic contaminants in drinking A. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and which no known or anticipated adverse water. The 1986 SDWA Amendments Amendments of 1986 and 1996 effects on the health of persons occur identified 83 contaminants for EPA to Regulations for radionuclides in and which allows an adequate margin of regulate, including the currently drinking water were first promulgated safety.’’ The enforceable standard, the regulated radionuclides, which lacked in 1976 as interim regulations under the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), an MCLG, and two additional authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act was required to be established ‘‘as close radionuclides, uranium and radon. The (SDWA) of 1974. The standards were set to the health-based goal as feasible using Amendments also declared the 1976 for three groups of radionuclides: beta the best available technology, taking interim standards to be final National and photon emitters, radium (radium- costs into consideration.’’ EPA proposed Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 226 and radium-228), and gross alpha an MCLG of zero for the radionuclides In 1996, Congress again amended the radiation. These standards became in 1991. SDWA. These amendments included effective in 1977. In 1983 and 1986, EPA published an new and revised provisions that must be The SDWA Amendments of 1986 Advanced Notice of Proposed considered when revising drinking required EPA to establish health-based Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting water regulations. Among these are the
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
E. MCL for Beta Particle and Photon of Radionuclides in Air or Water for Following these instructions leads to Radioactivity Occupational Exposure,’’ NBS a unique list of concentration limits for Handbook 69 as amended August 1963, 1. EPA’s Plans for Finalizing the 1991 230 radionuclides. EPA has determined U.S. Department of Commerce. If two or Proposed MCL for Beta and Photon that there is no way to update the 4 more radionuclides are present, the sum Radioactivity mrem dose basis (1976) for the beta of their annual equivalent to the total particle and photon radioactivity MCL This section presents the important body or to any organ shall not exceed without the extensive process of a new considerations that have led EPA to 4 millirem/year. proposal. While some stakeholders have consider retaining the current MCL for beta particle and photon radioactivity suggested that reverting to the existing TABLE A.ÐAVERAGE ANNUAL CON- rule for beta particle and photon when the 1991 proposal is finalized in CENTRATIONS ASSUMED TO November of 2000. EPA is, however, radioactivity (‘‘beta emitters’’) is relying PRODUCE A TOTAL BODY OR ORGAN also considering finalizing the 1991 on ‘‘old science,’’ it should be pointed proposed changes to the monitoring DOSE OF 4 MREM/YEAR. out the newest risk estimates, based on requirements for beta particle and the peer-reviewed Federal Guidance pCi per photon radioactivity, as described later Radionuclide Critical organ liter Report 13, indicates that the risks in this section. The current MCL is (40 associated with the 1991 proposed MCL CFR 141.16): Tritium ...... Total body ...... 20,000 of 4 mrem-ede (effective dose (a) The average annual concentration Strontium-90 .... Bone marrow .. 8 equivalents) are above the 10¥4 risk of beta particle and photon radioactivity level (10¥3 to 10¥4) for many of the beta from man-made radionuclides in Following these instructions leads to emitters. Figure 1 shows the most drinking water shall not produce an a unique list of concentration limits for current risk estimates for the beta annual dose equivalent to the total body 168 other man-made radionuclides. This emitter concentration limits derived or any internal organ greater than 4 list is included in today’s document in under both the current and proposed millirem/year. appendix II, ‘‘Health Effects.’’ MCLs. As the figure shows, the current (b) Except for the radionuclides listed The 1991 proposed MCL for beta MCL results in concentration limits in Table A, the concentration of man- emitter and photon radioactivity was 4 made radionuclides causing 4 mrem with risks that fall within the Agency’s mrem-ede (effective dose equivalents), risk range goal of 10¥6 to 10¥4 (while total body or organ dose equivalents with the footnote: shall be calculated on the basis of a 2 some are slightly above and some ‘‘NOTE. —The unit mrem-ede/yr refers to slightly below, all round to values liter per day drinking water intake using the dose committed over a period of 50 years the 168 hour data listed in ‘‘Maximum to reference man (ICRP 1975) from an annual within these orders of magnitude). Permissible Body Burdens and intake at the rate of 2 liters of drinking water BILLING CODE 6560±50±U Maximum Permissible Concentrations per day.’’
VerDate 18
BILLING CODE 6560±50±C
VerDate 18
In summary, the Agency fully occurring. An 1991 the Agency was largely due to the controversy recognizes that the dose-based MCL of considering raising the Ra-228 MCL to surrounding the radon component. In 4 mrem/year is based on older scientific 20 pCi/L, which is high enough to the ensuing deliberations, debates models. However, the Agency has significantly contribute to gross beta regarding the radon component of the decided to retain the current MCL given levels. However, since the Agency is proposal interfered with promulgation that: retaining the current combined Ra-226 of the proposal. In the 1996 • Federal Guidance Report 13 (FGR– and Ra-228 standard of 5 pCi/L, Ra-228 Amendments to the SDWA, Congress 13, EPA 1999b) demonstrates that the will no longer be a significant directed EPA to remove the radon 1991 proposed MCL of 4 mrem-ede/year contributor to gross beta. For the reason, component from the proposal. results in concentration limits that are the Agency sees no value in including Consequently, the Agency has once outside the 10¥6 to 10¥4 range; Ra-228 in the list of beta/photon • again considered the issues surrounding FGR–13 demonstrates that the emitters. the allowable concentration of radium- current MCL of 4 mrem/year results in New risk analyses indicate that Pb- 226 plus radium-228 in drinking water. concentration limits that are within the 210 is of concern well below the current 10¥6 to 10¥4 range; and proposed screening levels for beta EPA is considering retaining the • the fact that there is no evidence of and photon emitters. In order to assess current MCL for combined radium-226 appreciable occurrence of man-made the occurrence of Pb-210 to determine if and -228 at 5 pCi/L for the following beta emitters in drinking water; it is present at levels high enough to reasons. First, the unit risks for Ra-226 • the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act warrant separate monitoring, EPA has and Ra-228 are believed to be much requires EPA to evaluate all NPDWRs included it on the list published in the greater than estimated in 1991, such that every six years (‘‘Six Year Review’’). Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring raising the combined Ra-226 and Ra-228 EPA believes that Six Year Review is Rule (UCMR) (64 FR 50556, Friday, MCL up to 20 pCi/L for each the appropriate vehicle for updating the September 14, 1999). USGS also radionuclide would result in a lifetime beta particle and photon radioactivity monitored for Pb-210 in its study with excess cancer risks that are ten-fold MCL. EPA of 100 locations. The reader is higher than the Agency’s acceptable risk range of 10¥6 to 10¥4. And second, EPA 2. Beta Particle and Photon referred to appendix I and the Technical is required to consider the MCL for Ra- Radioactivity Monitoring Support Document (EPA 2000a) for further information regarding this study. 226 and Ra-228 apart from any NPDWR Currently, surface water systems Since Pb-210 specific monitoring was for radon, both by the 1996 SDWA serving more than 100,000 persons are not proposed in 1991, EPA cannot Amendments and the later court required to monitor for beta particle and address this concern without a new stipulated agreement. Both points are photon radioactivity using a screening proposal. After occurrence data has discussed further here. level of 50 pCi/L, while systems that are been reviewed from the UCMR, EPA First, in 1976 the estimate of risk from determined to be vulnerable by the State may propose appropriate actions. either Ra-226 or Ra-228 at 5 pCi/L was are required to monitor using a ¥ between 5×10 5 and 2 ×10 ¥4, screening level of 15 pCi/L. In 1991, F. Combined Ra-226 and Ra-228 ¥ averaging 1×10 4. In 1991 the RADRISK EPA proposed that all ground water and ¥ 1. MCL Considerations model calculated that a 1×10 4 risk surface water systems within 15 miles of corresponded to Ra-228 at 26 pCi/L and a potential source, as determined by the The combined radium-226 and -228 Ra-226 at 22 pCi/L. State, be required to monitor using a NPDWR has long been a contentious screening level of 30 or 50 pCi/L. EPA issue. A number of water systems Table III–1 shows the change in is considering retaining the current believe the current MCL is too stringent estimated risks from 1976 until the monitoring requirement of a 15 pCi/L and have not installed treatment or present. ‘‘Current Risk Estimates’’ are screen for water systems drawing water taken other measures to comply. EPA calculated using the 1999 model, FGR– from contaminated sources. EPA solicits first proposed the possibility of 13 (EPA 1999b). The table allows a comment on these issues. EPA is taking increasing the current 5 pCi/L limit for comparison between the calculated risk comment on screening levels of 30 or 50 combined radium-226 and -228 in 1991. during each phase of the evolution of pCi/L for systems within 15 miles of a The proposal suggested a new level of the radionuclides NPDWRs, including potential source. 20 pCi/L for Ra-226 and Ra-228 the current best estimate of risk based separately along with a proposed limit upon FGR–13 (EPA 1999b). Details of 3. Lead-210 and Radium-228 of 300 pCi/L for radon-222 . This why the models have changed and the The 1991 proposal included lead-210 combination was proposed in part due additional data taken into consideration (Pb-210) and radium-228 (Ra-228) in the to the disproportionate costs of are found in the appendix II and the list of regulated beta and photon removing radium compared to radon. Technical Support Document (EPA emitters, both of which are naturally The proposal was met with opposition, 2000a).
TABLE III±1.ÐCHANGES IN ESTIMATED RISKS FOR VARIOUS RA-226 AND RA-228 LEVELS
Radium-228 Radium-226 Year model used Concentra- Previous risk Current risk Concentra- Previous risk Current risk tion pCi/L estimate estimate tion pCi/L estimate estimate
2000 FGR±13 ...... 5 2 × 10¥4 2 × 10¥4 5 7.3 × 10¥5 7.3 × 10¥5 2000 FGR±13 ...... 2.5 1 × 10¥4 1 × 10¥4 6.85 1 × 10¥4 1 × 10¥4 1994 FGR±11 ...... 11 1 × 10¥4 4.5 × 10¥4 10 1 × 10¥4 1.5 × 10¥4 1991 RADRISK ...... 26 1 × 10¥4 1 × 10¥3 22 1 × 10¥4 3.3 × 10¥4 1991 RADRISK proposed MCL ...... 20 7.7 × 10¥5 7.7 × 10¥4 20 9.1 × 10¥5 2.9 × 10¥4 1991 RADRISK ...... 5 1.9 × 10¥5 2 × 10¥4 5 2.3 × 10¥5 7.3 × 10¥5
VerDate 18
TABLE III±1.ÐCHANGES IN ESTIMATED RISKS FOR VARIOUS RA-226 AND RA-228 LEVELSÐContinued
Radium-228 Radium-226 Year model used Concentra- Previous risk Current risk Concentra- Previous risk Current risk tion pCi/L estimate estimate tion pCi/L estimate estimate
1976* ...... 5 1 × 10¥4 2 × 10¥5 51 × 10¥4 7.3 × 10¥5 *The risk of either radium-226 or radium-228 at 5 pCi/L was believed to be between 5×10¥5 and 2×10¥4 in 1976. The average would have been 1×10¥4.
The 1991 estimated risk an associated lifetime excess cancer pCi/L and the statutorily required corresponding to 20 pCi/l of Ra-226 in morbidity risk of 2 × 10¥4, which withdrawal of radon-222 from the addition to 20 pCi/l of Ra-228 was exceeds the risk ceiling on 1 × 10¥4. proposal, the Agency believes that the thought to be 1.7 × 10¥4. However, the While this is true, the occurrence data MCLs for radium proposed in 1991 are current risk estimate based on FGR–13 reported in appendix I suggest that this no longer appropriate. EPA requests (EPA 1999b) for 20 pCi/l of Ra-226 in situation should be rare. Since EPA did public comment on retaining the current addition to 20 pCi/l of Ra-228 is 1×10¥3 not propose this action in the 1991 radium standard of 5 pCi/L for (one in a thousand), an order of proposal, EPA cannot address this combined Ra-226 and Ra-228. magnitude (ten times) above the concern in the finalization of this 2. Separate Radium Analysis acceptable risk of 1×10¥4. proposal. However, EPA will consider In contrast, maintaining the current this situation further and will later The 1991 proposal recommended standard would allow a maximum determine if a regulatory action is decoupling the monitoring of radium- lifetime risk of 2×10¥4 (within the appropriate. 228 from radium-226. The current original risk range of the 1976 An unintended effect in the 1991 radionuclides rule requires analysis of regulation). This represents a one in proposal was that the costs and benefits Ra-228 only when Ra-226 levels are 5,000 lifetime mortality risk and would were not evenly distributed to all above 3 pCi/L. The rule recommends only be present if 5 pCi/L in the affected persons (individuals). In the analysis of Ra-226 and/or Ra-228 when drinking water were all radium-228, a 1991 proposal, an MCL was proposed gross alpha exceeds 2 pCi/L where Ra- relatively rare occurrence situation. If for radon at 300 pCi/L and a revised 228 may be present, and requires the radium present were all radium-226, MCL for radium from 5 pCi/L combined analysis of Ra-226 when gross alpha the risk would be 7×10¥5, just below for both radium-226 and radium-228 to exceeds 3pCi.L. EPA’s risk ceiling. Since: 20 pCi/L each. Benefits and costs were Ra-228 may be present with minor • the risks associated with the current considered together for both radon and amounts of Ra-226 or in the absence of MCL of 5 pCi/L are already at the upper radium on a national basis. Compared to Ra-226. In general, the mobility of a end of the Agency’s allowable risk range radium, radon is easier and cheaper to parent radionuclide may be very of 10¥5; and remove from water due to its air different from that of a daughter • the 1991 proposed MCLs for Ra-226 strippability. Since the risks avoided element, depending on the geochemistry and Ra-228 have risks as high as were higher and the treatment costs of the elements involved. However, the 1×10¥3, ten-fold higher than the lower for the radon MCL, it was occurrence of a radionuclide may still Agency’s allowable risk, the Agency reasoned that the radon rule was much be governed by the occurrence and believes that maintaining the current more cost-effective than the combined distribution of its parent (see EPA MCL for combined Ra-226 and Ra-228 is radium rule. However, since radium and 2000a). Since radium-226 arises from the appropriate action. radon do not tend to co-occur, the uranium decay series and radium- Regarding treatment feasibility, EPA’s individuals that would have benefitted 228 arises from the thorium series, it is determination that water systems can from the radon rule were not the same logical to expect them to occur feasibility treat and quantify combined individuals that would have faced independently of one another. Also, the radium at 5 pCi/L is supported by case higher risks under the proposed radium parents of Ra-226 (uranium isotopes) studies of systems that had combined MCLs. EPA believes that such a trade- and Ra-228 (thorium isotopes) have very radium levels in excess of the MCL and off is no longer appropriate. Among different geochemical behaviors. that later came into compliance through other considerations, the 1996 Uranium is fairly mobile in oxidizing treatment. In addition, EPA has case Amendments to SDWA explicitly ground waters, while thorium is rather studies of systems that have come into separated the radon rule from the rule insoluble. In contrast, the daughter compliance through purchasing water, for the other radionuclides. radium isotopes are more mobile in blending, and developing new wells In summary, EPA based its proposed reducing waters and are relatively (EPA 2000a). increase in the radium standard on the immobile in oxidizing waters. Since Ra- Since risk estimates for Ra-228 are risk models that existed at that time and 226 is part of the uranium series significantly higher than thought in on a population risk trade-off with (relatively mobile parent) and Ra-228 is 1991, EPA has evaluated the risk radon. The models in use in 1991 part of the thorium series (immobile reductions, costs, and benefits of indicated that radium posed less of a parent), Ra-226 can and does mobilize decreasing the allowable level of risk than originally believed in 1976. in waters containing Ra-228 more radium-228 to 3 pCi/L and has However, current risk models (FGR–13, frequently than the reverse situation. discussed the results in the Technical EPA 1999b) suggest that the combined These observations indicate that Ra-226 Support Document (EPA 2000a). The radium standard of 5 pCi/L presents an and Ra-228 may be expected to concern is that a system with 5 pCi/L of even greater health risk than thought in significantly co-occur, but that the Ra-228 with insignificant levels of Ra- 1976. Given the much higher current correlation will not be strong enough to 226 would be in compliance with the estimate of risks associated with the use the occurrence of one to predict the combined radium MCL, but would have proposed Ra-226 and Ra-228 MCLs of 20 other with acceptable certainty. Recent
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Uranium is also classified as a Technical Support Document (EPA increases or decreases with increasing carcinogen because of its radioactivity, 2000a) for details. MCL because of the uncertainties and resulting emissions of ionizing Although uranium is treatable to involved. The corresponding estimate of radiation. The two most prevalent levels well below the 1991 proposed cases avoided for MCLs of 20, 40, and isotopes of uranium, uranium-234 and MCL of 20 µg/L (5 pCi/L was evaluated), 80 pCi/L are 2.1, 1.5, and 1.0 cases uranium-238, have very different half- EPA determined that levels below 20 annually. Based solely on cancer lives which result in different amounts pCi/l were not feasible under the incidence, it may be appropriate for of radiation emitted per unit mass. SDWA, after taking the costs of EPA to consider using an MCL higher Uranium-234 emits far more treatment into consideration. Section than 20 µg/L for uranium, since it is radioactivity than U–238, but is much 1412(b)(6) of the 1996 SDWA permits arguable that the benefits do not justify less abundant in aquifer materials. the Agency to evaluate whether the the costs at this level. However, in terms Uranium-238 emits less radioactivity, benefits of regulating at various MCLs of kidney toxicity, 20 µg/L may be but is far more prevalent than U–234. justify the costs. Possible exercise of this justified. EPA solicits comment on this The average ratio of uranium activity to authority is discussed in more detail issue. mass in rock is 0.68 picoCuries per µg. later in this section. Health effects from uranium also need Issues involving the activity to mass The MCLG that was proposed for to be evaluated in the context of the ration follow later in this section. uranium in 1991 was zero because of effects of various uranium species and Complicating the Agency’s decision concerns about the lack of a known their activity levels. A mortality risk making about a uranium standard is the threshold for the carcinogenicity of level of 5×10¥5 translates to 23 pCi/L of fact that the monetized benefit of kidney ionizing radiation. The MCL that was U–238, 22 pCi/L of U–235, and 21 pCi/ toxicity cannot be calculated at low proposed in 1991 (20 µg/L) was based L of U–234 in drinking water. An ‘‘alpha concentrations because data are lacking on uranium kidney toxicity, as spec’’ analysis of the water would in terms of the level at which kidney previously described. The determine the fractions of each present disease is actually manifested. The corresponding risk of cancer at a and a sum of the fractions below 100% calculated 20 µg/L level represents an concentration of 20 µg/l is now would meet the MCL. However, this intake which would result in no effect estimated to be approximately 5 × 10¥5. level is costly to obtain. Doubling the over 70 years by drinking two liters per In terms of the cost per cancer case radioactivity limit to 46, 44 and 42 pCi/ day. Conclusions based on the toxicity avoided and kidney toxicity reduced, L for U–238, U–235, and U–234 of uranium to the kidney are based the cost of regulation is still relatively respectively corresponds to a mortality primarily on observed adverse effects at high (see Table V–2 in appendix V). risk level of 1 × 10±4, which may be the cellular level, but which have not In its current benefit-cost analysis, more acceptable, considering the costs. necessarily resulted in a recognized EPA also evaluated regulatory options of Likewise, a doubling of risk to 2 × 10±4 disease. It is difficult to monetize the uranium MCLs of 40 µg/L and 80 µg/L. would again double the picoCurie limits benefits derived in such a situation, and EPA estimates that a level of 40 µg/L of each isotope to 92, 88, and 84 pCi/ EPA does not currently have a would correspond to a cancer risk of L respectively. However, at these higher ¥ methodology for estimating benefits for approximately a 1 × 10 4, thus risk levels, the calculated protective kidney toxicity from uranium. In the providing cancer risk protection within limit for toxicity to the kidney may be case of reducing the risk of non-fatal the Agency’s traditional risk range. A exceeded, depending upon the cancer resulting from uranium, EPA can level of 40 µg/L would represent a uncertainty factor used. monetize these benefits based on slightly higher risk of kidney toxicity. By contrast, the relative dissolved avoided ‘‘cost of illness.’’ This At a level of 80 µg/L, the cancer concentration of the various isotopes of methodology is discussed in some detail mortality risk is approximately 2 × uranium will differ markedly from one ¥ in the Technical Support Document 10 4, which is above the Agency’s locale to another. The 1991 proposal (EPA 2000a) and elsewhere (EPA acceptable risk range. At 80 µg/L, the utilized a conversion factor of 1.3 2000b). projected total national costs decrease picoCuries per microgram of uranium to Thus, for kidney toxicity, the benefit significantly, but the estimates of cancer convert a 20 µg/L proposed MCL in to society are considered as ‘‘non- cases avoided drops to values close to mass units to activity units in quantifiable benefits.’’ Kidney toxicity zero (i.e., benefits diminish picoCuries (however, 1991 cost avoidance benefits can be expressed in considerably), indicating that the cost estimates were based on the more terms of ‘‘avoidance of exposure,’’ but per cancer case avoided may not be accurate conversion ratio of 0.9). cannot be quantified in terms of signficantly lower at an MCL of 80 µg/ Analysis of NIRS data suggest that it avoidance of a specified number of L than at an MCL of 40 µg/L. From a would have been more appropriate to cases of disease or fatalities (and the health effects perspective, the toxic use the 1.3 pCi/µg conversion factor for associated monetized benefits), as with health effects on the kidneys or other total uranium where concentrations are cancer. In addition, it appears that organs or systems in the body at less than 3.5 pCi/L and a 0.9 conversion excess uranium concentrations tend to exposure levels of 80 µg/L is unknown factor for concentrations above 3.5 pCi/ be found in small water systems. This and is four times EPA’s best estimate of L (Telofsky 1999). Converting the suggests that while many systems will the ‘‘safe level’’ with respect to kidney derived MCL option of 20 µg/L from be impacted, the affected populations toxicity. mass to activity using a ratio of 0.9 for will be small. In terms of cancer risk, In terms of benefits and costs, Table levels above 3.5 µg/L yields the number of statistical cases avoided V–2 (appendix V) shows the range of approximately 18 pCi/L . A statistical for MCLs of 20 and 40 µg/L are low (0.2 compliance costs and net benefits for evaluation of uranium data reveals that, to 2 cases for 20 µg/L and 0.04 to 1.5 the uranium MCL options of 20 µg/L, 40 based on a linear regression of the data, cases for 40 µg/L). In terms of exposure µg/L, and 80 µg/L. While annual the appropriate activity based MCL for avoided for kidney toxicity, around 500 compliance costs drop significantly as 20 µg/L would be 17.3 pCi/L rounded to thousand to two million persons are the MCL increases from 20 up to 80, the 17 pCi/L. Coupled with the knowledge exposed above 20 µg/L and 50 thousand estimate of cancer cases avoided drops that the concentration of uranium to 900 thousand persons are exposed considerably also. In fact, it is not clear isotopes varies from place to place, the above 40 µg/L. See appendix V and the whether the cost per case avoided Agency is led to consider an MCL that
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
TABLE III±2.ÐSELECTED SECTOR AND OVERALL NTNC, INDIVIDUAL RISK PATTERNS [Lifetime cancer risk for individuals using average consumption levels]
Sector Alpha Radium 226 Radium 228 Uranium
School Students ...... 2×10¥5 0.9±1.1 ×10¥5 2±3×10¥5 0.7±0.9×10¥5 Day Care Children ...... 2±3×10¥5 0.6±0.7×10¥5 2±3×10¥5 0.8±1x10¥5 Factory Worker ...... 1±2×10¥5 1×10¥5 2±3×10¥5 1×10¥5 All NTNC Water Systems ...... 0.3±0.4×10¥5 0.2±0.3×10¥5 0.5±0.7×10¥5 0.2×10¥5 Note that Radium 224 is being used as a surrogate for alpha emitters.
TABLE III±3.ÐSELECTED SECTOR AND OVERALL NTNC, INDIVIDUAL RISK PATTERNS [Lifetime cancer risk for individuals using 90th percentile consumption levels]
Sector Alpha Radium 226 Radium 228 Uranium
School Students ...... 0.5±0.6×10¥4 0.3×10¥4 0.6±0.7×10¥4 0.3×10¥4 Day Care Children ...... 0.7±0.8×10¥4 0.2×10¥4 0.6×10¥4 0.3±0.4×10¥4 Factory Worker ...... 0.5±0.6×10¥4 0.3±0.4×10¥4 0.7±0.8×10¥4 0.5±0.6×10¥4 All NTNC Water Systems ...... 0.2×10¥4 0.1×10¥4 0.2±0.3×10¥4 0.1±0.2×10¥4
Radium-228 and gross alpha pose infrequent and highly site-specific EPA is considering extending partial approximately twice the threat of the conditions are very difficult to address coverage of the radionuclide NPDWRs other two radionuclides. While sensitive efficiently in a National-level regulation, to NTNC water systems under several individual estimates still fall below the the Agency believes that exempting possible scenarios. Under the first three one in ten thousand range, they may not NTNC water systems from the options, NTNC systems would be in a scenario in which other drinking radionuclide NPDWRs, given the degree subject to targeted radionuclide water sources are similarly high. uncertainty about the occurrence levels monitoring requirements, in which However, as stated previously, the and extent of system customer overlap, selected NTNC systems would follow Agency views it as somewhat may be inappropriate. For these reasons, the radionuclides monitoring improbable that this system overlap the Agency believes it may be requirements for community water occurs to a significant extent. appropriate to take a somewhat different systems. The targeting strategy would be Nevertheless, it could be an issue in approach with respect to NTNC water based on small community water system some rural communities. While such systems than previously practiced. occurrence for the same radionuclides.
4 Day care exposure is similarly conservatively 5 As an example, the lifetime risk per pCi/L of Ra– factory served only by NTNC water systems with estimated by assuming five years of perfect 228 to a child whose exposure begins under the age high radionuclide levels. attendance, fifty weeks per year and five days per of five is more than ten times greater than the 7 In other words, the expected number of NTNC week. Factory workers are assumed to perfectly lifetime risk of an individual whose exposure systems nationwide would be less than twenty. It attend and work at the same facility for forty-five begins between the ages of 25 and 30. is because these levels are so rare that the level is years. All of these assumptions are under fairly speculative. As discussed in the appendix, 6 For example, the possibility that a child spent continuing investigation and will likely be revised the Agency believes its estimates of occurrence are five years in a day care center, then twelve years downward in the future as the Agency is able to reasonable, based on levels observed in small gather further information. in schools, and then forty-five years working in a ground water community water systems.
VerDate 18
The States (or primacy agency) would approved for compliance monitoring of 3. Recommendations for Determining determine which NTNC systems are radionuclides in drinking water. These the Presence of Radium-224 likely to be using contaminated water methods are currently listed in 40 CFR systems, based on CWS monitoring 141.25. To determine the presence of the results. These systems may then be The March 5, 1997 Federal Register short-lived radium-224 isotope (half life required to monitor and meet CWS also approved suitable calibration ∼3.66 days), the Agency recommends MCLs for gross alpha and combined standards for the analysis of gross alpha- using one of the several options radium and other relevant emitting particles and gross beta- discussed in the appendix III. Although radionuclides. EPA is considering: emitting particles. These specific these measurement options are only • Requiring targeted NTNC systems to methods-related items are addressed in recommendations, the Agency strongly monitor and meet the CWS MCLs for all some detail in the Technical Support urges water systems to check for the or selected radionuclides, where Document for the Radionuclides Notice presence of radium-224 in their targeting is determined by the State of Data Availability (EPA 2000a) and in drinking water supplies. Comments are based on whether the NTNC system is even greater detail in the 1997 final solicited from the public about the using source water for which CWSs methods rule (62 FR 10168, EPA 1997a) options listed in appendix III or any have reported MCL violations for and the 1991 proposed rule (56 FR other appropriate methods of detection. radionuclide in question; 33050; EPA 1991). • Requiring targeted NTNC systems to This NODA also notifies the public 4. Cost for Radiochemical Analysis monitor and post notice if the system about the use of the gross beta method exceeds the CWS MCL, using the same for the screening of radium-228. In the Revised Cost Estimates for definition of targeting as in the first 1991 proposed rule (56 FR 33050; EPA Radiochemical Analysis. option; 1991), the Agency would have allowed In the 1991 proposed rule (56 FR • Issuing guidance that recommends the use of the gross beta-particle activity 33050; EPA 1991), EPA cited cost that targeted NTNC systems monitor method to screen for the presence of estimates for radiochemical analyses. and meet the CWS MCLs, using the radium-228 at the proposed radium-228 The Agency updated these costs same definition of targeting as in the MCL of 20 pCi/L. For the combined estimates by surveying a small number first option. radium-226 and 228 standard of 5 pCi/ of radiochemical laboratories (no more The Agency requests comments on L (the current standard), the Agency can than 9 laboratories) (EPA 2000a). The these options and any supporting not recommend the use of the gross revised cost estimates are shown in rationale for such a decision. The beta-particle activity method for Table III–3 (appendix III). Because this Agency is also interested in receiving screening of radium-228. Instead, a information is based on a limited comments on other options such as specific analysis for radium-228 would number of laboratories, the slight extending full coverage of the rule to be necessary. Although several methods increase in costs from 1991 to 1999 may NTNCs and not extending any aspect of are currently approved for the analysis be due to either statistical uncertainty or the radionuclides NPDWRs to NTNC of radium-228 in drinking water, the possibly others factors such as inflation. systems. The Agency will decide, as Agency requests comments from the part of the upcoming finalization of the public and supporting documentation After the 1991 proposed rule, there 1991 proposal, to incorporate what it regarding other radium-228 methods or were several comments regarding considers to be the most appropriate method variations which may be able to analytical costs. One commenter stated option in view of available the data and reach greater sensitivity at the 2 pCi/L the costs of analysis for radium-226, information. level. radium-228, radioactive strontium and total strontium were unrealistically low. 2. The Updated 1997 Laboratory J. Analytical Methods The Agency can neither agree nor Certification Manual Today’s NODA provides a brief disagree. As noted earlier, EPA revised update of the methods-related items In the 1991 proposed rule (56 FR the cost estimates for radiochemical which have occurred since the 1991 33050; EPA 1991), EPA cited the 1990 analysis. Both the 1991 costs estimates proposed rule. For a more thorough laboratory certification manual’s and the revised cost estimates were from discussion of the analytical methods guidance for sample handling, small surveys and may not be truly updates, the public is referred to preservation, holding time and representative of the actual costs for appendix III of this NODA and to the instrumentation. In response to the 1991 some radiochemical analyses. Analytical Methods section of the proposed rule, a commenter questioned Comparison of the estimated costs from Technical Support Document for the why the holding time for radioactive 1991 with the revised cost estimates Radionuclides Notice of Data iodine was six months, when the half- indicate the costs for some analyses to Availability (EPA 2000a). life of iodine-131 is eight days. The similar, while for other analyses, cost do Agency recognized this typographical appear to be higher. The Agency solicits 1. Radionuclides Methods Updates error and changed the holding time to comments and factual data that would On July 18, 1991 (56 FR 33050; EPA eight days in the updated 1997 clarify this matter. 1991), the Agency proposed to approve certification manual (EPA 815–B–97– fifty-six methods for the measurement of 001; EPA 1997d). Table III–2 in the Several commenters stated that small radionuclides in drinking water appendix shows the updated guidance systems, which are likely to need only (excluding radon). Fifty-four of the fifty- for sample handling, preservation, a few analyses, cannot take advantage of six were actually approved in the March holding times, and instrumentation that rates for volume sample analyses. The 5, 1997 final methods rule (62 FR 10168; appeared in this manual. Table III–2 in Agency agrees that individual small EPA 1997a). In addition to these fifty- the appendix also includes additional systems may not be able to take four, EPA also approved 12 recommendations for radiochemical advantage of lower bulk analysis costs. radiochemical methods, which were instrumentation (footnoted by the To alleviate cost burdens, small systems submitted by commenters after the 1991 number 6). The Agency is seeking may want to consider pooling their proposed rule. Currently, an overall comment about the additional analytical needs with other small total of 89 radiochemical methods are recommendations found in Table III–2. systems to negotiate for bulk rates.
VerDate 18
5. Externalization of the Performance commenters found the use of acceptance characteristics under PBMS should be Evaluation Program limits confusing and the relationship to specified to ensure adequate data Due to resource limitations, on July the actual method performance was not quality for drinking water compliance 18, 1996 (61 FR 37464; EPA 1996b), clear. With perhaps the exception of purposes. After PBMS is implemented, EPA proposed options for the uranium, the Agency will not go EPA may continue to approve and externalization of the PE studies forward with the proposed acceptance publish compliance methods for program (now referred to as the limits, PQL, or MDL. Because uranium laboratories that choose not to use Proficiency Testing or PT program). has never been regulated, it did not have PBMS. After EPA makes final After evaluating public comment, in the a detection limit in the CFR and one has determinations about the June 12, 1997 final notice EPA (62 FR never been proposed. In 1991, EPA did implementation of PBMS in programs 32112; EPA 1997b): propose a PQL of 5 pCi/L with an under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the acceptance limit of +/¥ 30%. Although Agency would then provide specific decided on a program where EPA would it is believed that a detection limit for instruction on the specified issue standards for the operation of the uranium would be very similar to the program, the National Institute of Standards performance criteria and how these and Technology (NIST) would develop PQL, because a detection limit has never criteria would be used by laboratories standards for private sector PE (PT) suppliers been proposed, the Agency may have to for compliance monitoring of SDWA and would evaluate and accredit PE adopt the PQL for uranium until a analytes. suppliers, and the private sector would detection limit is proposed. For the develop and manufacture PE (PT) materials other radionuclides, which are K. Monitoring and conduct PE (PT) studies. In addition, as regulated, the Agency believes the 1. Features of Today’s NODAA part of the program, the PE (PT) providers current 1976 detection limit EPA’s 1976 regulations for would report the results of the studies to the requirements are most appropriate. The study participants and to those organizations radionuclides in drinking water existing definition of the detection limit that have responsibility for administering contained separate monitoring takes into account the influence of programs supported by the studies. requirements for radiums, alpha various factors (efficiency, volume, emitters, and man-made beta and EPA has addressed this topic in recovery yield, background, counting photon emitters. In 1991, EPA proposed public stakeholders meetings and in time) that typically vary from sample to to make modifications to the 1976 some recent publications. For more sample. Furthermore, the detection limit information, readers are referred to the is computed for each individual sample regulations to expand the scope of aforementioned Federal Register and does not represent an idealized set coverage to include non-transient non- notices. More information about of measurement parameters. Therefore, community water systems, to change the laboratory certification and PT (PE) the detection limit reflects the expected monitoring location and monitoring externalization can be accessed at the random uncertainty for a given sample frequencies, and to incorporate OGWDW laboratory certification analysis. monitoring requirements for radon and website under the drinking water uranium. A summary of the 1976 standards heading (www.epa.gov/ 7. Performance Based Measurement requirements and proposed changes in safewater). At this time, it is difficult to System 1991 are presented in this section. ascertain how and if externalization of On October 6, 1997, EPA published a In today’s document EPA is the PT program will affect Notice of the Agency’s intent to suggesting merging the current radiochemical laboratory capacity and implement a Performance Based requirements and the 1991 proposed the cost of radiochemical analyses. In Measurement System (PBMS) in all of requirements into a unified system the absence of definitive cost estimates, its programs to the extent feasible (62 which is consistent with the the Agency solicits public comments on FR 52098; EPA 1997c). EPA is currently Standardized Monitoring Framework this subject. determining how to adopt PBMS into its (SMF), the current rule, and the drinking water program, but has not yet proposed changes which are still 6. The Detection Limits as the Required made final decisions. When PBMS is germane. EPA is soliciting comment on Measures of Sensitivity adopted into the drinking water monitoring at the entry points to the In 1976, the National Primary program, its intended purpose will be to distribution system, as proposed in Drinking Water Regulations defined the increase flexibility in laboratories in 1991, to ensure equal protection for all detection limit (DL) as ‘‘the selecting suitable analytical methods for customers, under the sampling schedule concentration which can be counted compliance monitoring, significantly of the SMF. EPA believes that this will with a precision of plus or minus 100 reducing the need for prior EPA increase consistency between percent at the 95 percent confidence approval of drinking water analytical monitoring requirements for level (1.96 σ, where σ is the standard methods. Under PBMS, EPA will radionuclides and the other regulated deviation of the net counting rate of the modify the regulations that require contaminants. As described in section sample).’’ Table III–4 in the appendix exclusive use of Agency-approved III, part I (‘‘Inclusion of Non-Transient cites the detection limits or the required methods for compliance monitoring of Non-Community Water Systems’’), EPA sensitivity for the specific radioanalyses regulated contaminants in drinking is considering several options for NTNC that were listed in the 1976 rule and are water regulatory programs. EPA will water systems, some of which would also cited in 40 CFR 141.25. In the 1991 probably specify ‘‘performance require monitoring. Because some proposal (56 FR 33050; EPA 1991), EPA standards’’ for methods, which the monitoring provisions of the 1991 proposed using the method detection Agency would derive from the existing proposal were based on the proposed limit (MDL) and the practical approved methods and supporting MCLs and not the current MCLs, their quantitation level (PQL) as measures of documentation. A laboratory would be application to the current levels may performance for specific radioanalytical free to use any method or method entail a slightly different construct than methods. Acceptance limits based on variant for compliance monitoring that in 1991. To the extent comments reveal the PQLs, which were derived from performed acceptably according to these aspects of the framework which need to performance evaluation studies, were criteria. EPA is currently evaluating be addressed separately from the 1976 also proposed in the 1991 rule. Some which relevant performance rule or 1991 proposal, EPA will return
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Decreased and increased monitoring: thirty. A screen level of 50 pCi/L would sensitive a screen for beta particle and Same as for combined radium (see potentially miss the 12 contaminants photon radioactivity. The Agency previous discussion). with concentration limits below 50 pCi/ requests comment on the selection of Entry point monitoring: Same as for L and a screening level of 30 pCi/L screening levels. combined radium (see previous would potentially miss the 7 Sample Compositing: Annual discussion). contaminants with concentration limits compositing is permitted for beta and Sample Compositing: The current rule below 30 pCi/L. Systems that are photon emitters in the current rule. In allows compositing of four samples in a drawing water from sources with known addition, for systems utilizing water laboratory or the averaging of four beta particle and photon radioactivity contaminated by effluents from nuclear separate analyses. Under the 1991 are required to use a screening level of facilities, a quarterly compositing of five proposal and the current rule, systems 15 pCi/L under the current rule. The consecutive daily samples was to be would be allowed to composite 1991 proposal retained this feature. analyzed for iodine-131, with more annually for samples taken from single EPA thinks it is advisable to retain the frequent monitoring at State discretion entry points (temporal compositing) proposed monitoring for sites within 15 if it was detected in the finished water. and, under the 1991 proposal, to miles of a source of beta photon EPA believes this compositing for single composite samples representing up to emitters. The screening level in the nuclide determinations is still valid. five entry points with a six month original rule only affected surface water holding time (spatial compositing). However, the 1991 proposed rule systems serving over 100,000, or other excluded compositing for beta and 10. Uranium systems at State discretion, and the photon emitter samples. It also limited screening level for gross beta reflected Standardized monitoring, monitoring holding times to 6 months for single this limited regulation. However, a frequency, and entry point monitoring: samples or 12 months for composites known source of particular beta and Same as for combined radium (see per the lab cert manual. A screen above photon emitters should be monitored for previous discussion). 50 pCi/L , but with a sample holding Sample Compositing: For systems the specific radionuclides present at time of 6 months without compositing with gross alpha levels that are high that source which may be a health may be a reasonable approach, enough to warrant uranium monitoring, concern below the screen, but would considering screening options, holding annual composites for a single entry not be triggered by the screen. EPA times, and compositing issues. EPA point would be allowed. Compositing of would give States discretion on solicits comment on these beta and five samples representing five entry requiring specific monitoring for photon emitter monitoring issues. contaminants from specific sources. points would be permitted. If the result Entry point monitoring: EPA solicits was greater than one fifth of the MCL, In addition, a 15 pCi/l screening level is currently required for systems using opinion on requiring beta photon the individual samples would have to monitoring at entry points to the be analyzed or re-sampling and analysis water contaminated by effluents from nuclear facilities. These systems may distribution system for vulnerable of the new individual samples would systems. EPA believes this is have to occur. also be required by the State to monitor for individual nuclides on a case by case appropriate as it is for other nuclides, 11. Beta and Photon Emitters basis. Since both screens may miss especially as an early warning of radionuclides of concern, EPA believes contamination from a localized source Standardized monitoring framework, of man-made beta photon emitters. decreased monitoring: Monitoring for this issue is important and may need to beta and photon emitters would follow be addressed in a future proposal. In 12. Monitoring for Non-Transient Non- the same schedule as in the current rule. addition, since many beta particle and Community (NTNC) Systems Decreased monitoring is not envisioned photon emitters have half-lives that are for beta and photon emitters since only too short to be detected under the If EPA finalizes an option that vulnerable systems would monitor, current holding time, the issue of requires monitoring for some or all although EPA is taking comment on the sample holding time may have to be re- NTNC systems, EPA wishes to make the possibility of decreased monitoring visited in a future proposal. monitoring requirements consistent according to the standardized Holding time: Another issue has a between CWSs and those NTNC systems monitoring framework as outlined bearing on the screening level for which required to monitor. See the previous previously. EPA is requesting comment. There are a discussion for CWS monitoring for Screening levels: EPA recognizes significant number of beta and photon details. As with CWSs, monitoring certain problems with the current and emitting radionuclides with short half under the SMF would be required at proposed system. The proposed lives, including those 13 nuclides of entry points to the distribution system, requirement of a 30 pCi/L screen for concern below the screening levels based on a nine-year cycle, consisting of gross beta and photon emitters had the being considered. Because annual three, 3-year monitoring periods, with effect of no longer requiring Sr-90 sample compositing is allowed under provisions for reduced monitoring as monitoring because the proposed limit the current rule for beta and photon appropriate. If the radionuclides was above the screen of 30 pCi/L. Under emitters, a screen above 30 pCi/L would NPDWRs for CWSs are fully extended to the current MCL, there is only one detect a greater number of nuclides NTNCWSs, the monitoring frameworks contaminant that has a concentration which (due to decay) may have been would be the same. limit near the 50 pCi/L screening level above a screen of 50 at the time of Table III–4 summarizes the (Ni-63). There are five contaminants sampling, but are now between 30 and monitoring frequencies for CWSs and with concentration limits at or near 30 50 pCi/L by the time of analysis. A NTNC systems, under the options that pCi/L and seven with limits below screen level at 30 pCi/L would be more require monitoring:
VerDate 18
TABLE III±4. COMPARISON OF THE MONITORING FRAMEWORKS: THE EXISTING RULE, THE 1991 PROPOSAL, AND THE APPROACH DESCRIBED IN THE NODA
Current rule (1976) 1991 proposal 2000 NODA
Radium Alpha Emitters and Uranium
Initial baseline: 4 consecutive quarterly samples Initial baseline: one sample per year for 3 Initial baseline: 4 consecutive quarterly sam- years. ples taken within 3 years from effective date or grandfathered data in previous com- pliance period. If average > MCL=treat, etc ...... Same as 1976 ...... Same as 1976. If one or more samples >MCL, do quarterly Same as 1976 ...... Same as 1976. sampling until average < MCL. If >50% of MCL, 4 Quarters every 4 years ...... If >50% of MCL, one sample every 3 yrs or Same as 1991 with no waiver. waiver to every 9 yrs. If < 50% of MCL, 1 sample every 4 years ...... If <50% of MCL, one sample every 3 yrs or If < 50% of MCL, one sample every 6 years. waiver to every 9 years. If no detect, 1 sample every 4 years ...... If no detect, one sample every 3 yrs or waiver If no detect, one sample every 9 years. to every 9 yrs.
Beta and Photon Emitters
Quarterly gross beta monitoring. Vulnerable Vulnerable systems (surface and ground Same as 1991:Vulnerable systems within 15 systems and surface water systems > water) within 15 miles of source of man miles of source of man made emitters will 100,000 pop. Screen of 50; screen of 15 for made emitters do gross beta screen pro- monitor with screen of 50 or 30. Same as contaminated water I±131 quarterly, Sr±90 posed at 30. 1976: Screen of 15pCi/L for systems using and H±3 annual Sr±89 and Cs134 if above contaminated waters. Same contaminants 15. as 1976 with corrections per NBS HB±69.
13. Polonium-210 and Lead-210 notification requirements will amend requirement for quarterly repeat notices Risk estimates based on Federal the PNR as part of each individual for NTNC systems that continue to Guidance Report No. 13 indicate that rulemaking. exceed the CWS MCL(s) under the current screening levels for gross alpha The proposed PNR divides the public ‘‘monitoring and notification-only’’ and gross beta may not be adequate to notice requirements into three (3) tiers, option. EPA believes States will phase capture all contaminants of concern. based on the type of violation. ‘‘Tier 1’’ in monitoring of NTNC systems based Specifically, based on the new health- applies to violations and situations with on results of CWS systems in the same effects information contained in FGR–13 significant potential to have serious proximity. The agency requests (EPA 1999b), EPA believes it may be adverse effects on human health as a comment on whether or not the same appropriate to require systems to result of short-term exposure. Notice is increase or decreased monitoring perform isotopic analyses for additional required within 24 hours of the requirements which pertain to CWSs violation. ‘‘Tier 2’’ applies to other radionuclides that may present a should apply to NTNC water systems violations and situations with potential significant threat to human health. As a i.e. the 3, 6 and 9 year monitoring based to have serious adverse effects on result of this information, EPA is on being above 50% of the MCL, below human health. Notice is required within requiring some systems to do analyses 50%, or non-detect. for polonium-210 (a naturally occurring 30 days, with extensions up to three alpha emitter) and lead-210 (a naturally months at the discretion of the State or As in the current rules, an analytical occurring beta emitter) under the primacy agency. ‘‘Tier 3’’ applies to all result that exceeds the MCL would Revisions to the Unregulated other violations and situations requiring trigger additional confirmation samples, Contaminant Monitoring Regulation a public notice not included in Tier 1 which in turn could trigger quarterly (UCMR) (64 FR 50556, Friday, and Tier 2. Notice is required within 12 monitoring. For man-made beta and September 17, 1999), to be implemented months of the violation, and may be photon emitters, EPA is suggesting to after analytical methods for these included in the consumer confidence finalize the proposal regarding a contaminants have been approved. report at the option of the water system. screening level of 30 or 50 pCi/L for Today’s NODA requests comment on 14. Reporting Requirements ‘‘vulnerable systems,’’ which are whether community water systems defined as being within a 15 mile radius On May 13, 1999, EPA proposed (CWS) should provide a Tier 2 public of a source of this class of radionuclides. subpart Q (64 FR 25964) to revise the notice for MCL violations under the For Pb-210, EPA will be collecting data radionuclide NPDWRs and to provide a minimum requirements public water to make a future determination systems must meet for public tier 3 public notice for violations of the regarding additional monitoring for this notification of violations of NPDWRs monitoring and testing procedure natural beta emitter. and other situations that pose a risk to requirements. If NTNC water systems public health from the drinking water. are required to monitor and notify, then Tables III–5 and III–6 summarize the EPA anticipates the final Public they would be required to provide a Tier current and proposed monitoring Notification Rule (PNR), under part 141, 2 notice if the systems exceed the MCLs. requirements and those suggested by subpart Q to be published in early 2000. EPA requests comment on the today’s document. After the final PNR is published, implementation of public notification subsequent EPA drinking water requirements by the effective date of the regulations that affect public MCL and on the Tier 2 public notice
VerDate 18
TABLE III±5.ÐINITIAL (ROUTINE) MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1976 1991 proposal 2000 NODA
GROSS ALPHA
CWSs: Four consecutive quarters at represent- CWSs and NTNCWSs: Annual monitoring at CWSs and NTNCWSs 1: Four consecutive ative point(s) within the distribution system each entry point for first three years. quarters of monitoring at each entry point, every four years. anytime during first 3 years. RADIUM
CWSs: Four consecutive quarters at represent- CWSs and NTNCWSs: Annual monitoring for CWSs and NTNCWSs: Four consecutive ative point(s) within the distribution system each radium isotope (radium-226 and ra- quarters of monitoring for each radium iso- every four years. Initial monitoring is for ra- dium-228) at each entry point, for three tope (radium-226 and radium-228) at each dium-226. If radium-226 exceeds 3 pCi/L, years. entry point, any time during first 3 years.2 analysis for radium-228 is required. A gross alpha measurement can be substituted for ra- dium 226 and/or uranium monitoring if the gross alpha measurement is below the appli- cable MCL(s).
URANIUM
None ...... CWSs and NTNCWSs: Annual monitoring at CWSs and NTNCWSs: Four consecutive each entry point for three years. quarters of monitoring for uranium to deter- mine compliance with both mass and activ- ity either by gross alpha or specific mass or activity analysis at each entry point, every three years.2
BETA AND PHOTON EMITTERS
CWSs serving > 100,000 persons and using Vulnerable systems only CWSs and Vulnerable systems only CWSs and surface water (and other systems designated NTNCWSs: (as designated by State): Two NTNCWSs: (as designated by the State): by the State): Four consecutive quarters for gross beta screening levels were discussed Two gross beta 14 screening levels are gross beta, tritium and strontium-90 at rep- in the 1991 Proposal. Using a screen of 30 being considered. Using a screen of 50 or resentative point(s) within the distribution sys- pCi/L, quarterly monitoring for gross beta is 30 pCi/L, quarterly monitoring for gross tem. Determine major constituents if exceed required, along with annual tritium moni- beta is required, along with annual moni- screen of 50pCi/L Systems using water con- toring. Using a screen of 50 pCi/L, quarterly toring for tritium and strontium-90 as in taminated with effluent from nuclear facilities: monitoring for gross beta is required, along 1976. Vulnerability based on proximity (15 Quarterly monitoring 1 for gross beta and io- with annual tritium and strontium-90 moni- miles ) to source per 1991. Screen of 15 for dine-131, strontium-90 and tritium. If gross toring. contaminated waters as in 1976.3 beta level is above 15 pCi/L, the same or equivalent samples must be analyzed for strontium-89 and cesium-134.
NOTE: 1 This assumes that monitoring will be required at NTNC systems. If this is not the case, these requirements would not apply to NTNC systems. 2 A gross alpha measurement can be substituted for radium-226 and/or uranium monitoring if the gross alpha measurement is below the appli- cable MCL(s). 3 Quarterly monitoring for gross beta would be based on the analysis of monthly samples or the analysis of a composite of three monthly sam- ples. For iodine 131, a composite of five consecutive daily samples shall be analyzed once per quarter. Additional monitoring may be required to identify specific isotopes if gross beta measurement exceeds the screening level.
TABLE III±6.ÐREDUCED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1976 1991 proposal 2000 NODA
GROSS ALPHA
CWSs: One sample every four years if annual CWSs and NTNCWSs: One sample every CWSs and NTNCWSs: One sample every average from previous results (four consecu- three years, if previous monitoring results three years if previous monitoring results tive quarterly samples) is less than 1¤2 MCL. (from three years of annual monitoring) are (``previous results'') are reliably and consist- below MCL. If system is reliably and con- ently at or below MCL; one sample every sistently below MCL, the system could re- six years if previous results are reliably and ceive a waiver, and monitor once every consistently at or below 1¤2 MCL; or one nine years. sample every nine years if previous results are reliably and consistently at or below the MDL.
VerDate 18
TABLE III±6.ÐREDUCED MONITORING REQUIREMENTSÐContinued
1976 1991 proposal 2000 NODA
RADIUM
CWSs: One sample every four years if annual CWSs and NTNCWSs using ground water: CWSs and NTNCWSs: One sample every average from previous results (four consecu- One sample every three years, if previous three years if previous results are reliably tive quarterly samples) is less than 1¤2 MCL. monitoring results (from three years of an- and consistently at or below MCL; one nual monitoring) are below MCL. If system sample every six years if previous results is reliably and consistently below MCL, the are reliably and consistently at or below 1¤2 system could receive a waiver, and monitor MCL; or one sample every nine years if once every nine years. previous results are reliably and consist- ently at or below the MDL.
URANIUM
None ...... CWSs and NTNCWSs: One sample every CWSs and NTNCWSs: One sample every three years, if previous monitoring results three years if previous results average (from three years of annual monitoring) are below MCL; one sample every six years if below MCL. If system is reliably and con- previous results average at or below 1¤2 sistently below MCL, the system could re- MCL; or one sample every nine years if ceive a waiver, and monitor once every previous results average below the MDL. nine years.
BETA AND PHOTON EMITTERS
CWSs serving > 100,000 persons and using Vulnerable systems only (as designated by Vulnerable systems only (as designated by surface water (and other systems designated State): Since only vulnerable systems are the State): Since only vulnerable systems by the State): Every four years, systems required to monitor, no reduced monitoring are required to monitor, no reduced moni- must collect samples from four consecutive is allowed. toring is allowed. quarters for gross beta at representative point(s) within the distribution system. Sys- tems using water contaminated with effluent from nuclear facilities: No reduced monitoring is allowed.
15. Laboratory Capacity Issue ‘‘ Possible present implementation problems for radium-226 and -228 will be unchanged Extension of Initial Monitoring Period the initial monitoring period (three and are already in effect. Regarding years), EPA will consider allowing an water systems that are currently out of As discussed earlier in the analytical additional year (four years total) for the compliance with the existing NPDWRs methods section (III.J), the Performance initial monitoring period. During the for gross alpha, combined radium-226 Evaluation Program (now known as the specified time period, systems would be and -228, and/or beta particle and Proficiency Testing Program) has been required to analyze four consecutive photon radioactivity, States with externalized. Although the Agency is quarterly samples to determine primacy and EPA will renegotiate unsure at this time how externalization compliance. If the final rule is enforcement actions that put systems on may affect laboratory capacity, EPA promulgated in November of 2000, the compliance schedules as expeditiously recognizes that it may be an new monitoring requirements would as possible. implementation issue for at least three begin to be enforced in November of Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, reasons: final rules become effective three years • 2003. If EPA implements a one year The recent externalization of the extension, water systems would have after promulgation (November of 2003, radionuclides Performance Evaluation until December 31 of 2007 to complete assuming that the rule becomes final in (PE) studies program may cause short- the required initial monitoring. This November of 2000). The following term disruption in laboratory scenario would allow the ‘‘one third of discussion assumes a promulgation date accreditation; systems per year’’ strategy inherent in of November 2000. For reasons • Requiring NTNCWSs to monitor the Standard Monitoring Framework to described in the monitoring section of under the Standard Monitoring be applied, while allowing one the NODA (section III, part K) and the Framework will add approximately additional year, if necessary, to address Appendices (appendix V), initial 20,000 systems to the universe of any laboratory capacity issues. EPA monitoring will be required to systems that are already required to solicits public comment on this matter. completed by December 31, 2007. Under monitor; the Standard Monitoring Framework, • And the radon rule will be L. Effective Dates systems have three years to complete implemented simultaneously with the Much of the rule that will be finalized the initial monitoring cycle of four radionuclides rule. in November will involve retaining consecutive quarterly samples. NIST is in the process of approving a current elements of the radionuclides However, for reasons described in the provider for PT samples for NPDWR. Those portions of the final rule monitoring section of the NODA radionuclides. States also have the that are unaffected by the upcoming (section III, part K) , systems will have option of approving their own PT regulatory changes are already in effect. an additional year to complete the sample providers. Should laboratory MCLs for gross alpha, beta particle and initial monitoring cycle, which will capacity issues related to externalization photon radioactivity, and combined correspond to an end date of December
VerDate 18
31, 2007. This includes initial EPA is also recommending rapid Chairperson Shirley A. Jackson of the monitoring for uranium, the new sample analysis for alpha emitters to Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 7, monitoring requirements for radium- detect the presence of short lived 1997. (EPA 1997e) 228, and new initial monitoring under radionuclides such as radium-224, but USEPA. Office of Solid Waste and the requirements for entry points. Emergency Response (OSWER). 1997. is not contemplating requiring it as part Memorandum from Stephen Ludwig and Compliance determinations and future of the revision to the radionuclides rule. Larry Weinstock (Office of Radiation and monitoring cycle schedules are also The Agency will pursue the issue of a Indoor Air) to Addressees. ‘‘Establishment of discussed in the monitoring sections timely analysis of gross alpha to reflect Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with cited. MCL violations resulting from the short half lived Ra-224 in a separate Radioactive Contamination’’. OSWER No. new requirement for separate Ra-228 proposal. 9200.4–18. August 22, 1997. (EPA/OSWER monitoring will be treated as ‘‘new Costs and benefits for the various 1997a). violations’’ and will be on the same options are presented in appendix V of USEPA. Office of Solid Waste and schedule as other new violations (e.g. today’s document, in the Technical Emergency Response (OSWER). 1997. uranium). Support Document (EPA 2000a), and in Memorandum from Timothy Fields to Regional Administrators. ‘‘The Role of M. Costs and Benefits the draft Health Risk Reduction and CSGWPP’s in EPA Remediation Programs’’. Cost Analysis (EPA 2000b). Today’s The Safe Drinking Water Act provides OSWER No. 9283.1–09. April 4, 1997. (EPA/ NODA solicits comment on whether the OSWER 1997b). for EPA to consider both public health incremental risk reduction may justify USEPA. Memorandum to Water and the feasibility (taking costs into the costs for certain of the revisions Management Division Directors, Regions I–X, consideration) in establishing drinking described in the NODA. EPA requests from Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director, Office water MCLs. In addition the new public comment on such questions and of Ground Water and Drinking Water Amendments require EPA to evaluate on the extent to which its discretionary regarding Recommendations Concerning the costs and benefits of potential authority provided by section 1412(b)(6) Testing for Gross Alpha Emitters in DrinkingWater (January 27, 1999). (EPA revisions to the current standards. As of the SDWA should be used. This noted earlier, the Agency conducted an 1999a) NODA also requests public input USEPA. Cancer Risk Coefficients for analysis of the costs and associated regarding the need for further benefits of each of the options described Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides, adjustments to the limits based on the Federal Guidance Report No. 13. US in today’s document. These analyses cost and risk data presented in today’s Environmental Protection Agency, were performed consistent with the NODA. Washington, DC, 1999. (EPA 1999b) requirements for a Health Risk USEPA. ‘‘Technical Support Document for Reduction and Cost Analysis set forth in IV. References the Radionuclides Notice of Data the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA Parsa, Bahman. ‘‘Contribution of Short- Availability’’. Draft. March, 2000. (EPA (section 1412(b)(3)(C)). Lived Radionuclides to Alpha-Particle 2000a) First, all public water systems that are Radioactivity in Drinking Water and Their USEPA. ‘‘Preliminary Health Risk currently treating and are in compliance Impact on the Safe Drinking Water Act Reduction and Cost Analysis: Revised with the 1976 standards will have no Regulations’’. Radioactivity & National Primary Drinking Water Standards additional cost if the rule remains the Radiochemistry (Vol. 9, No. 4). pp. 41–50). for Radionuclides’’. Prepared by Industrial 1998. Economics, Inc. for EPA. Draft. January 2000. same as it is now. At the same time, EPA (EPA 2000b) recognizes that it may be costly to USEPA. Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides. Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. systems which have delayed 133, p. 28402. July 9, 1976. Memorandum to David Huber, Edwin compliance. However, to the extent the USEPA. National Primary Drinking Water Thomas, OGWDW from Scott Telofski, ORIA rule remains the same, costs necessary Regulations; Radionuclides; Proposed Rule. regarding Uranium Analysis Screening Level to comply with the existing rule, as well Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 138, p. 33050. for Drinking Water Regulations NODA. as public health benefits associated with July 18, 1991. March 14, 2000. (EPA 2000c) it, have accrued to that 1976 rule. If EPA USEPA. Presumptive Response Strategy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. changes nothing, the existing 1976 and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for Memorandum to David Huber, Edwin requirements must be met. EPA Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Thomas, OGWDW from Scott Telofski, ORIA regarding Gross Alpha Screening for considers only those costs associated Sites: Final Guidance. EPA 540/R–96/023. (EPA 1996a) Uranium. March 20, 2000. (EPA 2000d) with accommodating revisions to the USEPA. Performance Evaluation Studies U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). ‘‘Radium- current regulations to be new costs. Supporting Administration of the Clean 226 and Radium-228 in a Shallow Ground Costs incurred, or those that should Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Water, Southern New Jersey’’. Fact Sheet FS– have been incurred to comply with a Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 139, p. 37464. 062–98. June 1998. July 18, 1996. (EPA 1996b) previous regulation, are not factored Appendix I—Occurrence into current considerations. USEPA. National Primary Drinking Water Second, EPA has reexamined the Regulations; Analytical Methods for In order to estimate the total national costs costs of the 1991 proposal regarding Radionuclides; Final Rule and Proposed and benefits of revising the MCLs it is necessary to develop updated national monitoring for any changes which may Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 43, p. 10168. March 5, 1997. (EPA 1997a) estimates of the occurrence and exposure to be warranted based on new data. EPA is USEPA. Performance Evaluation Studies these radionuclide contaminants in drinking contemplating several changes which Supporting Administration of the Clean water. Occurrence data and associated were part of the 1991 proposed Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. analyses provide indications of the number regulation and which may increase Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 113, p. 32112. of public water supply systems with costs. These include: (1) Promulgating June 12, 1997. (EPA 1997b) concentration of radionuclides above the an NPDWR for uranium; (2) applying USEPA. Performance Based Measurement revised MCL as well as the population served the radionuclide NPDWRs to non- System. Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 193, by these systems. Monitoring and treatment transient, non-community (NTNC) p. 52098. October 6, 1997. (EPA 1997c) costs can be estimated from the occurrence USEPA. Manual for the Certification of data. systems; (3) requiring monitoring at the Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water. EPA point of entry to distribution systems, 815–B–97–001. 1997. (EPA 1997d) A. Background and ; (4) requiring separate monitoring USEPA. 1997. Memorandum from EPA conducted a nationwide occurrence for radium-226 and radium-228. Administrator Carol M. Browner of EPA to study of naturally occurring radionuclides in
VerDate 18
TABLE I±1.ÐCOMPARISON OF NIRS TARGET SAMPLE WITH FEDERAL REPORTING DATA SYSTEM (FRDS) INVENTORY
Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of Population category (population range) FRDS sites* FRDS sites NIRS sites NIRS sites
Very small (25±500) ...... 34,040 71.4 716 71.6 Small (501±3,300) ...... 10,155 21.3 211 21.1 Medium (3,301±10,000) ...... 2,278 4.8 47 4.7 Large and very large (10,001±>100,000) ...... 1,227 2.6 26 2.5
Total ...... 47,700 100.1 1,000 100.0 * Based in FRDS inventory for fiscal year 1985 from Longtin, 1988.
Results of NIRS were used to develop the parent and product are different in most considerations. Thus, the survey is likely proposed radionuclide rule in 1991 (56 FR chemical environments. biased toward the extreme high end of the 33050; EPA 1991). There has not been a Recently, high concentrations of radium occurrence distribution for radium-224 and comparable national survey for radionuclides were found to be associated with ground co-occurring contaminants such as radium- water that was geochemically affected by since. Since the publication of the proposed 228. Approximately half of the samples were agricultural practices in the recharge areas by 1991 revision to the MCLs, the United States below the minimum detectable concentration strongly enriching the water with competing of radium-226 and radium-228 in spite of the Geological Survey has collected additional ions such as hydrogen, calcium, and data on various radionuclides in groundwater fact that public water systems were targeted magnesium (Szabo and dePaul, 1998). in areas where high concentrations of radium to augment the data of the NIRS. These Radium-228 was detected in about equivalent were expected. Table I–2 shows that, of the studies are summarized subsequently, and in concentrations as radium-226 in the aquifer 104 samples, 21 exceeded the MCL for greater detail in the Technical Support study in New Jersey (Szabo and dePaul, 1998). combined radium, and about 5 percent Document (EPA 2000a). exceeded 10 pCi/L of radium-224, though Szabo and Zapecza (1991) detail the B. USGS Radium Survey several of these samples with pH less than differences in the occurrence of uranium and A 1998 USGS survey (see EPA 2000a) was 4.0 also contained detectable concentrations radium-226 in oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor designed to target areas of known, or of thorium isotopes as well. Concentrations areas of aquifers. Because the chemical suspected, high concentrations of radium-224 exceeded 1 pCi/L in about 10 percent of the behavior of uranium and radium are vastly as inferred by associated radium occurrence samples analyzed for lead-210 and 3 percent different, the degree of mobilization of the data, geologic maps, and other geochemical for polonium-210.
TABLE I±2.ÐPERCENT OF SAMPLES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATION
Total num- Percent of samples exceeding given concentration (pCi/L) Radionuclide ber of sam- ples 1235710
Ra-224 ...... 104 30 26 20 15 9 5 Ra-226 ...... 104 33 22 17 10 5 2 Po-210 ...... 95 3 1 1 1 0 0 Pb-210 ...... 96 10 3 1 1 0 0
Radium-224 occurs in many of the wells products is approximately three times the indicating that the gross alpha-particle screen sampled at concentrations that highlight the concentration of radium-224. While this that is currently used for combined radium limitations of the present monitoring scheme analysis was developed with a small data set (radium-226 + radium-228) compliance for the gross alpha-particle standard. In in a restricted geographic range, it is based would be inadequate in many situations. addition, the contribution of radium-224 and on a physical process and has important Polonium-210 and lead-210 are derived its short-lived daughter products to gross implications for such things as projections of from the uranium-238 decay series; the decay alpha emissions was estimated with data radium-224 occurrence in association with series that produces radium-226. However, from a concurrent study of ground-water gross-alpha concentrations. These results are the survey was designed to assess radium- supplies by the USGS in cooperation with also important in light of both the costliness 224; therefore results are possibly biased to the state of New Jersey (Szabo et al., 1998). and difficulty of the radium-224 analysis. areas that would more likely have isotopes in In that study, gross alpha emissions were Concentrations of radium-228 were highly the thorium-232 decay series. In addition, the measured before the decay of radium-224 and correlated with radium-224. Although this correlations of radium-226 with radium-224 after sufficient time had elapsed for radium- correlation was based on a limited number of and radium-228 are only 0.51 and 0.61 224 decay (about 18–22 days). In this way, data points, there is a physical basis to the respectively; consequently, the wells that the difference between the initial gross-alpha correlation since both nuclides originate from were sampled may not be located in areas measurement and the final measurement is the same decay chain. Therefore, there is expected to have polonium-210 or lead-210. indicative of the contribution of radium-224 potential for using radium-228 as a proxy Within these constraints, the new data help and all other alpha emitting isotopes that indicator for the much shorter lived and to fill the gap in occurrence information that would decay within this time frame. The infrequently sampled radium-224. In existed for these isotopes. Polonium-210 was results indicate that the contribution of addition, the isotopic ratios of radium-226 to found in concentrations exceeding 1 pCi/L in radium-224 and its short-lived daughter radium-228 were below 3:2 in many samples only two wells. At this time, these
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Exposed radium dial painters also radium were made using RADRISK (see EPA taken from the BEIR III and BEIR IV (see EPA exhibited significantly elevated rates of two 1991, proposed rule) based on annual dose 1991, proposed rule) reports. rare types of cancer, bone sarcomas rates. For this purpose, EPA computed dose Table II–1 compares the methods used by (osteosarcomas, fibrosarcomas and rates for specific organs and tissues at EPA in 1976 and 1991 to calculate organ chondrosarcomas) and carcinomas of head specific ages for an annual unit intake of each burdens, doses, and risks from radium sinuses and mastoids (see EPA 2000a and radium isotope (see EPA 2000a). Calculation EPA 1991, the proposed rule). The incidence of body burdens was based on metabolic ingestion. Bone doses calculated for radium- of head carcinomas was associated with models derived from the radium dial painter 226 in 1991 were about 33 percent lower exposure to radium-226, but not radium-228 studies. Calculations of absorbed doses in than those assumed in 1976, and the soft (see EPA 2000a). This is because these latter specific organs or tissues included cross tissue doses were about 40 percent lower. cancers were due to an accumulation of irradiation from radium in all other organs. Risk estimates for bone per unit dose were radon gas (radon-222) in the mastoid air cells RADRISK included lifetime cancer risk about 65 percent lower in 1991 than in 1976, and paranasal sinuses caused by the escape estimates for high- and low-LET (linear and the soft tissue risk estimates were about of radon-222 into the air spaces. energy transfer) radiation separately for 9 percent lower. ii. Body Burden, Dose, and Risk leukemia, osteosarcomas, sinus tumors, and Calculations. Risk calculations for ingested other solid tumors. These estimates were
TABLE II±1.ÐCOMPARISON OF DERIVATION OF 1976 AND 1991 MCLS FOR RADIUM
Model 1976 1991
Organ and Tissue Burdens ...... Calculation of body burdens based on envi- Calculation of body burdens based on ronmental studies and ratio of intakes. toxicokinetic models derived from studies of patients injected with radium. Dosimetry ...... Calculation of absorbed dose based on organ Calculation of absorbed dose based on organ and tissue burden. or tissue burden and cross irradiation terms from all other organs. Risk Coefficients ...... Risk estimated using the geometric mean of Risk estimated using the absolute risk coeffi- the absolute and relative risk coefficients cient from the 1980 BEIR III report. from the 1972 BEIR I report.
b. Basis for the 1991 MCL for Gross Alpha water and may cause health effects at plutonium exposure and the development of Particle Activity. In 1991, EPA proposed to relatively low concentrations. cancer in human exposure cases. The report retain the 15 pCi/L MCL for gross alpha However, the BEIR IV report concluded recommended that assessing the risks of particle activity, but modify it by excluding that there was no direct measure of risk for plutonium exposure should be based on radium-226, as well as uranium and radon. most polonium isotopes based on the human analogy with other radionuclides and high- The exclusion of uranium and radon was data, and suggested several possible means of LET radiation exposure risks. Using based on the fact that the Agency anticipated estimating risk. EPA, as discussed, relied on RADRISK, EPA estimated that, at a lifetime setting separate NPDWRs for these RADRISK in assessing polonium risk. The fatal cancer risk level of 1 × 10¥4, derived contaminants with the finalization of the model estimated that continuous ingestion of drinking water concentrations for plutonium 1991 proposal. The proposed exclusion of two liters per day of drinking water isotopes ranged from about 7 to 68 pCi/L, and Ra–226 was based on the 1991 risk estimate containing 14 pCi/L would pose a lifetime noted that plutonium concentrations in which suggested that its unit risk was small fatal cancer risk of 1 × 10¥4. drinking water were generally less than 0.1 enough not to warrant regulation within EPA also consulted the BEIR IV report for pCi/L (EPA, 1991f). gross alpha. The 1991 limit was intended to available information on the adverse effects c. Basis for the 1991 MCL for Beta Particle limit the lifetime cancer risk due to ingestion of thorium. Epidemiological studies of and Photon Radioactivity. In 1991, EPA of naturally-occurring and man-made alpha patients injected with Thorotrast, a contrast proposed to alter the 4 mrem/yr MCL for beta particle emitters in drinking water to agent consisting of ThO2 and used in medical particle and photon radioactivity. The between 10¥6 and 10¥4, the Agency’s target radiology from the 1920s to 1955, showed Agency modified the standard by basing the risk range for carcinogens. Specifically, this clear increases in liver cancer, as well as limit on the committed effective dose limit was based on the following possible increases in leukemia and other equivalent (EDE). (An effective dose considerations: cancers. However, the BEIR IV report equivalent approach adjusts the dose that an Using RADRISK modeling, EPA estimated discussed the limitations of these data for individual organ may receive based on its that continuous consumption of 15 pCi/L of assessing the risk due to other forms of radiosensitivity. The less radiosensitive an most alpha particle emitters in drinking thorium that might have different metabolic organ is, the greater the allowable radiation water at 2 L/day would pose a lifetime cancer behaviors and effects. Using RADRISK, EPA dose.) The MCL was also modified to include risk between 10¥6 and 10¥4. estimated that, at a lifetime fatal cancer risk naturally-occurring beta/photon emitters. EPA performed the risk assessment for the level of 1 × 10¥4, derived drinking water The 1991 proposed standard was intended to alpha emitters using RADRISK (EPA 1991, concentrations for thorium isotopes ranged limit the lifetime cancer risk due to ingestion proposed rule). The model was used to from 50 to 125 pCi/L, and noted that thorium of naturally-occurring and man-made beta estimate radiation dose to organs, the dose concentrations in drinking water were particle and photon emitters in drinking was used to calculate risk to organs, and the generally near one pCi/L (EPA, 1991f). water to between 10¥6 and 10¥4, the risks to organs were summed to estimate EPA relied on the BEIR IV report for Agency’s target risk range for carcinogens. overall risk. EPA used RADRISK to calculate information on the health effects of Using RADRISK modeling, EPA estimated concentrations of alpha emitters plutonium isotopes and other transuranic that continuous consumption of two liters corresponding to lifetime mortality and radionuclides that were widely distributed in per day of drinking water containing a incidence risks of 10¥4, assuming ingestion the environment in very low concentrations concentration of beta particle or photon of two liters of drinking water daily, and due to atmospheric testing of nuclear emitting radiation corresponding to 4 mrem presented those values in appendix C of the weapons from 1945 to 1963. The BEIR IV EDE/yr would pose a lifetime cancer risk of 1991 proposed rule. report concluded that plutonium exposures about 10¥4. In determining the risks from ingestion of caused clear increases in cancers of the bone, Comparison of the 1976 Regulation and alpha emitters in drinking water, EPA was liver, and lungs in animals, but not in 1991 Proposed Regulation. In 1976, EPA particularly interested in polonium-210 and humans. At that time, the limited available based the MCL for beta particle and photon isotopes of thorium and plutonium, because epidemiological studies had not emitters on a target dose rate of 4 mrem/yr. these radionuclides had been observed in demonstrated a clear association between The annual average activity concentration of
VerDate 18
TABLE II±2.ÐMORTALITY RISK OF RADIUMS FOR CONCENTRATION COMBINATIONS AT THE MCL
Radium-226 Radium-228 Ra-226 + Ra-228 pCi/L Risk pCi/L Risk pCi/L Risk at 5 pCi/L
0 ...... 0 5 2.0×10¥4 5 2.0×10¥4 1 ...... 1.5×10¥5 4 1.6×10¥4 5 1.8×10¥4 2 ...... 2.9×10¥5 3 1.2×10¥4 5 1.5×10¥4 3 ...... 4.4×10¥5 2 8.1×10¥5 5 1.3×10¥4 4 ...... 5.8×10¥5 1 4.1×10¥5 5 9.9×10¥5
VerDate 18
TABLE II±2.ÐMORTALITY RISK OF RADIUMS FOR CONCENTRATION COMBINATIONS AT THE MCLÐContinued
Radium-226 Radium-228 Ra-226 + Ra-228 pCi/L Risk pCi/L Risk pCi/L Risk at 5 pCi/L
5 ...... 7.3×10¥5 0 0 5 7.3×10¥5
b. Alpha Emitters. Both the current and L of radium-226, that is, between 0.5 and in addition to the radium-226 in the radium 1991 proposed MCLs for alpha-emitting 2×10¥4. In 1991, EPA based the revised, standard. As expected, a uniform picoCurie radionuclides permit up to 15 pCi/L of alpha adjusted gross alpha MCL on revised dose limit results in widely differing risks (EPA particle radioactivity in drinking water from and risk calculations which indicated that 2000a). individual and multiple alpha emitters. EPA the 15 pCi/L limit posed a lifetime cancer c. Beta/Photon Emitters. As discussed established the current gross alpha MCL of 15 risk for most alpha emitters that fell within elsewhere in this document, EPA is able to pCi/L (including radium-226 and excluding EPA’s acceptable risk range of between 10¥6 ¥ calculate the risks from individual beta/ radon and uranium) to account for the risk and 10 4. photon emitters using the FGR–13 from radium-226 at 5 pCi/L (the radium The current estimate of risk from methodology. It is now possible to calculate × ¥4. regulatory limit) plus the risk from polonium-210 at 7.0 pCi/L is 1 10 The a risk equivalent to the current picoCurie × ¥4 polonium-210, which the Agency believed risk for radium-226 at 6.8 p/L is also 1 10 . limit for each beta/photon emitter. was the next most radiotoxic element in the When the current rule was written, 10 pCi/ Appropriate adjustments are then possible in uranium decay chain. The current risk L of polonium-210 was believed to be keeping with the original risk maximum of estimated (FGR–13) indicates that the unit equivalent to 1 pCi/L of radium-226; 5.6×10¥5. The derived concentration values risk for Ra-226 is large enough to warrant its however, the risks are now equivalent. Thus for the beta particle and photon emitters from inclusion in gross alpha, as thought in 1976. polonium is ten times the risk it was thought 1976 rule and 1991 proposal in comparison In 1991, EPA thought that exposure to 10 to be relative to radium-226. Retaining a 15 to today’s newest risk model using 5.6×10¥5 pCi/L of polonium-210 posed a lifetime fatal pCi/L standard including radium-226 ensures mortality are found in Table II–3. cancer risk comparable to that from that the risk of 15 pCi/L will not increase by continuous lifetime ingestion of about 1 pCi/ allowing greater polonium (up to 15 pCi/L) BILLING CODE 6560±50±U
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
BILLING CODE 6560±50±C
VerDate 18
d. Uranium. Since the 1991 proposal, a participant by multiplying the uranium kg) and RSC (0.8) and dividing by water number of new studies have been published concentration in the water supply by the consumption (2 L), resulting in a value of 17 in peer-reviewed journals. A literature search average number of cups consumed at each ug uranium/L, which can be rounded off to was conducted and covered the time period residence and the total number of years at 20 /L. between January 1991 to July, 1998. that residence. Based on the results of a 2. Consideration of Sensitive Sub- Databases searched were TOXLINE, linear regression analysis, which included populations: Children’s Environmental MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, TSCATS and terms for age, diabetes, sex, smoking, and the Health Current Contents (see EPA 2000a). The use of water filters and softeners, a results of the literature search were reviewed statistically-significant association was In compliance with Executive Order 13045 and articles were identified, retrieved and reported for cumulative exposure to uranium ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental reviewed and analyzed. Subsequently, the and urine albumin levels. However, the Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, Toxicological Profile for URANIUM (Update) authors noted that for most of the study April 23, 1997), risks to children from was published extending the database to participants, the urine albumin levels were radionuclides have been considered. There is September 1999 (see EPA 2000a). within the range of normal values. evidence that children are more sensitive to i. Health Effects in Animals. The potential A recent study of a village in Nova Scotia radiation than adults, the risk per unit toxic effects of uranium following oral (see EPA 2000a) demonstrated the renal exposure in children being greater than in exposures have been evaluated in recent effects following chronic exposure to adults. animal studies (see EPA 2000a). In a 28-day uranium in the drinking water. Two groups Risk coefficients used by the Agency for range-finding study, male and female were evaluated, a low exposure group radiation risk assessment explicitly account Sprague-Dawley rats (15/sex/group) were (uranium levels < 1/L) and a high exposure for these factors. The age-specific, organ- µ administered concentrations of 0, 0.96, 4.8, group (uranium levels > 1 g/L). Twenty-four specific risk per unit dose coefficients used 24, 124, or 600 mg uranyl nitrate/L (UN/L) hour and 8-hour urine samples were in the lifetime risk model apply the in drinking water for a period of 28 days. collected and evaluated for uranium, appropriate age-specific sensitivities Results of the study showed no significant creatinine, glucose, protein, b2-microglobulin throughout the model. The model also dose-related effects on body weight gain, (BMG), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma includes age-specific changes in organ mass food intake, fluid consumption, clinical glutamyl transferase (GGT), lactate and metabolism. The risk estimate at any age signs, or hematological parameters of treated dehydrogenase (LDH), and N-acetyl-b-D- is the best estimate for that age. In developing animals when compared with control glucosaminidase (NAG). Statistically the lifetime risks, the model uses the life animals. Histologic examinations indicated significant positive correlations were table for a stationary population. Use of the no statistically significant differences in the reported with uranium intake for glucose life table allows the model to account for incidence of a particular lesion in animals in (males, females and pooled data), ALP competing causes of death and age-specific the 600 mg UN/L treatment group when (pooled data) and BMG (pooled data). No survival. These adjustments make the compared with animals in the control group. other statistically significant differences were lifetime risk estimate more realistic. However, a slight increase in the number of reported. Based on these results, the authors affected animals in the 600 mg UN/L group concluded that the proximal tubule was the At the same time, consumption rates of was observed, when compared with the site of uranium nephrotoxicity. food, water and air are different between control group. In June 1998, a workshop was held by the adults and children. The lifetime risk As discussed in the Technical Support USEPA to discuss issues associated with estimates for radionuclides in water use age- Document (EPA 2000a), the long-term effects assessing the risk associated with uranium specific water intake rates derived from of exposure to low-levels of uranium in exposure and updating the RfD and MCLG average national consumption rates when drinking water has been demonstrated. for uranium. The numerous technical issues calculating the risk per unit intake. Since the Female rabbits and male albino rats were associated with the development of a risk intake by children is usually less than the exposed to 0, 0.02, 0.2, and 1 mg/kg uranyl assessment for uranium in drinking water intake by adults, it tends to partially mitigate nitrate for 12 months or 0.05, 0.6, 6, and 60 were discussed. Based on these discussions, the greater risk in children compared to mg/L uranyl nitrate for 11 months, it was apparent that there is a range of values adults when evaluating lifetime risk. respectively. Results of the study indicated a for each factor used in the development of D. References decrease in acid phosphatase activity in the the RfD and MCL for uranium. However, spleens of rabbits in the 1 mg/kg group, but based upon the input received at the EPA, 1999. Cancer Risk Coefficients for not in rats, when compared to controls. A workshop and the most current information, Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides, statistically-significant (p<0.05) increase in EPA believes that the LOAEL for renal effects Federal Guidance Report No. 13. US serum alkaline phosphatase activity was in male rats of 0.06 mg U/kg/day reported Environmental Protection Agency, observed by the eleventh month of exposure could be used for the development of an RfD Washington, DC, 1999. Uranium Issues in rats in the 6 and 60 mg/L groups, when for uranium (see EPA 2000a). The relative Workshop—Sponsored by United States compared with controls. A statistically- source contribution (RSC) was revised to 80 Environmental Protection Agency, significant decrease in the content of nucleic percent (0.8). The total uncertainty factor was Washington, DC ; June 23–24, 1998. acids in the renal and hepatic tissues was determined to be about 100 (about 3 for USEPA. ‘‘Technical Support Document for observed in rats in the 60 mg/L group and in animal to human extrapolation, about 10 for the Radionuclides Notice of Data rabbits in the 1 mg/kg group, when compared intraspecies differences, about 1 for a less Availability.’’ Draft. March, 2000. (EPA with controls. than lifetime study, and about 3 for the use 2000a) ii. Health Effects in Humans. Recent of a LOAEL), with the body weight of 70 Appendix III—Analytical Methods epidemiological studies have evaluated the kilograms (kg) and daily water consumption effects observed in humans exposed to of two liters used in the calculation. These Table III–1 briefly summarizes the uranium in the drinking water (see EPA assumptions are consistent with the data regulatory events associated with: 2000a). These studies demonstrate the presented at the workshop and appear to be • The testing procedures for regulated relationship between uranium levels in the reasonable and justifiable. EPA believes these radionuclides approved in 1976; drinking water and urine albumin, an factors allow for the calculation of a safe • Major analytical additions or changes indicator of renal dysfunction, was level of uranium in drinking water (in terms proposed or discussed in the 1991 evaluated. Three sites were selected for the of chemical toxicity). radionuclides rule; controls (site 1) and the exposed groups (sites The application of the total uncertainty • Testing procedures and protocols 2 and 3), with mean uranium water levels of factor of 100 to the LOAEL of 0.06 mg/kg/day approved in the March 5, 1997— 0.71, 19.6 and 14.7 µg/L reported for sites 1, results in an RfD of 0.6 ug uranium/kg/day. radionuclides methods rule (62 FR 10168, 2 and 3, respectively. An index of uranium The RfD can be used to determine the MCL cited in 40 CFR 141.25); and exposure was estimated for each study by multiplying the RfD by body weight (70 • Items discussed in today’s NODA.
VerDate 18
TABLE III±1.ÐBRIEF SUMMARY OF THE REGULATORY EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH RADIOCHEMICAL METHODS
1976 National primary drinking July 18, 1991ÐRadionuclides March 5, 1997-Radionuclide water regulations proposed rule methods final rule Today's notice of data availability
The 1976 NPDWR approved: The July 18, 1991Ðradio- The March 5, 1997 final rule Updates the public on changes that have * Radiochemical methods to nuclides rule proposed: for radionuclide methods: occurred regarding radiochemical meth- analyze for gross alpha-par- * Fifty-six additional methods * Approved 66 additional radio- ods of analysis since the 1991 proposed ticle activity, radium-226, for compliance monitoring of nuclide techniques for gross rule. The updates discussed in today's total radium, gross beta-par- radionuclides alpha-particle activity, ra- NODA include: ticle activity, strontium-89 * Guidance for the sample han- dium-226, radium-228, ura- * A brief discussion of the analytical meth- and -90, cesium-134 and dling, preservation and hold- nium, cesium-134, iodine- ods updates which were promulgated by uranium ing times that were cited in 131, and strontium-90 the Agency on July 18, 1997 final rule. * Defined the detection limit the 1990 U.S.EPA ``Manual Responded to comments re- * Guidance for the sample handling, preser- (DL) as the required measure for the Certification of Lab- garding the analytical meth- vation and holding times listed in the of sensitivity and listed the oratories Analyzing Drinking ods (excluding radon) re- 1997 U.S.EPA ``Manual for the Certifi- required DL for each regu- Water'' ceived from the July 18, cation of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking lated radionuclide * The use of practical quantita- 1991 proposed radionuclides Water.'' tion limits (PQLs) and ac- rule * Recommendations for the analysis of ceptance limits as the meas- short-lived, alpha-emitting radioisotopes ures of sensitivity for (i.e., radium-224). radiochemical analysis * Revised cost estimates for radiochemical analysis. * The Agency's intent to continue to use the detection limits defined in the 1976 rule as the required measures of sensitivity. * Response to some of the comments on the 1991 proposed radionuclides. * The externalization of the Performance Evaluation Program. The Agency's plans to implement a Per- formance Based Measurement System.
A. The Updated 1997 Laboratory 97–001, EPA 1997b). Table III–2 lists the includes additional recommendations for Certification Manual guidance for sample handling, preservation, radiochemical instrumentation (footnoted by A revised version of the certification holding times, and instrumentation which the number 6), which the Agency is manual was published in 1997 (EPA 815–B– appeared in this manual. Table III–2 also requesting comment on.
TABLE III±2.ÐSAMPLE HANDLING, PRESERVATION, HOLDING TIMES AND INSTRUMENTATION
Maximum holding Parameter Preservative 1 Container 2 Instrumentation 4 time 3
5 Gross Alpha ...... Concentrated HCl or HNO3 to pH <2 P or G 6 months A, B or G 5 Gross Beta ...... Concentrated HCl or HNO3 to pH <2 P or G 6 months A or G 6 Radium-226 ...... Concentrated HCl or HNO3 to pH <2 .. P or G 6 months A, B, C , D or G 6 6 Radium-228 ...... Concentrated HCl or HNO3 to pH <2 .. P or G 6 months A, B , C or G 6 6 Uranium natural ...... Concentrated HCl or HNO3 to pH <2 .. P or G 6 months A , F, G , or O Cesium-134 ...... Concentrated HCl to pH <2 ...... P or G 6 months A, C or G Strontium-89 and -90 ...... Concentrated HCl or HNO3 to pH <2 .. P or G 6 months A or G Radioactive Iodine-131 ...... None ...... P or G 8 days A, C or G Tritium ...... None ...... G 6 months E Gamma/Photon Emitters ...... Concentrated HCl or HNO3 to pH <2 .. P or G 6 months C 1 It is recommended that the preservative be added to the sample at the time of collection. It is recommended that samples be filtered if sus- pended or settleable solids are present at any level observable to the eye prior to adding preservative. This should be done at the time of collec- tion. If the sample has to be shipped to a laboratory or storage area, however, acidification of the sample (in its original container) may be de- layed for a period not to exceed 5 days. A minimum of 16 hours must elapse between acidification and start of analysis. 2 P = Plastic, hard or soft; G = Glass, hard or soft. 3 Holding time is defined as the period from time of sampling to time of analysis. In all cases, samples should be analyzed as soon after collec- tion as possible. If a composite sample is prepared, a holding time cannot exceed 12 months. 4 A = Low background proportional system; B = Alpha and beta scintillation system; C = Gamma spectrometer [Ge(Hp) or Ge (Li)]; D = Scin- tillation cell system; E = Liquid scintillation system; F = Fluorometer; G = Low background alpha and beta counting system other than gas-flow proportional; O = Other approved methods (e.g., laser phosphorimetry and alpha spectrometry for uranium). 5 If HCl is used to acidify samples which are to be analyzed for gross alpha or gross beta activities, the acid salts must be converted to nitrate salts before transfer of the samples to planchets. 6 Additional instrumentation that was not listed in the USEPA 1997 ``Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water.''
B. Recommendations for Determining the 1. Radium-224 by Gamma Spectrometry and the radium isotopes are concentrated is Presence of Radium-224 Alpha Spectrometry gamma counted. The primary advantage of To determine the presence of the short- (a) Gamma Spectrometry. Radium-224 can this technique is specificity for radium lived radium-224 isotope (half life ∼3.66 be specifically determined by gamma gamma rays, radium-224 included. Other days), the Agency recommends using one of spectrometry using a suitably prepared advantages of this method include: the following several options. sample. In this method a precipitate in which
VerDate 18
• a simple sample preparation were half-life decay and the gross radium alpha and add to or amplify the sample count rate. radium isotopes are concentrated from technique. Gross radium co-precipitation This count rate amplification can be samples 1 liter or larger; methods, like EPA 903.0, concentrate radium exploited for the measurement of radium-224 • specificity for the radium-224 isotope isotopes by co-precipitation, separating in a sample at low concentration (<15 pCi/ based on a unique gamma energy; radium and radium-like isotopes from L). The presence of the radium-224 • optimal accuracy and precision if the potential interferences. Relative to sample is counted within 72 hours of evaporative methods, the co-precipitation radioisotope in drinking water may be collection (40 hours is recommended); technique can be used for larger (> 1 L) ascertained by performing an initial • and is cost competitive with the gross sample sizes with a resulting increase in the evaporative gross alpha-particle analysis methods because a single count rather that method sensitivity. Initial analysis within 72 within 72 hours (40 hours recommended) three counts (see the gross alpha methods hours after sample collection (40 hours after sample collection. In the absence of any discussion) is necessary to measure the recommended for optimal data quality) using other alpha-emitting nuclide (e.g., uranium radium-224 in a routine sample. the co-precipitation methods yield results, or radium-226) and if the gross alpha-particle A gamma spectrometry method by reflecting both alpha-emitting radium value is above the MCL, the sample may be Standard Methods is currently pending but isotopes (radium-224 and radium-226). For re-counted at 4- and 8-day intervals to for now the reader is referred to the method these to produce unambiguous results, used by Parsa. (Parsa, 1998). radium-224 must be the dominant isotope determine if the observed decrease in activity (b) Alpha Spectrometry. The alpha present, i. e. the ratio of radium-224 to follows the 3.66 day half-life of radium-224. spectrometry method measures alphas radium-226 must be three or greater. If this A decrease in the gross alpha value with a emitted by radium-224 and its alpha emitting is the prevailing composition, the estimated 4-day decay rate indicates the likely presence daughters. The alpha spectrometry method, contribution of radium-224 to the overall of radium-224. Formulas are available to used for the USGS occurrence survey (see value can be ascertained by recounting the calculate the concentration of radium-224 in appendix I and EPA 2000a), was a slight sample at 4 or 8 days intervals and the initial sample. The advantages of this modification of an existing method (see EPA calculating the change in the measured option include: 2000a). Using an appropriate tracer (e.g. Ba- activity. The noted change will show a • the method is similar to the general 133), barium and radium isotopes are decrease with a 4 day half-life indicative of separated from other radionuclides and Ra-224. Formulas are available to calculate method for evaporative gross alpha; • interferences using cation ion exchange the initial radium-224 concentration present it requires no special training of the chromatography. A prepared sample, in the sample when collected. The analyst; and counted for approximately 100 minutes using advantages of this technique include: • it can be a definitive test if other alpha- alpha spectrometry, can be used to measure • enhanced sensitivity (≥1 L samples); emitting nuclides are known to be absent. the radium-224 in the sample and is capable • it does not require additional analyst The Agency recognizes that analysis within of good accuracy and precision. Other alpha training; the 72-hour time frame creates difficulties in • spectrometry techniques, similar to the it is specific for radium isotopes; and shipping and handling and may increase the modified method used for the USGS • the resulting precipitate can be measured price of the analysis. occurrence survey, should be sufficient for by a number of techniques, including the detection of radium-224. It is cost proportional counting, alpha scintillation C. Revised Cost Estimates for Radiochemical competitive with the gross methods counting, or gamma counting. Analysis (discussed next) because a single count rather 3. Evaporative Gross Alpha-Particle Analysis The cost estimates for radiochemical than three (for gross methods) is sufficient to Within 72 Hours for measurement of radium-224. analysis from the 1991 proposed rule and the The radium-224 isotope, when in 2. Gross Radium Alpha (Co-precipitation) revised cost estimates are shown in Table III– equilibrium with its decay progeny, emits 3. Within 72 Hours four alpha particles. Three of these alpha The presence of radium-224 can be particles equilibrate almost immediately determined indirectly using the radium-224 (within 5 minutes) after sample preparation
TABLE III±3.ÐTHE 1991 AND 1999 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ANALYSES FOR RADIONUCLIDES
Radionuclides Approximate Approximate cost $ (1991)1 cost $ (1999)2
Gross Alpha and beta ...... 35 45 Gross alphaÐcoprecip...... 35 45 Radium-226 ...... 85 90 Radium-228 ...... 100 110 Uranium (total) ...... 45 48 (LP) Uranium (isotopic) ...... 125 128 (AS) Radioactive Cesium (-134) ...... 100 125 Radioactive Strontium ...... 105 144 Total Strontium (-89 and -90) ...... 153 Radioactive Iodine -131 ...... 100 131 Tritium ...... 50 60 Gamma/Photon Emitters ...... 110 142 Source: 1 56 FR 33050; July 18, 1991. 2 USEPA, 2000a. Abbreviations: LP = laser phosphorimetry; AS = alpha spectrometry. Note: Estimated costs are on a per-sample basis; analysis of multiple samples may have a lower cost.
VerDate 18
D. The Detection Limits as the Required can be obtained on-line at ‘‘http:// become more widely applicable for use for Measures of Sensitivity www.epa.gov/OGWDW/standard/ compliance. This is true both because of Table III–4 cites the detection limits or the tretech.html’’. improvements in these technologies required sensitivity for the specific The SSCTLs for the meeting the MCLs for themselves (NRC 1997) and since the 1996 radioanalyses that were listed in the 1976 combined radium-226 and radium-228, gross SDWA explicitly allows package plants and rule and are also cited in 40 CFR 141.25. alpha emitters, and combined beta and POE/POU devices to be used as compliance photon emitters are included in technologies for small systems (section 1412.b.4.E). Package plant technologies and TABLE III±4.ÐREQUIRED REGULATORY ‘‘Announcement of Small System Compliance Technology Lists for Existing POE/U technologies are discussed in more DETECTION LIMITS FOR THE VAR- National Primary Drinking Water Regulations detail in the Technical Support Document IOUS RADIOCHEMICAL CONTAMI- and Findings Concerning Variance (EPA 2000a). NANTS (40 CFR 141.25) Technologies,’’ published in the Federal 2. Treatment Technologies Evaluated as Register on August 6, 1998 (63 FR 42032). Compliance Technologies for Radionuclides The supporting guidance document cited Contaminant Detection limit (pCi/L) The following technologies are reviewed in previously includes information regarding the 1999 radionuclides T&C document: (1) small systems treatment and waste disposal Gross Alpha ...... 3 for radium, the 1991 proposed Best Available concerns relevant to radionuclide Gross Beta ...... 4 Technologies (BATs), which are lime contaminants and was made publicly Radium-226 ...... 1 softening, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis; available on September 15, 1998. Further Radium-228 ...... 1 and two other applicable technologies with evaluations of small systems treatment Cesium-134 ...... 10 significant radium removal data, technology applicability and affordability Strontium-89 ...... 10 electrodialysis reversal and greensand Strontium-90 ...... 2 have been done since the SSCTLs for filtration; (2) for uranium, the 1991 proposed Iodine-131 ...... 1 radionuclides were published, including an BATs, which are coagulation/filtration, ion Tritium ...... 1,000 analysis of SSCTs for uranium (EPA 1999b). exchange, lime softening, and reverse 1 Other Radionuclides ¤10th of the rule These evaluations are summarized later in osmosis; and two other applicable and Photon/ NIPDWR 1976 this section. technologies, electrodialysis reversal and Gamma Emitters. table IV±2A and 2B B. Treatment Technologies Update activated alumina; (3) for gross alpha particle activity, the 1991 proposed BAT, which is 1. Updates on Performance of Technologies E. References reverse osmosis; and one other applicable for Removal of Regulated Radionuclides and technology, ion exchange; and (4) for beta Parsa, B., 1998. Contribution of Short-lived Uranium Radionuclides to Alpha-Particle particle activity and photon radioactivity, the Radioactivity in Drinking Water and Their One of the purposes of the update to the 1991 proposed BATs, which are ion Impact on the Safe Drinking Water Act radionuclides Technologies and Costs (T&C) exchange and reverse osmosis. No other Regulations, Radioactivity and document (EPA 1999a) was to update the technology studies pertinent to total beta and Radiochemistry, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 41–50, treatment technology performance sections of photon activity were found, but this is largely 1998. USEPA, 1991. National Primary the 1992 radionuclides T&C document. The due to the fact that treatment applicability Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; peer-reviewed literature revealed no new depends on what specific beta and photon Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. significant sources of information regarding emitters are present and so should be 138, p. 33050. July 18, 1991. performance for the previously described evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This USEPA, 1997a. National Primary Drinking technologies, nor did it reveal literature consideration also applies to gross alpha Water Regulations; Analytical Methods for regarding any new treatment technologies for activity. It is likely that reverse osmosis, Radionuclides; Final Rule and Proposed radionuclides in drinking water. Both the being applicable to a broad range of inorganic Rule. Vol. 62, No. 43, p. 10168. March 5, 1992 and 1999 radionuclides T&C documents contaminants, including radionuclide 1997. include performance evaluations of the BATs contaminants, is the best alternative for USEPA, 1997b. ‘‘Manual for the proposed in 1991 for the regulated situations where multiple radionuclides Certification of Laboratories Analyzing radionuclides and uranium (56 FR 33050, Jul. occur. Drinking Water.’’ EPA 815–B–97–001. 1997. 18, 1991) and additional technologies that 3. Data on Additional Treatment USEPA, 2000a. ‘‘Technical Support were reviewed as potential BATs for the 1991 Technologies Document for the Radionuclides Notice of proposed rule, but that were not proposed as The 1999 radionuclides T&C document Data Availability.’’ 2000. BAT for various reasons. Although the 1999 T&C document does not identify any new treatment Appendix IV—Treatment Technologies and concludes that the peer-reviewed literature technologies for radionuclides, but does Costs describes no new technologies since the 1992 provide information on two additional variants of coagulation/filtration for uranium T&C document was completed, there have A. Introduction removal: direct filtration and in-line been some developments that are significant. This section describes updates to EPA’s filtration. In particular, both package plant 1 previous evaluations of the feasibility and technologies, including those equipped with 4. Small Systems Compliance Technology costs of treatment technologies for the remote control/communication capabilities, List and Guidance Manual for the Regulated removal of radionuclides from drinking and point-of-entry (POE)/point-of-use (POU) Radionuclides and Uranium water. Prior to this update, the latest versions 2 of existing technologies have evaluation was the 1992 ‘‘Technologies and The 1996 SDWA identifies three categories Costs document’’ for radionuclides in of small drinking water systems, those 1 drinking water (EPA 1992). The updates to Package plants are skid mounted factory serving populations between 25 and 500, 501 assembled centralized treatment units that arrive on and 3,300, and 3,301 and 10,000. In addition the 1992 radionuclides Technologies and site ‘‘virtually ready to use’’. Package plants offer Costs document comprise an updated to BAT determinations, the SDWA directs several advantages. First, since they combine EPA to make technology assessments for each Technologies and Costs Document (EPA elements of the treatment process into a compact 1999a) and a radium compliance cost study assembly (such as chemical feeders, mixers, of the three small system size categories in (EPA 1998a), which are described later in flocculators, basins, and filters), they tend to require all future regulations establishing an MCL or this section. This section also describes other lesser construction and engineering costs. Another relevant documents, including the1998 advantage is that many package plant technologies water at a particular tap or faucet, with the result Federal Register notice of the ‘‘Small are becoming more automated and thus can be less being treated water that one tap, with the other taps demanding of operators than their fully engineered Systems Compliance Technology List’’ serving untreated water. POE and POU treatment counter-parts (EPA 1998b). units often use the same technological concepts (SSCTLs) for the currently regulated 2 Point-of-entry (POE) treatment units treat all of employed in the analogous central treatment radionuclides (63 FR 42032) and its the water entering a household or other building, processes, the main difference being the much supporting guidance document (EPA 1998b). with the result being treated water from any tap. smaller scale of the device itself and the flows being Both of the documents supporting the SSCTs Point-of-use (POU) treatment units treat only the treated (EPA 1998b).
VerDate 18
TABLE IV±1.ÐLIST OF SMALL SYSTEMS COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES FOR RADIONUCLIDES AND LIMITATIONS TO USE
Limitations 1 Raw water quality range and Unit technologies (see foot- Operator skill level required 1 notes) considerations
1. Ion Exchange (IE) ...... (a) Intermediate ...... All ground waters. 2. Point of Use (POU) IE ...... (b) Basic ...... All ground waters 3. Reverse Osmosis (RO) ...... (c) Advanced ...... Surface waters usually require pre-filtra- tion. 4. POU RO ...... (b) Basic ...... Surface waters usually require pre-filtra- tion. 5. Lime Softening ...... (d) Advanced ...... All waters. 6. Green Sand Filtration ...... (e) Basic ...... 7. Co-precipitation with Barium Sulfate .... (f) Intermediate to Advanced ...... Ground waters with suitable water quality. 8. Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal ...... Basic to Intermediate ...... All ground waters. 9. Pre-formed Hydrous Manganese Oxide (g) Intermediate ...... All ground waters. Filtration. 10. Activated alumina ...... (a), (h) Advanced ...... All ground waters; competing anion con- centrations may affect regeneration fre- quency. 11. Enhanced coagulation/filtration ...... (i) Advanced ...... Can treat a wide range of water qualities. 1 National Research Council (NRC). Safe Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1997. Limitations Footnotes to Table IV±2: Technologies for Radionuclides: a The regeneration solution contains high concentrations of the contaminant ions. Disposal options should be carefully considered before choosing this technology. b When POU devices are used for compliance, programs for long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring must be provided by water util- ity to ensure proper performance). c Reject water disposal options should be carefully considered before choosing this technology. See other RO limitations described in the SWTR Compliance Technologies Table. d The combination of variable source water quality and the complexity of the water chemistry involved may make this technology too complex for small surface water systems. e Removal efficiencies can vary depending on water quality. f This technology may be very limited in application to small systems. Since the process requires static mixing, detention basins, and filtration, it is most applicable to systems with sufficiently high sulfate levels that already have a suitable filtration treatment train in place. g This technology is most applicable to small systems that already have filtration in place. h Handling of chemicals required during regeneration and pH adjustment may be too difficult for small systems without an adequately trained operator. i Assumes modification to a coagulation/filtration process already in place.
Table IV–2 lists the Small Systems numbers refer to the technologies listed in Compliance Technologies for the currently Table IV–1. regulated radionuclides. Technology
VerDate 18
TABLE IV±2.ÐCOMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES BY SYSTEM SIZE CATEGORY FOR RADIONUCLIDE NPDWRS (AFFORDABILITY NOT CONSIDERED, EXCEPT FOR URANIUM, DUE TO STATUTORY LIMITATIONS)
Compliance technologies1 for system size Contaminant categories (population served) 25±500 501±3,300 3,300±10,000
Combined radium-226 and radium-228 ...... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 7, 8, 9 7, 8, 9 Gross alpha particle activity ...... 3, 4 3, 4 3, 4 Total beta particle activity and photon activity, average annual concentration ...... 1, 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4 Uranium ...... 1, 2, 4, 10, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 10, 11 Note: 1 Numbers correspond to those assigned to technologies found in the table ``List of Small Systems Compliance Technologies for the Cur- rently Regulated Radionuclides.''
C. Waste Treatment, Handling and Disposal In addition to cost model updates, EPA has USEPA. Office of Drinking Water. Guidance performed a study of the actual costs of Suggested Guidelines for Disposal of In the proposed radionuclides rule of July treatment and other compliance measures for Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Containing 1991, EPA referenced a 1990 EPA draft report the radium standard (EPA 1998c), which Naturally-Occurring Radionuclides (July entitled ‘‘Suggested Guidelines for Disposal provided a ‘‘snapshot’’ of the costs incurred 1990 draft). of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes by water systems in complying with the USEPA. National Primary Drinking Water Containing Naturally-Occurring existing combined radium-226 and radium- Regulations; Radionuclides; Proposed Rule. Radionuclides’’ (EPA 1990). That 1990 report 228 MCL. Studies of this nature allow EPA Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 138, p. 33050. offered guidance to system managers, to compare modeled costs used in regulatory July 18, 1991. engineers, and State agencies responsible for impact assessments with real-world data for USEPA. Technologies and Costs for the the safe handling and disposal of treatment the purposes of model validation and cost Removal of Radionuclides from Potable wastes that, in many cases, were not estimate amendments. They also allow EPA Water Supplies. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, specifically addressed by any statute. That to check assumptions about the prevalence of Inc. July 1992. guidance report was later updated in 1994 use of particular water-treatment USEPA. Office of Ground Water and (EPA 1994). technologies. Drinking Water. Suggested Guidelines for The guidance provided information on the The study comprises data compiled from Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes following: (1) Background on water treatment contacts with water-treatment personnel, Containing Radioactivity (June 1994 draft). processes and characteristics of wastes State representatives, and EPA Regional USEPA. Announcement of Small Systems generated; (2) rationale for radiation representatives within EPA Regions 5 (IL, IN, Compliance Technology Lists for Existing protection, including citation of programs MI, MN, OH, and WI) and 8 (CO, MT, ND, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and regulations affecting other sources of SD, UT, and WY). Specifically, data were and Findings Concerning Variance such waste; (3) guidelines for several obtained regarding water systems in Technologies. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. methods of disposal of solid and liquid type California, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, 151, p. 42032. August 6, 1998. (EPA 1998a). wastes containing the subject radionuclides; Ohio, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. State USEPA. ‘‘Small System Compliance and, (4) the specification of practical Agencies and EPA Regional offices identified Technology List for the Non-Microbial guidance to protect workers and others who 136 systems as having water sources with Contaminants Regulated Before 1996.’’ EPA– may handle or be exposed to water-treatment combined radium-226 and radium-228 above 815–R–98–002. September 1998. (EPA wastes containing radiation above the MCL of 5 pCi/L. Of these, 55 of the 1998b). background levels. systems were contacted, of which 29 were USEPA. ‘‘Actual Cost for Compliance with The Technical Support Document (EPA either treating for radium or were in the the Safe Drinking Water Act Standard for 2000a) discusses disposal methods and process of selecting a treatment method. The Radium-226 and Radium-228.’’ Final Report. issues, including comments received in remaining systems were either further behind Prepared by International Consultants, Inc. reference to the 1990 ‘‘Suggested Guidelines in treatment selection plans or pursuing July 1998. (EPA 1998c). for Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment other compliance measures. All of the USEPA Technologies and Costs for the Wastes Containing Naturally-Occurring systems that were currently treating for Removal of Radionuclides from Potable Radionuclides,’’ and the 1994 update to this radium were in compliance with the MCL. Water Supplies. Draft. Prepared by report. Twenty-six of these systems responded with International Consultants, Inc. April, 1999. cost data, of which 17 were small systems (EPA 1999a). D. Unit Treatment Cost Updates (design flow < 1 mgd). Thirty-five percent of USEPA. ‘‘Small System Compliance Treatment costs for coagulation/filtration the small systems reported were using Technology List for the Radionuclides Rule.’’ (including direct filtration and in-line reverse osmosis which, at an average total Prepared by International Consultants, Inc. filtration), lime softening, ion exchange, treatment cost of $3.02 per thousand gallons, Draft. April 1999. (EPA 1999b). reverse osmosis, electrodialysis reversal, was the most expensive treatment technology USEPA. ‘‘Technical Support Document for greensand filtration, point-of-use (POU) identified. Other treatment options used were the Radionuclides Notice of Data reverse osmosis, POU ion exchange, and lime softening and ion exchange. These had Availability.’’ Draft. March, 2000. (EPA point-of-entry cation exchange were updated average total treatment costs of $2.36 and 2000a) in the appendix to the 1999 radionuclides $0.73 per thousand gallons, respectively. T&C document. This update includes land- Unit costs are discussed in more detail in the Appendix V—Economics and Impacts cost considerations and waste-disposal cost Technical Support Document (EPA 2000a). Analysis estimates. Cost estimates were made using EPA requests comments on its analysis of A. Overview of the Economic Analysis standard EPA treatment technology costing treatment technologies, costs, and treatment models. Outputs were updated to current residuals disposal. 1. Background dollars using standard engineering costing Analysis of the costs, benefits, and other indices, e.g., the Bureau of Labor’s Chemical E. References impacts of regulations is required under the and Allied Products Index. Costs for National Research Council (NRC). Safe Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of individual technologies were analyzed in Water From Every Tap: Improving Water 1996, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory terms of water usage, removal efficiency, Service to Small Communities. National Planning and Review), and EPA’s internal interest rate, and other variables. Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1997. guidance for regulatory development. These
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
2. ‘‘Direct Proportions Approach’’ to pattern, with most systems reporting per pCi/L). We then applied the individual Estimating Occurrence concentration levels well below the MCLs of risk factors 7 to the estimates of the reduction Because of uncertainties related to concern. Several other studies also suggest in exposure associated with each regulatory extrapolating from the NIRS database to that the distribution of radionuclide change under consideration, taking into national-level estimates, we applied two occurrence in drinking water systems is account the population exposed. The 6 approaches for estimating the national-level likely to follow a lognormal distribution , so calculation of risk factors from risk central-tendency occurrence estimate. First, this assumption should be robust in most coefficients and a discussion of exposure cases. If the NIRS data were perfectly we assumed that national occurrence is assumptions are detailed elsewhere (EPA lognormally distributed, both approaches directly proportional to the occurrence levels 2000a). The risk factors (per pCi/L in measured in NIRS. For example, if the would lead to similar estimates of occurrence. This is usually the case. drinking water) used in the risk reduction radionuclide concentration in one percent of analyses are summarized in Table V–1. the samples from NIRS representing a However, it should be noted that there instances of significant deviations between The unit 8 risk factors applied in this particular water system size category are analysis refer to the aggregated small changes greater than the MCL, we assumed that one the two approaches. For example, the direct in the probability of incurring cancer over a percent of all systems in that size class would proportions approach predicts that 0.4 % of be out of compliance at the national level (It the systems serving more than 500 persons large population. These unit probabilities can is worth noting that using NIRS to will be impacted (61 systems) by an MCL of be interpreted in two ways: as the unit extrapolate to the State or regional level is 20 pCi pCi/L for uranium, whereas the lifetime excess probability of cancer not valid, since NIRS was designed to be lognormal model approach predicts that induction averaged over age and gender for representative at the national-level, but not at 1.8% of systems will be impacted (255 all individuals in a population or as the risk these other levels). In cases where this systems), amounting to a difference in for a statistically ‘‘averaged individual.’’ It approach predicts ‘‘zero probability’’ of non- prediction of almost 200 impacted water should be noted that no one individual is compliance for a system size category (i.e., no systems in this size category. There are truly average, since the averaging also occurs samples in NIRS were above the MCL being several possible explanations for this over gender. Given a model of radionuclide considered), this approach is flawed, since deviation, but the important point is that the occurrence, the population risks of excess the expectation is that this finding actually use of both approaches allows the data gap cancer incidence can be estimated before and reflects a small probability, not ‘‘zero to be recognized and fully considered. after a given regulatory option for the A statistical software package (‘‘Stata’’) was probability.’’ In other words, in situations individuals comprising the population, with used to estimate a lognormal distribution that where ‘‘zero impact’’ is predicted, it is much the difference being equal to the reduced more likely that a very small number of water best fits the data for systems in each size class. We then used the fitted log means and risk. These reductions in individual cancer systems will be impacted compared to true incidence probabilities may then be summed ‘‘zero impact.’’ For this reason, we also used log standard deviations of the resulting over the population to indicate the central- a mathematical model to simulate the distributions to estimate the number of tendency number of ‘‘statistical cancer cases occurrence distribution, in which these ‘‘zero systems out of compliance with each probabilities’’ are replaced by estimated regulatory option using standard statistical avoided’’ annually. However, it should be small probabilities. equations. More detail regarding the kept in mind that for many reasons, occurrence models and the estimation of the including the large variance associated with 3. ‘‘Lognormal Model Approach’’ to numbers of impacted systems can be found such risk factors, it is impossible to ‘‘check Estimating Occurrence elsewhere (EPA 2000a and 2000b). this prediction’’ in any meaningful way. In The second approach recognizes that 4. Assessing Risk interpreting reduced risks for given options, ‘‘true’’ radionuclides occurrence will most it is arguably best to think of them in terms likely be spread over a range wider than that After determining the number of systems of reduced average ‘‘individual excess risk,’’ observed in the survey. This approach out of compliance with each regulatory rather than ‘‘cases avoided,’’ for the reasons option under consideration, we assessed the assumes that ‘‘probability plots’’ of the NIRS just described. For example, it is much easier risk reductions that would result from these data are lognormally distributed. A to understand the idea that an individual’s probability plot compares the radionuclide systems taking actions to come into average lifetime risk of developing cancer concentration for the various samples to the compliance. The approach for the risk probability of a given sample having that analysis begins with the development of due to exposure to radionuclides in drinking level or less, where this probability is intrinsic ‘‘risk factors’’ for each group of water has been reduced from three in ten estimated from the actual occurrence data radionuclides. These risk factors are thousand to one in ten thousand for a from NIRS. An assumption of lognormality composites that involve multiplying EPA’s number of water systems under a given means that a probability plot for the best estimates of unit mortality and option then to understand that an average of logarithms of the radionuclide levels would morbidity cancer risk coefficients (risk per 0.5 cancer cases are avoided annually at the be expected to be linear (fall on a straight pCi) for each group of radionuclides by national level for that option. The use of line). standard assumptions regarding drinking ‘‘individual excess risk’’ avoids much the Inspection of the NIRS data suggests that water ingestion to determine the risk factors confusion about ‘‘statistical cases,’’ which are it is distributed in a roughly lognormal associated with drinking water exposure (risk conceptually difficult to understand.
TABLE V±1.ÐAVERAGE INDIVIDUAL RISK FACTORS, AVERAGE WATER CONSUMPTION (1.1 L/PERSON/DAY) (PER PCI/L)
Morbidity Mortality Regulatory option Lifetime in- Annual in- Lifetime in- Annual in- gestion gestion gestion gestion
Gross Alpha: changes in monitoring requirements (weighted average of Ra-224 and Ra±226) ...... 5.24E±06 7.48E±08 3.26E±06 4.65E±08 Gross Alpha: changes in MCL (Ra±224 only) ...... 4.77E±06 6.81E±08 2.90E±06 4.15E±08
6 See the Technical Support Document (EPA of risks will be, while not insignificant, much get estimates of the risks of cancer incidence for an 2000a) and the HRRCA (EPA 2000b). smaller than the changes in cancer risks from exposed population, the unit risk factors must be 7 This analysis focuses on changes in cancer risks ingestion, and hence discuss them only used in conjunction with a radionuclide drinking from tap water ingestion. Individuals may be qualitatively in this analysis. water occurrence model. These population risks 8 exposed to radionuclides in drinking water through ‘‘Unit risk factors and ‘‘unit risks’’ refer to the refer to the estimated numbers of excess statistical other pathways (e.g., inhalation while showering), risk per pCi/L in drinking water. They are not cases of cancer that a population will face under a and uranium may have toxic effects on the kidneys; estimates of cancer incidence per se, but rather are however, we expect that any changes in these types indicators of the ‘‘potency’’ of a radionuclide. To given set of exposure assumptions.
VerDate 18
TABLE V±1.ÐAVERAGE INDIVIDUAL RISK FACTORS, AVERAGE WATER CONSUMPTION (1.1 L/PERSON/DAY) (PER PCI/L)Ð Continued
Morbidity Mortality Regulatory option Lifetime in- Annual in- Lifetime in- Annual in- gestion gestion gestion gestion
Combined Radium: changes in monitoring requirements (weighted average of Ra± 226 and Ra±228) ...... 2.30E±05 3.28E±07 1.63E±05 2.32E±07 Combined Radium: changes in MCL (Ra±228 only) ...... 2.98E±05 4.26E±07 2.12E±05 3.03E±07 Uranium: establish MCL (simple average of U±234, U±235, and U±238) ...... 1.95E±06 2.79E±08 1.26E±06 1.81E±08
5. Estimating Monetized Benefits medical expenses) and indirect (e.g., lost be found in the Technical Support Document In this section, we summarize the work or leisure time) costs incurred by (EPA 2000a) and elsewhere (EPA 1998a). affected individuals. Unfortunately, this information used in estimating monetized C. Summary of Annual Costs and Benefits benefits. A description of the methodology valuation does not measure the ‘‘willingness used for these estimates is found in the to pay’’ to avoid nonfatal cancers, but rather 1. Estimates of Costs and Benefits for Technical Support Document (EPA 2000a), assumes that benefits are equal to the Community Water Systems avoided costs. The studies used and which provides background information on: The following results reflect the regulatory assumptions involved are discussed (1) The economic concepts that provide the options that are currently being considered. elsewhere (EPA 2000a and 2000b). foundation for benefits valuation; (2) the Results for the other options that were Because of the uncertainties involved in methods that are typically used by analyzed (correction of monitoring valuations, we used an estimate of the range economists to value risk reductions, such as deficiencies for gross alpha and changes to of values of reductions in fatal and non-fatal wage-risk, cost of illness, and contingent MCLs for gross alpha and Ra-228), but that risks attributable to the radionuclides valuation studies; (3) the approach for EPA does not plan to adopt, are located in regulations using the following estimates valuing the reductions in fatal cancer risks the Technical Support Document (EPA (1998 dollars): and nonfatal cancer risks; (4) the use of these 2000a). In addition to EPA’s preferred Fatal Risk Reduction Valuations (‘‘Value of techniques to estimate the value of the risk options, we have included all results in the a Statistical Life’’, VSL): reductions attributable to the regulatory Technical Support Document to allow Best Estimate: Value of fatal risk reductions options for radionuclides in drinking water; interested stakeholders to comment on these = Statistical lives saved * $5.9 million per and (5) the limitations and uncertainties other options, if desired. statistical life. involved in the estimation. For more detail Table V–2 shows the summarized results Low End Estimate: Value of fatal risk on the methodology employed, see the for EPA’s analysis of risk reductions, benefits reductions = Statistical lives saved * $1.5 Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis valuations, and costs of compliance (see EPA million per statistical life. (HRRCA, EPA 2000b). 2000b for a break-down of the summary by High End Estimate: Value of fatal risk This benefits analysis is based on two basic water system size). The risk reductions and reductions = Statistical lives saved * $11.5 types of valuation: fatal cancer risk cost estimates are based on the estimated million per statistical life. reductions and non-fatal cancer risk range of numbers of community water Non-Fatal Risk Reduction Valuations reductions. Fatal cancer risk reductions are systems predicted to be out of compliance Best Estimate: Value of nonfatal risk valued in terms of the ‘‘value of a statistical with each of the regulatory options assessed. reductions (medical costs only) = Statistical life’’ (VSL), which does not refer to the value The ranges shown reflect the two occurrence cases averted * $0.10 million. of an identifiable individual, but rather refers model methodologies previously described, Low End Estimate: Value of nonfatal risk to the value of small reductions in mortality the ‘‘direct proportions’’ and ‘‘lognormal reductions (medical costs only) = Statistical risks over a large population. For example, model’’ approaches. The ranges in cases averted * $0.09 million. let us assume that a regulatory option results occurrence predictions necessarily result in High End Estimate: Value of nonfatal risk in a risk reduction of ‘‘one statistical fatal ranges of estimates for risk reductions, reductions (medical costs only) = Statistical cancer case.’’ This refers to the summation of benefits valuations, and compliance costs. cases averted * $0.11 million. small risk reductions over a large number of There are two ranges shown for values of persons such that the summation equals ‘‘one 6. Estimating the Costs of Compliance cancer cases avoided, the ‘‘best-estimate case’’ (say, one hundred thousand persons The last component of the analysis range,’’ based on the best-estimate of risk each face a risk reduction of 1/100,000). involves estimating the costs of compliance reduction valuations, and the ‘‘low/high- Using our methodology, the resulting benefits for each regulatory option. The options under estimate range,’’ which reflects the use of the would be equal to ‘‘one statistical life.’’ consideration will increase the costs of two occurrence models and the uncertainty Continuing the example, if each person were monitoring for all regulated systems, as well in the risk reduction valuations (‘‘low-end’’ willing to pay $20 for such a risk reduction as require a small fraction of the systems to versus ‘‘high-end’’ estimates). These ranges (1/100,000), the resulting VSL would be $2 take action to reduce the contaminant levels do not reflect uncertainty in other model million ($20 times 100,000 persons). in their finished water to achieve inputs, like risk factors in the case of risk However, since there is no direct information compliance. Examples of compliance actions reduction estimates and treatment unit costs on what persons are willing to pay for the include installing treatment, purchasing in the case of compliance costs. Quantitative risks we are interested in, we must use water from another system, changing the uncertainty analyses for risk reductions, indirect methods for estimating the VSL. The water source used (e.g., installing a new benefits, and compliance costs will be currently accepted methodology involves well), blending the contaminated water with conducted and reported in the preamble to transferring the VSL from studies of the wage other source water that is below the MCL, the final rule. EPA expects that these increases that persons ‘‘demand’’ in exchange and, in cases where the contaminated well is uncertainty analyses will not impact final for accepting jobs with slightly higher not essential to meet capacity, stopping decisions. chances of accidental fatality (‘‘wage-risk production from the contaminated well. The Eliminating the combined radium-226/-228 studies’’). There are a number of assumptions cost analysis models both new capital costs monitoring deficiency 9 is predicted to lead involved in making this transfer, which are and, and when appropriate, incremental to 210 to 250 systems out of compliance with discussed in more detail in the background operations and maintenance costs for this an MCL of 5 µg/L, affecting 33,000 to 460,000 documentation (EPA 2000a and 2000b). variety of compliance options. The inputs Valuing nonfatal cancer risk reductions is used in the cost analysis and a comparison 9 The monitoring deficiency will be corrected by often done with ‘‘cost of illness studies,’’ of the modeled costs for treatment, alternate requiring the separate analysis of Ra-228 for which examine the actual direct (e.g., source, purchased water to case studies can systems with gross alpha levels below 5 pCi/L.
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
BILLING CODE 6560±50±C
VerDate 18
2. Uncertainties in the Estimates of Benefits uncertainty analysis is not expected to alter installing a new well, blending, or stopping and Costs the regulatory options discussed in today’s production from the contaminated well or The models used to estimate costs and NODA. wells. The prevalence of the use of these non- benefits related to regulatory measures have b. Effects of the Inclusion of a Latency treatment options is a cross-cutting issue for uncertainty associated with the model Period and Other Factors on the Estimate of future Regulatory Impact Assessments and inputs. The types and uncertainties of the Benefits. The expected analytical impacts of probably will not be resolved before the various inputs and the uncertainty analyses the inclusion of other factors, e.g., a cancer- radionuclides NPDWR is finalized. EPA is for risks, benefits, and costs are qualitatively latency period, cancer premiums, and non- following up with this study and will report discussed later in this section. quantifiable benefits have been discussed in the results at a later date. a. Uncertainties in Risk Reduction the recent radon proposed NPDWR (64 FR While these ‘‘other than treatment’’ options may cost as much as or more than treatment Estimates. For each individual radionuclide, 59295). The relevant points are summarized in some cases, they are expected to be less EPA developed a central-tendency risk briefly here and in more detail in the expensive on average, which largely explains coefficient that expresses the estimated Technical Support Document for the their prevalence as compliance options. For probability that cancer will result in an Radionuclides NODA (USEPA 2000a). example, EPA has recently estimated the exposed individual per unit of radionuclide There are several potentially important costs associated with developing municipal activity (e.g., per pCi/L) over the individual’s sources of uncertainty related to the wells to range from $0.08/kgal to $0.46/kgal, lifetime (assumed to be 70 years). Two types valuations of risk reductions for the depending on system size, geologic setting, of risks are considered, cancer morbidity, regulatory options examined. Since the and other site specific parameters (EPA which refers to any incidence of cancer (fatal mortality valuations dominate the estimated 1999b), with an average of $0.23/kgal for or non-fatal), and cancer mortality, which benefits, factors that affect the VSL are most systems serving between 501 and 1,000 refers to a fatal cancer illness. For this important. Factors that may affect the VSL persons and $0.17/kgal for systems serving analysis, we used the draft September 1999 include discounting due to cancer latency 11 between 10,001 and 50,000 persons.12 These risk coefficients developed as part of EPA’s periods, cancer-related premiums that may costs include testing and drilling, steel revisions to Federal Guidance Report 13 raise the value of statistical life, and other casings with cement lining, pumps, (FGR–13, EPA 1999e). FGR–13 compiled the currently non-quantifiable benefits. Cancer including electrical connections and results of several models predicting the latency-related discounting would be controls, and a pump shelter. For smaller, cancer risks associated with radioactivity. expected to decrease the present VSL, while non-municipal PWS systems, we estimate The cancer sites considered in these models cancer premiums would tend to increase the that wells could cost from 10 to 80 percent include the esophagus, stomach, colon, liver, present VSL. It is not clear whether an of the costs presented for municipal systems. lung, bone, skin, breast, ovary, bladder, inclusion of all of these factors would be As shown in the Technical Support kidney, thyroid, red marrow (leukemia), as expected to result in a lower or higher Document (EPA 2000a), these production well as residual impacts on all remaining present VSL. However, EPA is currently costs are much lower than those for typical cancer sites combined. working with the Science Advisory Board treatment, especially for small systems. There are substantial uncertainties (SAB) to determine how to best include these When feasible, selection of such options may associated with the risk coefficients in FGR– factors, whether the inclusion is quantitative reduce compliance costs significantly. The 13 (EPA 1999e): researchers estimate that or qualitative. Technical Support Document includes data some of the coefficients may change by a c. Uncertainty in Compliance Cost on other non-treatment options like factor of more than 10 if plausible alternative Estimates. Regarding uncertainty in the purchasing water and blending. models are used to predict risks. While the compliance cost estimates, these estimates Preliminary uncertainty analyses suggest report does not bound the uncertainty for all assume that most systems will install that variability in the unit compliance costs radionuclides, it estimates that the central- treatment to comply with the MCLs, while and decision tree assumptions dominate the tendency risk coefficients for uranium-234 recent research suggests that water systems over-all cost variability. To evaluate the and radium-226 may change by a factor of usually select compliance options like potential variability in the compliance cost seven depending on the models employed to blending (combining water from multiple estimates, a Monte Carlo analysis will estimate risk.10 Ranges that reflect sources), developing new ground water support the Regulatory Impact Assessment uncertainty and variability in the risk wells, and purchasing water (EPA 1998a and for the final rule. Inputs that influence cost coefficients will be used in a Monte Carlo c, EPA 2000a). Preliminary data (202 variability include: analysis of risk reductions and benefits, the compliance actions from 14 States) on nitrate • Numbers of total systems in the various results of which will be reported in the violations suggest that only around a quarter system size categories. preamble to the final rule. (25%) of those systems talking action in response to a nitrate violation installed • Distributions of entry points per system In addition, as previously described in treatment, while roughly a third developed a in the various system size categories. appendix I, ‘‘Occurrence,’’ the available new well or wells. The remainder either • Distributions of populations served by occurrence data do not provide information modified the existing operations (10–15%), size category. on the contribution of individual blended (15%), or purchased water (15– • Flow sizes as a function of population radionuclides or isotopes to the total 20%). Similar data for radium violations served. concentrations of gross alpha or uranium. from the State of Illinois (77 compliance • Daily household water consumption. Therefore, there is uncertainty involved in actions) indicate that around a quarter of • Proportions of systems and sources the assumptions about which radionuclides systems taking action installed treatment, exceeding regulatory limits. comprise the reported gross alpha or uranium while the majority (50–55%) purchased • Unit costs (capital and O&M) of activity. These and other uncertainties water, with the remainder (20–25%) either treatment technologies and annual costs of related to occurrence information (e.g., alternate source and regionalization. uncertainty in extending the NIRS database 11 • Proportions of non-compliant systems results to the national level) will also be A latency period refers to the average amount of time that passes between the beginning of choosing between treatment, alternate source, incorporated in a Monte Carlo analysis of exposure to a carcinogen or multiple carcinogens and regionalization. benefits to estimate the range of uncertainty and the on-set of fatal cancer. There is considerable Since per system costs are much higher for surrounding the central-tendency estimates. uncertainty in estimating a ‘‘typical latency period’’ very large systems, the assumptions used in Other inputs that will be used in the Monte for the options studies here for many reasons, the larger water system size categories can be Carlo analysis of benefits are the age- and including the large ranges in estimated latency expected to dominate the variability in gender-dependent distributions of water periods for given cancer types and the large national costs. Each of these inputs will be uncertainty involved in predicting which type or ingestion, which are used in estimating modeled using probability distributions that lifetime exposure, and the credible range for types of cancer will result from exposure to a given radionuclide in drinking water. It is also uncertain the ‘‘value of a statistical life.’’ This what discounting rate would be appropriate in this 12 This estimate is based on total capital costs situation. Some may argue that discounting is ranging from approximately $135,000 to $550,000 10 Table 2.4, Uncertainty Categories for Selected entirely inappropriate (a rate of zero) and others per MGD of flow. The estimate assumes typical Risk Coefficients. Federal Guidance Report 13 may argue that typical financial discount rates are relationships between design and average daily (1999). appropriate (3 to 7%). flows and a capital discount rate of 3 or 7%.
VerDate 18
TABLE V±3.ÐASSUMPTIONS FOR HYPOTHETICAL ``WHAT-IF'' ANALYSIS FOR NON-TRANSIENT NON-COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS (APPROXIMATELY 19,300 SYSTEMS NATIONWIDE)
Percent of na- tional systems Upper bound: Lower bound: Regulatory option in states with 10% of col. (1) 1% of col. (1) elevated levels (percent) (percent) (1) (percent)
Gross Alpha at 15 pCi/L ...... 60 6 1 Combined Radium at 5 pCi/L ...... 798 1 Uranium at 20 pCi/L: Ground water ...... 54 5 1 Surface water ...... 29 3 0
We calculated risk reductions associated The results of the analysis are summarized of 20 µg/L, the results suggest a range of with each set of assumptions using the same in Table V–4. If EPA requires non-transient impacted ground water systems from 100 up analytic approach as outlined for the non-community systems to comply with the to 1,000 systems with annual costs ranging community water systems. However, we use gross alpha standard of 15 pCi/L, under the from $1 million to $4 million and an lower water intake assumptions because the assumptions used in the analysis the number associated number of annual statistical population affected generally is not at the of systems out of compliance could range location served full-time or year-round. The from 110 to 1,100 systems. The associated cancer cases avoided ranging from less than risk factors were estimated using the same annual costs range from $1 million to $4 0.01 cases up to 0.04 cases. The resulting risk coefficients as a starting point (risk per million and the statistical cancer cases (fatal number of surface water systems impacted by pCi), but use different water consumption and nonfatal) avoided annually range from a uranium MCL of 20 µg/L ranges from less assumptions to calculate lifetime excess risk 0.01 cases to 0.1 cases. For combined radium, than 10 to less than 20 systems. The factors (risk per pCi/L). A cost model is used the resulting number of impacted systems associated national annual costs for surface to predict the annual compliance costs for ranges from 150 to 1,500 systems with annual water systems is less than $0.1 million up to these systems based on their size classes costs ranging from $1 million to $6 million 0.1 million with annual risk reductions of (EPA 2000); in general, non-transient non- and an associated number of annual less than 0.01 statistical cancer cases. community systems tend to use ground water statistical cancer cases avoided ranging from and serve small populations. 0.02 cases to 0.2 cases. For a uranium MCL
TABLE V±4.ÐHYPOTHETICAL ``WHAT-IF'' RESULTS FOR NON-TRANSIENT NON-COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
Regulatory option Lower Bound Estimate Upper Bound Estimate Number of Statistical Number of systems out Annual costs cancer cases systems out Annual costs Statistical can- of compli- (million avoided of compli- (million cer cases ance dollars) (cases) ance dollars) avoided
Gross Alpha at 15 pCi/L ...... 110 1 0.01 1,100 4 0.1 Combined Radium at 5 pCi/L ...... 150 1 0.02 1,500 6 0.2 Uranium at 20 pCi/L: Ground water ...... 100 1 <0.01 1,000 4 0.04 Surface water ...... < 10 0.03 <0.01 < 20 0.1 <0.01 Note: These results are based on hypothetical assumptions regarding the percent of systems likely to be out of compliance with each regu- latory option as discussed in the preceding text. These are not estimates of actual compliance costs or risk reductions, and are provided for illus- trative purposes only.
E. Impacts for Systems Serving Greater Than deficiencies for radium will impact these follow-up confirmed that there were no One Million Persons systems. However, the internet search was impacts expected for these systems. Uranium not conclusive in ruling out the possibility Based on an Internet search of the available occurrence data for these systems was that one or more systems serving greater than water quality information for water systems collected to the extent feasible and there is one million persons would be impacted by no evidence of an impact at 20 or 40 µg/L. serving greater than one million persons these options. For this reason, EPA has (very large systems), there is no direct followed up with the few systems in question evidence that closing the monitoring to determine the likelihood of impact. The
VerDate 18
F. References and ISSI, Inc. for the Office of Ground USEPA. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Longtin, J.P. ‘‘Occurrence of Radon, Radium, Water and Drinking Water. December 10, Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides, and Uranium in Groundwater.’’ JAWWA. 1998. (EPA 1998b) Federal Guidance Report No. 13. US Vol. 80, No. 7, pp. 84–93. July 1988. USEPA. Results from survey of compliance Environmental Protection Agency, National Research Council. Risk Assessment actions taken in the State of Illinois in Washington, DC, 1999. (EPA 1999e) of Radon in Drinking Water. National response to the NPDWR for combined USEPA. ‘‘Technical Support Document for Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1999. radium. Submitted from EPA Region 5. the Radionuclides Notice of Data (NAS 1999). 1998. (EPA 1998c) Availability.’’ Draft. March, 2000. (EPA USEPA. National Primary Drinking Water USEPA. ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing Economic 2000a) Regulations; Radionuclides; Proposed Analysis.’’ Review Draft. November 3, USEPA. ‘‘Preliminary Health Risk Reduction Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 138, p. 1998. (EPA 1998d) and Cost Analysis: Revised National 33050. July 18, 1991. USEPA. ‘‘Regional Variation of the Cost of Primary Drinking Water Standards for USEPA. ‘‘Actual Cost for Compliance with Drinking Water Wells for Public Water Radionuclides.’’ Prepared by Industrial Supplies.’’ Prepared by Cadmus for the the Safe Drinking Water Act Standard for Economics, Inc. for the Office of Ground Office of Ground Water and Drinking Radium-226 and Radium-228—Final Water and Drinking Water. Draft. January Report.’’ Prepared by International Water. Draft. October 1999. (EPA 1999b) 2000. (EPA 2000b) Consultants, Inc. for the Office of Ground USEPA. ‘‘Drinking Water Baseline Handbook: Water and Drinking Water. Draft. July First Edition.’’ Draft dated March 2, 1999. Dated: April 7, 2000. 1998. (EPA 1998a) (EPA 1999c) Charles J. Fox, USEPA. ‘‘Evaluation of Full-Scale Treatment USEPA. ‘‘Evaluation of Central Treatment Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. Technologies at Small Drinking Water Options as Small System Treatment Systems: Summary of Available Cost and Technologies.’’ Prepared by SAIC for EPA. [FR Doc. 00–9654 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am] Performance Data.’’ Prepared by ICF, Inc. Draft dated January 28, 1999. (EPA 1999d) BILLING CODE 6560±50±U
VerDate 18
Part V
Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
7 CFR Part 3419 Matching Funds Requirement for Formula Funds for Agricultural Research and Extension Activities at 1890 Land-Grant Institutions, Including Tuskegee University, and at the 1862 Land-Grant Institutions in Insular Areas; Final Rule
VerDate 18
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE section 1449. This section requires Public Comments and Changes to the matching funds from non-Federal Final Rule Cooperative State Research, sources for formula funds authorized One comment was received from an Education, and Extension Service under sections 1444 and 1445 of 1862 land-grant institution in an insular NARETPA for research and extension area requesting clarification on three 7 CFR Part 3419 activities at the 1890 land-grant issues: (1) Whether an institution is RIN 0524±AA24 institutions and Tuskegee University. eligible for any agricultural research and This rule will also implement the new extension formula funds if the Matching Funds Requirement for matching requirements for the 1862 institution fails to provide the full Formula Funds for Agricultural land-grant institutions in the matching requirement, (2) whether the Research and Extension Activities at institution must certify that the required 1890 Land-Grant Institutions, Including Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, matching funds are available prior to the Tuskegee University, and at the 1862 actual distribution of funds, and (3) Land-Grant Institutions in Insular Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and the Virgin Islands. Section 753(d) and (e) of whether the definition of matching Areas funds, which indicates that they are not the Agriculture, Rural Development, only from non-Federal sources but also AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Food and Drug Administration, and funds made available by the State Education, and Extension Service, Related Agencies Appropriations Act, USDA. government, precludes other sources of 1999, enacted in Division A, section non-Federal funds that are not from the ACTION: Final Rule. 101(a) of the Omnibus Consolidated and State government. Emergency Supplemental SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Each 1890 land-grant institution and Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105– Research, Education, and Extension each 1862 land-grant institution in 277, 112 Stat. 2681–33 (1999 Service (CSREES) adds a new part 3419 insular areas and the Commonwealth of to Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter XXXIV of Agriculture Appropriations Act), Puerto Rico will be entitled to their the Code of Federal Regulations, for the amended section 3(d) of the Hatch Act allocation of Federal agricultural purpose of implementing new statutory of 1887 and section 3(e) of the Smith- research and extension formula funds matching requirements applicable to Lever Act to subject the 1862 land-grant less an amount equal to any required Federal agricultural research and institutions in the Commonwealth of matching amount that the institution extension formula funds for 1890 land- Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and fails to provide. For example, the grant institutions, including Tuskegee Guam to the same matching matching requirement in fiscal year (FY) University, and to the 1862 land-grant requirements as those applicable to an 2000 shall equal not less than 30 institutions in the Commonwealth of eligible institution under section 1449 percent of the formula funds to be Puerto Rico and the insular areas of of NARETPA. The amendments made distributed. If an institution was entitled American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, by section 753 apply by operation of law to $1,000,000 for extension but only Northern Marianas, and the Virgin to American Samoa, Micronesia, and matches 15 percent, then the $1,000,000 Islands. Northern Marianas by virtue of section would be reduced by 15 percent and the institution would receive only $850,000. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 2000. 1361(a) of Pub. L. 96–374, as amended by 9(c) of Pub. L. 99–396, which However, the maximum awarded by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. CSREES will be the amounts of the provides that any provision of law Edward M. Wilson, Deputy annual allocations as indicated on the related to land-grant institutions in the Administrator; Plant and Animal CSREES–OD–1088’s, Distributions of Virgin Islands or Guam applies to the Systems; Cooperative State Research, Hatch Act Funds and Smith-Lever Act Education, and Extension Service; U.S. land-grant institutions in American Funds. Department of Agriculture; Mail Stop Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the Each 1890 land-grant institution and 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; former Trust Territory of the Pacific each 1862 land-grant institution in Washington, D.C. 20250–2220; at 202– Islands, the land-grant institution of insular areas and the Commonwealth of 401–4329, 202–401–4888 (fax) or via which is the College of Micronesia. Puerto Rico must certify that the electronic mail at [email protected]. Section 1449 requires that the State required matching funds are available SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: make available matching funds to an prior to the actual distribution of any funds. CSREES has added section Background and Purpose 1890 institution out of non-Federal funds. CSREES has determined that this 3419.5, Certification of Matching Funds, The Cooperative State Research, does not necessarily limit the source of to clarify that the annual certification of Education, and Extension Service matching funds to those directly matching funds must be provided to (CSREES) adds a new part 3419 to Title provided by the State as a part of its CSREES prior to the distribution of 7, Subtitle B, Chapter XXXIV of the direct budget or appropriations process. formula funds. This section also Code of Federal Regulations, for the Accordingly, CSREES has defined ‘‘non- provides that the eligible institutions purpose of implementing the new may submit through July 1 of the fiscal Federal sources’’ to include direct State matching requirements for agricultural year in which funds are appropriated appropriations and any funds generated research and extension formula funds any revisions to their annual authorized for the 1890 land-grant by the 1890 institution or by the 1862 certification of matching funds. institutions and Tuskegee University. institution in the Commonwealth of As mentioned in the ‘‘Background Section 226 of the Agricultural Puerto Rico or in an insular area and and Purpose’’ section, CSREES has Research, Extension, and Education made available to the institution under determined that the definition of Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), Pub. L. other authority (other than authority to matching funds does not necessarily 105–185, amends Subtitle G of the charge tuition and fees paid by students) limit the source of matching funds to National Agricultural Research, provided by the State. This would those directly provided by the State as Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of include, for example, gift acceptance or part of its direct budget or 1977 (NARETPA) by adding a new user fee authority. appropriations process. Accordingly,
VerDate 18
CSREES has defined ‘‘non-Federal Report to Congress (a) For programs or activities that fall sources’’ to include direct State As required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a), within the purposes of agricultural appropriations and any funds generated CSREES submitted a report on this final research and cooperative extension by the 1890 land-grant institution or by rule to both Houses of Congress and the under sections 1444 and 1445 of the 1862 institution in the Comptroller General prior to NARETPA, the Hatch Act of 1887, and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or in the publication. the Smith-Lever Act; or insular areas and made available to the (b) For qualifying educational institution under other authority (other List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3419 activities. Matching funds means cash than authority to charge tuition and fees Agricultural extension, Agricultural contributions and excludes in-kind paid by students) provided by the State. research, Colleges and universities. matching contributions. Non-Federal sources means funds This would include, for example, gift For reasons set forth in the preamble, acceptance and user fee authority. made available by the State to the Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter XXXIV, of eligible institution either through direct Classification the Code of Federal Regulations is appropriation or under any authority amnded by adding part 3419 to read as (other than authority to charge tuition This rule was reviewed under follows: Executive Order 12866 and was and fees paid by students) provided by determined to be nonsignificant as it PART 3419ÐMATCHING FUNDS a State to an eligible institution to raise will not create a serious inconsistency REQUIREMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL revenue, such as gift acceptance or otherwise interfere with an action RESEARCH AND EXTENSION authority or user fees. Qualifying educational activities planned by another agency; will not FORMULA FUNDS AT 1890 LAND- means programs that address food and materially alter the budgetary impact of GRANT INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING agricultural sciences components of an entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, AND AT 1862 eligible institution. LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS IN programs, or the rights and obligations Secretary means the Secretary of of the recipients thereof; and will not INSULAR AREAS Agriculture and any other officer or raise novel legal or policy issues arising employee of the Department of out of legal mandates, the President’s Sec. 3419.1 Definitions. Agriculture to whom the authority priorities, or principles set forth in this 3419.2 Matching funds. involved may be delegated. executive order. This rule will not have 3419.3 Determination of non-Federal State means the government of any an annual effect on the economy of $100 sources of funds. one of the fifty States, the million or more or adversely affect in a 3419.4 Limited waiver authority. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, material way the economy, a sector of 3419.5 Certification of matching funds. American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the economy, productivity, competition, 3419.6 Use of matching funds. 3419.7 Redistribution of funds. Northern Marianas, the Virgin Islands of jobs, the environment, public health or the United States, the Republic of Palau, safety, or State, local, or tribal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 7 U.S.C. 3222d; the Republic of the Marshall Islands, governments or communities. Sec. 753, Pub. L. No. 105–277, 112 Stat. and the Federated States of Micronesia. 2681–33. Regulatory Flexibility Act § 3419.2 Matching funds. § 3419.1 Definitions. The Department certifies that this rule As used in this part: The distribution of formula funds will not have a significant impact on a Eligible institution means a college or shall be subject to the following substantial number of small entities as university eligible to receive funds matching requirements: (a) For fiscal defined in the Regulatory Flexibility under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 year 2000, matching funds shall equal Act, Pub. L. No. 96–534 (5 U.S.C. 601 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) (commonly known as not less than 30 percent of the formula et seq.). Accordingly, a regulatory the Second Morrill Act), including funds to be distributed to the eligible flexibility analysis is not required for Tuskegee University, or a college or institution; (b) For fiscal year 2001, matching this rule. university designated under the Act of funds shall equal not less than 45 July 2, 1862 (7 U.S.C. 301, et seq.) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance percent of the formula funds to be (commonly known as the First Morrill distributed to the eligible institution; The programs affected by this rule are Act) and located in the Commonwealth and listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic of Puerto Rico and the insular areas of Assistance under No. 10.205, Payments (c) For fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, year thereafter, the matching funds shall to 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Northern Marianas, and the Virgin Tuskegee University, No. 10.500, equal not less than 50 percent of the Islands. formula funds to be distributed to the Cooperative Extension Service, and No. Formula funds means agricultural eligible institution. 10.203, Payments to Agricultural research funds provided to the eligible Experiment Stations Under the Hatch institutions under section 1445 of the § 3419.3 Determination of non-federal Act. National Agricultural Research, sources of funds. Paperwork Reduction Act Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of Each eligible institution shall submit 1977 (NARETPA), as amended, or under by September 30, 1999, a report In accordance with the Office of section 3 of the Hatch Act of 1887, 7 describing for fiscal year 1999: Management and Budget (OMB) U.S.C. 361c, and agricultural extension (a) The sources of non-Federal funds regulations (5 CFR Part 1320) which funds provided to the eligible made available to the eligible implement the Paperwork Reduction institutions under section 1444 of institutions for agricultural research, Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NARETPA or under sections 3(b) and (c) extension, and qualified educational information collection and of the Smith-Lever Act, 7 U.S.C. 343(b) activity to meet the matching recordkeeping requirements that will be and (c). requirements of section 1449 of imposed in the implementation of this Matching funds means funds from NARETPA, as amended; and rule have been approved under OMB non-Federal sources made available by (b) The amount of funds generally Document No. 0524–0038. the State to the eligible institutions: available from each source. This report
VerDate 18
VerDate 18
Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 78 Friday, April 21, 2000
CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING APRIL
Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202±523±5227 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since the revision date of each title. Laws 523±5227 9 CFR 3 CFR 52...... 20706 Presidential Documents Proclamations: 71...... 18875 Executive orders and proclamations 523±5227 7283...... 17552 80...... 18875 The United States Government Manual 523±5227 7284...... 17981 91...... 19294 7285...... 17983 94 ...... 20333, 20712, 20713 Other Services 7286...... 17985 201...... 17758 7287...... 19641 523±4534 Proposed Rules: Electronic and on-line services (voice) 7288...... 19819 91...... 20383 Privacy Act Compilation 523±3187 7289...... 19821 93...... 17455 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523±6641 7290...... 19823 161...... 20384 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523±5229 7291...... 21111 7292...... 21113 10 CFR 7293...... 21115 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 39...... 20337 7294...... 21117 World Wide Web 72...... 17552 5 CFR Proposed Rules: Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other 50...... 20387 publications: Ch. LXXIII ...... 21239 63...... 20388 330...... 20893 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara 71...... 18010 532...... 17755 73...... 18010 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 550...... 19643 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access: 553...... 19643 11 CFR http://www.nara.gov/fedreg 841...... 21119 9007...... 20893 1201...... 19293 E-mail 9034...... 20893 Proposed Rules: 9035...... 20893 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an E-mail 1605...... 19862 9038...... 20893 service for notification of recently enacted Public Laws. To Proposed Rules: 7 CFR subscribe, send E-mail to 101...... 19339 [email protected] 6...... 20063 102...... 19339 29...... 19825 104...... 19339 with the text message: 301...... 20705 109...... 19339 subscribe PUBLAWS-L your name 319...... 21120 114...... 19339 Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe to 932...... 19644 9003...... 19339 PENS. We cannot respond to specific inquiries. 985...... 17756 9033...... 19339 989...... 18871 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 3419...... 21630 12 CFR Federal Register system to: Proposed Rules: Ch. VI...... 21128 [email protected] 6...... 20770 701...... 21129 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 28...... 17609, 20852 707...... 21131 regulations. 457...... 21144 910...... 20345 915...... 20382 951...... 17435 984...... 17809 997...... 17435 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, APRIL 301...... 20770 Proposed Rules: 1001...... 20094 17435±17582...... 3 560...... 17811 1005...... 20094 17583±17754...... 4 614...... 21151 1006...... 20094 615...... 21151 17755±17986...... 5 1007...... 20094 618...... 21151 17987±18220...... 6 1030...... 20094 915...... 17458 18221±18870...... 7 1032...... 20094 18871±19292...... 10 1033...... 20094 13 CFR 19293±19642...... 11 1124...... 20094 120...... 17439 19643±19818...... 12 1126...... 20094 19819±20062...... 13 1131...... 20094 14 CFR 20063±20332...... 14 1135...... 20094 25...... 19294 20333±20704...... 17 1218...... 17612 39 ...... 17583, 17586, 17763, 1230...... 20862 20705±20892...... 18 17987, 18879, 18881, 18883, 19296, 19298, 19299, 19300, 20893±21110...... 19 8 CFR 21111±21300...... 20 10302, 19305, 19306, 10308, 3...... 20068 10310, 10313, 20070, 20072, 21301±21632...... 21 214...... 18432 20074, 20075, 20076, 20078, 245...... 20069 20081, 20320, 20321, 20322, 248...... 18432 20324, 20326, 20327, 20329,
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:40 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Reader Aids
20330, 20347, 20714, 20715, Proposed Rules: 20403 38 CFR 20717, 20719, 20721, 20894, 349...... 21164 20...... 17835 8...... 19658 20895, 21133, 21134, 21136 25...... 17835 21...... 18151, 20745 71 ...... 17588, 17589, 19315, 21 CFR 301...... 17617 19316, 19317, 19818, 19826, 5...... 19829 Proposed Rules: 19827, 19828, 20349, 29350, 175...... 20727, 21311 27 CFR 1...... 20787 21...... 17477 20351, 20723, 20724, 20852, 176...... 20727 Proposed Rules: 21301, 21302, 21303, 21304, 211...... 18888 4...... 17839 39 CFR 21305, 21306 510...... 20729, 20731 275...... 17477 73...... 21306 520...... 20729, 20731 111...... 17593, 17766 28 CFR 91...... 17736 522...... 20731 40 CFR 93...... 17736 526...... 20732 16...... 21139 97 ...... 17990, 17991, 20896, 556...... 20733 0...... 20068 9...... 20304 20898, 20901 558...... 20733 2...... 19996 52 ...... 17444, 17768, 17771, 18003, 18008, 18009, 18245, 121...... 17736, 18886 720...... 18888 Proposed Rules: 18901, 18903, 19319, 19323, 135...... 17736 809...... 18230 2...... 20006 1206...... 19646 864...... 18230 19836, 19838, 19992, 20746, 20749, 20905, 20909, 20912, Proposed Rules: 868...... 19833 29 CFR 20913, 21315, 21347, 21350, 23...... 17613 870...... 19317 403...... 21140 21351 39 ...... 17471, 17818, 17822, 872...... 18234 1952...... 20735 60...... 18906, 20754 17824, 17827, 18010, 18258, 876...... 18236, 19650 2520...... 21068 61...... 20754 18260, 19345, 19348, 19350, 878...... 19835, 20734 4022...... 20083 62 ...... 18249, 18252, 18909, 20104, 20105, 20388, 20390, 884...... 19833 4044...... 20083 20921, 20922, 20924, 20927, 888...... 19317 20086, 21354, 21358, 21361 Proposed Rules: 63...... 20754, 21363 21154, 21157, 21159 890...... 19317, 19833 1910...... 19702 71 ...... 17616, 19699, 19700, 1301...... 17552 82...... 19327 19701, 20931, 20932 1308...... 17440, 17552 30 CFR 93...... 18911 131...... 19659 158...... 18932 Proposed Rules: 250...... 18432 141...... 20314 10...... 18934, 21378 913...... 18237 15 CFR 142...... 20314 111...... 17474 931...... 18889 201...... 18934, 21378 180 ...... 17773, 19662, 19842 Proposed Rules: 261...... 18918 930...... 20270 210...... 20774 31 CFR 300...... 18925 211...... 20774 Ch. 5 ...... 17590 16 CFR 250...... 18934, 21378 Proposed Rules: 210...... 18866, 19818 2...... 19703 305...... 17554, 20352 290...... 18934, 21378 247...... 20905 310...... 18934, 21378 9...... 20314 1615...... 19818 Proposed Rules: 329...... 18934, 21378 51...... 21506 1616...... 19818 1...... 21165 341...... 18934, 21378 52 ...... 17841, 18014, 18266, Proposed Rules: 18947, 19353, 19864, 19865, 250...... 18933 361...... 18934, 21378 32 CFR 369...... 18934, 21378 19964, 20404, 20421, 20423, 423...... 20108 318...... 18894 606...... 18934, 21378 20426, 20788, 20789, 21381, 323...... 18900 610...... 18934, 21378 21382 17 CFR 326...... 20372 820...... 20774 62 ...... 18266, 18956, 20109, 1...... 21309 581...... 17440 864...... 20933 21383, 21384 242...... 18888 866...... 20933 Proposed Rules: 63...... 19152 Proposed Rules: 868...... 20933 327...... 18938 141 ...... 17842, 19046, 20314, 1...... 20395 21574 870...... 20933 33 CFR 200...... 20524 872...... 20933 142 ...... 17842, 19046, 20314, 275...... 20524 874...... 20933 100...... 21141 21574 279...... 20524 876...... 20933 110...... 20085 194...... 20109 117 ...... 17443, 17766, 18242, 232...... 21292 18 CFR 878...... 20933 884...... 20933 19836, 20743 258...... 18014 2...... 18221 886...... 20933 162...... 18242 261...... 20934 35...... 18221, 18229 888...... 20933 165...... 21142 300...... 18956 154...... 20902 1271...... 20774 Proposed Rules: 434...... 19440 161...... 20902 110...... 18261 435...... 20789, 21548 250...... 20902 22 CFR 117...... 18264 761...... 18018 284...... 20902 41...... 20903 165...... 18261 41 CFR 330...... 20354 42...... 20903 323...... 21292 385...... 18229, 20354 62...... 20083 301-51...... 21365 34 CFR 301-52...... 21365 19 CFR 24 CFR 75...... 19606 301-54...... 21365 101...... 21138 200...... 17974 379...... 18214 301-70...... 21365 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 611...... 19606 301-71...... 21365 134...... 17473 903...... 20686 674...... 18001 301-76...... 21365 1000...... 21288 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 20 CFR 75...... 20698 101-44...... 20014 219...... 19829 25 CFR 102-37...... 20014 220...... 20371 Proposed Rules: 36 CFR 222...... 20725 70...... 20775 51...... 20630 42 CFR 325...... 19647 409...... 18434 26 CFR 330...... 19647 37 CFR 410...... 18434, 19330 335...... 19647 1...... 21312 Proposed Rules: 411...... 18434, 19330 336...... 19647 31...... 21312 1...... 17946, 18154 412...... 18434 404...... 17994 Proposed Rules: 5...... 17946 413...... 18434 416...... 17994 1 ...... 17829, 17835, 19702, 201...... 17840 414...... 19330
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:40 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCU Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Reader Aids iii
415...... 19330 20...... 19818 952...... 21372 50 CFR 419...... 18434 22...... 17445 970...... 21371 17 ...... 17779, 19686, 20760, 424...... 18434 24...... 18255 Proposed Rules: 21376 485...... 19330 27...... 17594 15...... 17582 224...... 20915, 21377 489...... 18434 43...... 18926, 19818 30...... 20854 226 ...... 17786, 20915, 21376 498...... 18434 51...... 19335 52...... 20854 300...... 17805 1003...... 18434 52...... 18256 204...... 19865, 19866 64...... 18255 252...... 19866 424...... 21376 44 CFR 73 ...... 17607, 17775, 19336, 1827...... 20791 600...... 17805 64...... 20090 20380, 20760, 20915 1835...... 20791 622...... 213777 65...... 19664, 19666 101...... 17445 1852...... 20791 635 ...... 19860, 20092, 20918 67...... 19669 Proposed Rules: 660...... 17805, 17807 1...... 19580 Proposed Rules: 49 CFR 679 ...... 17808, 18257, 19338, 67...... 19710 43...... 19725 20919 209...... 20380 73 ...... 17617, 17618, 17619, Proposed Rules: 45 CFR 20790, 20791, 20935, 20936 230...... 20380 533...... 17776 17 ...... 18026, 19728, 20120, Proposed Rules: 20123, 20792, 20938 48 CFR Proposed Rules: 60...... 20428 21...... 20125 213...... 19849 195...... 18020 46 CFR 225...... 19849 222...... 21384 223...... 17852 Proposed Rules: 226...... 19858 229...... 21384 600...... 18270, 18271 310...... 18957 235...... 19859 544...... 18267 622...... 20428, 20939 401...... 20110 241...... 19818 567...... 20936 635...... 18960 242...... 19849 568...... 20936 648 ...... 18270, 18271, 20940 47 CFR 252...... 19849, 19859 571...... 17842 660...... 19734 1...... 19818 919...... 21367 1180...... 18021 679 ...... 18028, 19354, 21385
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:40 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Reader Aids
REMINDERS Travel charge card; Melon fruit fly; comments Oklahoma; comments due The items in this list were mandatory use; published due by 4-24-00; published by 4-28-00; published 3- editorially compiled as an aid 4-21-00 2-22-00 29-00 to Federal Register users. HEALTH AND HUMAN AGRICULTURE Pesticide programs: Inclusion or exclusion from SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Pesticides and ground water this list has no legal Food and Drug Supplemental standards of strategy; State significance. Administration ethical conduct for management plan Food additives: Agriculture Department regulation; metolachlor Adhesive coatings and employees; comments due and S-metalachlor RULES GOING INTO componentsÐ by 4-24-00; published 3-24- equivalency; comments EFFECT APRIL 21, 2000 Polyethylenepolyamines; 00 due by 4-24-00; published published 4-21-00 Correction; comments due 3-24-00 AGRICULTURE HEALTH AND HUMAN by 4-24-00; published 4- Solid wastes: DEPARTMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 20-00 Municipal solid waste landfill Agricultural Marketing Refugee Resettlement Office COMMERCE DEPARTMENT permit programs; Service Refugee resettlement program: Electronic commerce; laws or adequacy Public/private partnership Avocados grown inÐ regulations posing barriers; determinationsÐ program; refugee cash Florida; published 3-22-00 comments due by 4-24-00; Tennessee; comments and medical assistance; published 3-24-00 due by 4-24-00; AGRICULTURE requirements; published 3- published 2-23-00 DEPARTMENT 22-00 COMMERCE DEPARTMENT FEDERAL HOUSING AND URBAN National Oceanic and Cooperative State Research, COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT Atmospheric Administration Education, and Extension COMMISSION Service DEPARTMENT Fishery conservation and management: Common carrier services: Grants: Low income housing: Magnuson-Stevens Act Transfer of 4.9 GHz bank Land grant institutions (1890 Housing assistance payments (Section 8)Ð provisionsÐ from Federal Government and 1862); agricultural Use to private sector use; research and extension Multifamily housing Domestic fisheries; mortgage and housing exempted fishing comments due by 4-26- activities; matching funds 00; published 3-16-00 requirement for formula assistance restructuring permits for experimental Practice and procedure: funds; published 4-21-00 program (mark-to- fishing; comments due market program); by 4-24-00; published Regulatory fees (2000 FY); ENERGY DEPARTMENT published 3-22-00 4-7-00 assessment and Nuclear activities; procedural TREASURY DEPARTMENT Domestic fisheries; collection; comments due rules; general statement of Internal Revenue Service exempted fishing by 4-24-00; published 4- enforcement policy; Income taxes, etc.: permits for experimental 11-00 published 3-22-00 Qualified retirement plans, fishing; comments due Radio stations; table of ENERGY DEPARTMENT etc.Ð by 4-24-00; published assignments: Federal Energy Regulatory Relief from disqualification 4-7-00 Wisconsin and Minnesota; Commission for plans accepting EDUCATION DEPARTMENT comments due by 4-24- Natural gas companies rollovers; published 4- Special education and 00; published 3-13-00 (Natural Gas Act): 21-00 rehabilitative services: FEDERAL ELECTION Landowner notification, State Vocational COMMISSION expanded categorical COMMENTS DUE NEXT Rehabilitative Services Administrative fines: exclusions, and other WEEK Program; comments due Reporting requirements; civil environmental filing by 4-28-00; published 2- money penalties; requirements; published 3- ADMINISTRATIVE 28-00 comments due by 4-28- 22-00 COMMITTEE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 00; published 3-29-00 FEDERAL REGISTER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register, FEDERAL TRADE PROTECTION AGENCY Air programs: Administrative Committee COMMISSION Air pollutants, hazardous; Federal Register publications; Tier 2/gasoline sulfur Smokeless Tobacco Health national emission standards: prices, availability and refinery projects; BACT Education Act (1996); Major sources; requirements official status; comments and LAER guidance; implementation; comments for control technology due by 4-24-00; published comments due by 4-27- due by 4-24-00; published determinations; published 2-23-00 00; published 3-28-00 3-7-00 4-21-00 AGRICULTURE Air programs; approval and Telemarketing sales rule; Air quality implementation DEPARTMENT promulgation; State plans comments due by 4-27-00; plans; approval and Agricultural Marketing for designated facilities and published 2-28-00 pollutants: promulgation; various Service GENERAL SERVICES States: Honey research, promotion, Idaho; comments due by 4- ADMINISTRATION 27-00; published 3-28-00 Montana and consumer information Federal Management Correction; published 4- order; comments due by 4- Indiana; comments due by Regulation: 28-00; published 2-28-00 4-27-00; published 3-28- 21-00 TransportationÐ Spearmint oil produced inÐ 00 FEDERAL TRADE Transportation Far West; comments due by Air quality implementation COMMISSION 4-24-00; published 3-24- plans; approval and management; comments Children's Online Privacy 00 promulgation; various due by 4-28-00; Protection Act; published 2-28-00 AGRICULTURE States: implementation; published DEPARTMENT California; comments due by GOVERNMENT ETHICS 11-3-99 Animal and Plant Health 4-24-00; published 3-24- OFFICE GENERAL SERVICES Inspection Service 00 Government ethics: ADMINISTRATION Plant-related quarantine, Hazardous waste program Decennial census; financial Federal travel: domestic: authorizations: interests of non-federal
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:40 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCU Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Reader Aids v
government employees; Multifamiliy Reform Act; General Electric Co.; session of Congress which exemption; comments due implementation; comments comments due by 4-24- have become Federal laws. It by 4-28-00; published 3- due by 4-24-00; published 00; published 2-23-00 may be used in conjunction 29-00 2-23-00 Hoffmann Propeller Co.; with ``P L U S'' (Public Laws HEALTH AND HUMAN LABOR DEPARTMENT comments due by 4-24- Update Service) on 202±523± SERVICES DEPARTMENT Occupational Safety and 00; published 2-23-00 6641. This list is also Children and Families Health Administration Honeywell International Inc.; available online at http:// www.nara.gov/fedreg. Administration Safety and health standards, comments due by 4-28- Assets for Independence etc.: 00; published 3-20-00 The text of laws is not Demonstration Program; Indoor air quality; McDonnell Douglas; published in the Federal individual development occupational exposure to comments due by 4-28- Register but may be ordered accounts for low income environmental tobacco 00; published 2-28-00 in ``slip law'' (individual individuals and families; smoke; comments due by Pratt & Whitney; comments pamphlet) form from the comments due by 4-25-00; 4-28-00; published 0-0- 0 due by 4-24-00; published published 2-25-00 3-24-00 Superintendent of Documents, NUCLEAR REGULATORY U.S. Government Printing HEALTH AND HUMAN COMMISSION Rolls-Royce plc; comments due by 4-24-00; published Office, Washington, DC 20402 SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fee schedules revision; 100% 3-23-00 (phone, 202±512±1808). The Food and Drug fee recovery (2000 FY); text will also be made Administration comments due by 4-26-00; Saab; comments due by 4- available on the Internet from Food additives: published 3-27-00 26-00; published 3-27-00 GPO Access at http:// Jet routes; comments due by Paper and paperboard Rulemaking petitions: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ 4-25-00; published 3-8-00 componentsÐ Westinghouse Electric Co. index.html. Some laws may Low airspace areas; Hydroxymethyl-5,5- LLC; comments due by 4- not yet be available. comments due by 4-24-00; dimethylhydantoin and 24-00; published 2-8-00 published 3-14-00 1,3-bis(hydroxymethyl)- PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT H.R. 1374/P.L. 106±183 5,5-dimethylhydantoin; OFFICE TREASURY DEPARTMENT Customs Service To designate the United comments due by 4-28- Prevailing rate systems; 00; published 3-29-00 Country of origin marking; States Post Office building comments due by 4-24-00; located at 680 U.S. Highway Food for human consumption: published 3-23-00 comments due by 4-26-00; published 4-3-00 130 in Hamilton, New Jersey, Food labelingÐ SECURITIES AND as the ``John K. Rafferty TREASURY DEPARTMENT Dietary supplements; EXCHANGE COMMISSION Hamilton Post Office Building''. safety issues associated Securities: Internal Revenue Service (Apr. 13, 2000; 114 Stat. 200) with use during Selective disclosure and Employment taxes and pregnancy; public insider trading; comments collection of income taxes at H.R. 3189/P.L. 106±184 meeting; comments due source: due by 4-28-00; published To designate the United by 4-24-00; published 3-27-00 Electronically filed 2-24-00 information returns; States post office located at TRANSPORTATION installation agreements 14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Dietary supplements; DEPARTMENT safety issues associated due date extension; Hills, California, as the with use during Coast Guard comments due by 4-26- ``Joseph Ileto Post Office''. pregnancy; public Ports and waterways safety: 00; published 1-27-00 (Apr. 14, 2000; 114 Stat. 201) meeting; correction; Strait of Juan de Fuca and Income taxes: Last List April 11, 2000 comments due by 4-24- adjacent waters, WA; Partnerships; applying 00; published 2-28-00 comments due by 4-24- section 197 to Human drugs: 00; published 2-23-00 amortization of intangible Regattas and marine parades: property; comments due Antibiotic drugs; marketing Public Laws Electronic OPSAIL 2000, San Juan, by 4-24-00; published 1- exclusivity and patent Notification Service provisions; comments due PR; comments due by 4- 25-00 by 4-24-00; published 1- 28-00; published 3-29-00 Qualified transportation (PENS) 24-00 TRANSPORTATION fringe benefits; comments HEALTH AND HUMAN DEPARTMENT due by 4-26-00; published SERVICES DEPARTMENT Federal Aviation 1-27-00 PENS is a free electronic mail Health Care Financing Administration Stock transfer rules; notification service of newly Administration Air traffic operating and flight supplemental rules; cross enacted public laws. To reference; comments due Medicare: rules, etc.: subscribe, go to www.gsa.gov/ by 4-24-00; published 1- archives/publaws-l.html or Rural health clinicsÐ Special visual flight rules; 24-00 comments due by 4-24- send E-mail to Participation requirements, TREASURY DEPARTMENT [email protected] with payment provisions, and 00; published 3-24-00 Thrift Supervision Office the following text message: quality assessment and Airworthiness directives: performance Airbus; comments due by 4- Operations: Government securities SUBSCRIBE PUBLAWS-L improvement program 26-00; published 3-27-00 Your Name. establishment; Bell; comments due by 4- transfer and repurchase; comments due by 4-28- comments due by 4-27- 28-00; published 2-28-00 Note: This service is strictly 00; published 2-28-00 00; published 3-28-00 Boeing; comments due by for E-mail notification of new HOUSING AND URBAN 4-24-00; published 2-24- laws. The text of laws is not DEVELOPMENT 00 LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS available through this service. DEPARTMENT Eurocopter France; PENS cannot respond to Mortgage and loan insurance comments due by 4-24- This is a continuing list of specific inquiries sent to this programs: 00; published 2-23-00 public bills from the current address.
VerDate 18-APR-2000 00:40 Apr 21, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.LOC pfrm02 PsN: 21APCU